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 1 of 2

Chapters 1 - 3
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 1 of 2
Proposed Resource Management Plan and

Final Environmental Impact Statement

for the

Lander Field Office Planning Area

Volume 1 of 2

Chapters 1 - 3

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 1 OF 2

Dear Reader Letter................................................................................................................................ xxxi

Abstract.................................................................................................................................................xxxiii

Executive Summary.............................................................................................................................. xxxv

Reader's Guide to this Document...........................................................................................................lvii

Acronyms and Abbreviations ..................................................................................................................lix

1. Introduction........................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1. Introduction and Background........................................................................................................ 1

1.1.1. Land Ownership within the Lander Field Office Planning Area .................................... 1

1.2. Purpose and Need for the Resource Management Plan Revision ................................................. 2

1.2.1. Need for Revising the Existing Plan ............................................................................... 3

1.2.2. Purpose of Revising the Existing Plan ............................................................................ 4

1.3. Planning Process........................................................................................................................... 5

1.4. Planning Issues.............................................................................................................................. 7

1.4.1. Issues Addressed ............................................................................................................. 8

1.4.2. Issues Considered but Not Further Analyzed.................................................................. 9

1.5. Planning Criteria ........................................................................................................................... 9

1.6. Related Plans............................................................................................................................... 11

2. Resource Management Alternatives.................................................................................................. 13

2.1. Resource Management Alternatives ........................................................................................... 15

2.2. Summary of Changes to the Proposed RMP and Final EIS........................................................ 15

2.3. Alternative Development Process............................................................................................... 17

2.3.1. Receive Public Input ..................................................................................................... 18

2.3.2. Identify Current Management ....................................................................................... 18

2.3.3. Develop the Range of Alternatives ............................................................................... 18

2.3.4. Analyze the Effects of the Alternatives......................................................................... 19

2.3.5. Develop the Preferred Alternative................................................................................. 19

2.4. Alternative Components ............................................................................................................. 19

2.4.1. Goals and Objectives..................................................................................................... 19

2.4.2. Allowable Uses and Management Actions ................................................................... 20

2.4.2.1. Allowable Uses.............................................................................................. 20

2.4.2.2. Management Actions..................................................................................... 20

2.4.2.3. Organization of Allowable Uses and Management Actions in the 

Alternatives.................................................................................................... 20
iv Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table of Contents February 2013

2.5. Alternatives Considered but Not Carried Forward for Detailed Analysis.................................. 21

2.5.1. Require a Plan of Operations for the Entire Field Office.............................................. 21

2.5.2. Close Abandoned Mine Land Reclaimed Areas to New Surface Disturbance ............. 21

2.5.3. Prohibit Oil and Gas Development ............................................................................... 22

2.5.4. Identify Oil and Gas Lease Parcels to be Offered Instead of Responding to 

Industry Requests and Utilize Master Leasing Plans.................................................... 22

2.5.5. Defer Oil and Gas Leasing until Infrastructure is in Place to Ensure Price Parity 

with Other Parts of the Country .................................................................................... 24

2.5.6. Evaluate Oil Shale-Tar Sands Production..................................................................... 25

2.5.7. Consolidate All Wild Horse Herd Management Areas in the Green Mountain 

Common Allotment....................................................................................................... 25

2.5.8. Open or Close the Planning Area to Solar Energy Generation ..................................... 25

2.5.9. Close the Lander Slope and Dubois Section 15 Leases to Livestock Grazing.............. 26

2.5.10. Require Planning Area Wide Phased Development...................................................... 26

2.5.11. Manage the Beaver Creek Ski Area as a Special Management Area............................ 26

2.5.12. Manage Highway 287 as a Scenic Byway .................................................................... 27

2.5.13. Manage the Sweetwater River Corridor as a High Priority Management Area ............ 27

2.5.14. Designate Areas as “Open” to Facilitate Motorized Vehicle Play Areas...................... 28

2.6. Livestock Grazing Analysis........................................................................................................ 29

2.6.1. Introduction................................................................................................................... 29

2.6.2. Implementation ............................................................................................................. 30

2.6.3. Areas Open and Closed to Livestock Grazing .............................................................. 31

2.6.4. Other Potential Grazing Conflicts Considered but Not Analyzed................................. 32

2.6.5. Closure of Substantial Areas or All of the Planning Area to Livestock Grazing.......... 33

2.7. Greater Sage-Grouse Management ............................................................................................. 34

2.7.1. National Technical Team Report .................................................................................. 34

2.7.2. Timeframes for Travel Management Implementation Planning as Recommended 

by BLM Policy and in Support of Greater Sage-Grouse............................................... 37

2.7.3. Modifications to Issued Authorizations ........................................................................ 38

2.7.4. Historic Climax Plant Community................................................................................ 38

2.7.5. Invasive Nonnative Species Management and Greater Sage-Grouse ........................... 39

2.7.6. Conservation Measures Requiring Site-Specific Analysis............................................ 39

2.8. Management Actions Common to All Alternatives.................................................................... 40

2.9. Summaries of Alternatives.......................................................................................................... 42

2.9.1. Alternative A (Current Management) ........................................................................... 52

2.9.1.1. Overview of the Alternative .......................................................................... 52

2.9.1.2. Physical Resources ........................................................................................ 52

2.9.1.3. Mineral Resources......................................................................................... 53

2.9.1.4. Fire and Fuels Management........................................................................... 53

2.9.1.5. Biological Resources..................................................................................... 54

2.9.1.6. Heritage and Visual Resources...................................................................... 54

2.9.1.7. Land Resources.............................................................................................. 55

2.9.1.8. Special Designations...................................................................................... 56

2.9.1.9. Socioeconomic Resources ............................................................................. 57

2.9.2. Alternative B................................................................................................................. 57

2.9.2.1. Overview of the Alternative .......................................................................... 57

2.9.2.2. Physical Resources ........................................................................................ 57

2.9.2.3. Mineral Resources......................................................................................... 57

2.9.2.4. Fire and Fuels Management........................................................................... 58

2.9.2.5. Biological Resources..................................................................................... 58

2.9.2.6. Heritage and Visual Resources...................................................................... 59
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS v

February 2013 Table of Contents

2.9.2.7. Land Resources.............................................................................................. 60

2.9.2.8. Special Designations...................................................................................... 61

2.9.2.9. Socioeconomic Resources ............................................................................. 62

2.9.3. Alternative C................................................................................................................. 62

2.9.3.1. Overview of the Alternative .......................................................................... 62

2.9.3.2. Physical Resources ........................................................................................ 62

2.9.3.3. Mineral Resources......................................................................................... 62

2.9.3.4. Fire and Fuels Management........................................................................... 63

2.9.3.5. Biological Resources..................................................................................... 63

2.9.3.6. Heritage and Visual Resources...................................................................... 64

2.9.3.7. Land Resources.............................................................................................. 64

2.9.3.8. Special Designations...................................................................................... 65

2.9.3.9. Socioeconomic Resources ............................................................................. 65

2.9.4. Alternative D (Proposed RMP)..................................................................................... 66

2.9.4.1. Overview of the Alternative .......................................................................... 66

2.9.4.2. Physical Resources ........................................................................................ 66

2.9.4.3. Mineral Resources......................................................................................... 66

2.9.4.4. Fire and Fuels Management........................................................................... 67

2.9.4.5. Biological Resources..................................................................................... 68

2.9.4.6. Heritage and Visual Resources...................................................................... 69

2.9.4.7. Land Resources.............................................................................................. 69

2.9.4.8. Special Designations...................................................................................... 70

2.9.4.9. Socioeconomic Resources ............................................................................. 71

2.10. Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource...................................................................... 72

2.11. Summary of Environmental Consequences by Alternative ...................................................... 252

3. Affected Environment ...................................................................................................................... 263

3.1. Physical Resources.................................................................................................................... 269

3.1.1. Air Quality .................................................................................................................. 269

3.1.2. Geologic Resources..................................................................................................... 288

3.1.3. Soil .............................................................................................................................. 292

3.1.4. Water........................................................................................................................... 297

3.1.5. Cave and Karst Resources........................................................................................... 316

3.1.6. Lands with Wilderness Characteristics....................................................................... 317

3.2. Mineral Resources .................................................................................................................... 322

3.2.1. Locatable Minerals...................................................................................................... 322

3.2.2. Leasable Minerals – Coal............................................................................................ 332

3.2.3. Leasable Minerals – Geothermal................................................................................. 332

3.2.4. Leasable Minerals – Oil and Gas ................................................................................ 334

3.2.5. Leasable Minerals – Oil Shale-Tar Sands................................................................... 350

3.2.6. Leasable Minerals – Other Solid Leasable Minerals................................................... 350

3.2.7. Salable Minerals.......................................................................................................... 352

3.3. Fire and Fuels Management...................................................................................................... 356

3.3.1. Unplanned/Wildfire..................................................................................................... 358

3.3.2. Planned/Prescribed Fires and Other Fuels Treatments................................................ 365

3.3.3. Stabilization and Rehabilitation .................................................................................. 367

3.4. Biological Resources ................................................................................................................ 369

3.4.1. Vegetation – Forests, Woodlands, and Aspen Communities...................................... 374

3.4.2. Vegetation – Grassland and Shrubland Communities................................................. 377
vi Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table of Contents February 2013

3.4.3. Invasive Species and Pest Management...................................................................... 381

3.4.4. Riparian-Wetland Resources....................................................................................... 387

3.4.5. Fish and Wildlife Resources – Fish............................................................................. 392

3.4.6. Fish and Wildlife Resources – Wildlife ...................................................................... 395

3.4.7. Special Status Species – Plants................................................................................... 408

3.4.8. Special Status Species – Fish ...................................................................................... 413

3.4.9. Special Status Species – Wildlife................................................................................ 414

3.4.10. Wild Horses................................................................................................................. 422

3.5. Heritage and Visual Resources................................................................................................. 427

3.5.1. Cultural Resources...................................................................................................... 427

3.5.2. Paleontological Resources........................................................................................... 447

3.5.3. Visual Resources......................................................................................................... 451

3.6. Land Resources......................................................................................................................... 457

3.6.1. Lands and Realty......................................................................................................... 457

3.6.1.1. Land Status .................................................................................................. 458

3.6.1.2. Land Use Authorizations............................................................................. 458

3.6.1.3. Unauthorized Use/Trespass ......................................................................... 459

3.6.1.4. Land Tenure Adjustments............................................................................ 460

3.6.1.5. Withdrawals and Classifications.................................................................. 463

3.6.2. Renewable Energy ...................................................................................................... 465

3.6.3. Rights-of-Way and Corridors...................................................................................... 469

3.6.4. Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management ......................................................... 473

3.6.5. Livestock Grazing Management ................................................................................. 479

3.6.6. Recreation ................................................................................................................... 487

3.7. Special Designations................................................................................................................. 496

3.7.1. Congressionally Designated Trails.............................................................................. 496

3.7.1.1. National Scenic Trails.................................................................................. 497

3.7.1.2. National Historic Trails ............................................................................... 499

3.7.2. Wilderness Study Areas.............................................................................................. 510

3.7.3. Wild and Scenic Rivers............................................................................................... 514

3.7.4. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern................................................................... 517

3.7.4.1. Existing ACECs........................................................................................... 519

3.7.4.2. Existing ACECs with Proposed Expansions................................................ 521

3.7.4.3. Proposed ACECs......................................................................................... 524

3.8. Socioeconomic Resources......................................................................................................... 527

3.8.1. Social Conditions........................................................................................................ 527

3.8.2. Economic Conditions.................................................................................................. 542

3.8.3. Health and Safety ........................................................................................................ 578

3.8.4. Environmental Justice ................................................................................................. 580

3.8.5. Tribal Treaty Rights.................................................................................................... 584

3.9. Climate Change......................................................................................................................... 585
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS vii

February 2013 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

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

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

4.3.1.1. Summary of Impacts.................................................................................... 743
viii Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table of Contents February 2013

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

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

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

4.5.1.1. Summary of Impacts.................................................................................... 993
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS ix

February 2013 Table of Contents

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

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

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

4.7.4.2. Methods and Assumptions......................................................................... 1127
x Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table of Contents February 2013

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 xi

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
xii Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table of Contents February 2013

F.2.3. Air Emission Generating Activities.......................................................................... 1493

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
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS xiii

February 2013 Table of Contents

Appendix T. Surface Disturbance and Reasonable Foreseeable Actions..................................... 1641

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
xiv Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table of Contents February 2013

List of Figures

Figure 3.1. Average Monthly Temperature and Precipitation for Lander, Wyoming, 1971-2000 ...........273

Figure 3.2. Average Monthly Total Precipitation for Lander, Wyoming, 1948-2007...............................274

Figure 3.3. Average Annual Temperature (°F) for Hunt Field, Lander, Wyoming, 1979-2008...............275

Figure 3.4. Average Annual Precipitation (inches) for Hunt Field, Lander, Wyoming, 1979-2008.........276

Figure 3.5. Peak 24-Hour Average PM10 Concentrations (μg/m3

) at the South Pass, Wyoming Site ......278

Figure 3.6. Annual Average PM2.5 Concentrations (μg/m3

) at the Lander, Wyoming Site.......................279

Figure 3.7. 98th Percentile Concentrations of 24-hour Average PM2.5 Concentrations (μg/m3

) at the 

Lander, Wyoming Site ..............................................................................................................280

Figure 3.8. Fourth Highest Eight-Hour Average Ozone Concentrations (ppb) at the South Pass, 

Wyoming SPM Site ..................................................................................................................281

Figure 3.9. Weekly SO2 Concentration in Buffalo WARMS site ..............................................................282

Figure 3.10. Annual Visibility (SVR) at the Bridger Wilderness Wyoming IMPROVE Site ....................284

Figure 3.11. Annual Visibility (SVR) at the North Absaroka Wyoming IMPROVE Site..........................285

Figure 3.12. Total Annual Wet Deposition (kilograms per hectare per year) at the Sinks Canyon 

Wyoming NADP Site ...............................................................................................................286

Figure 3.13. Total Annual Wet Deposition (kilograms per hectare per year) at the South Pass City 

Wyoming NADP Site ...............................................................................................................286

Figure 3.14. Generalized Stratigraphic Column for the Planning Area .......................................................291

Figure 3.15. Annual Oil and Gas Production Rates from Federal, Tribal, Private, and State Wells in 

the Planning Area......................................................................................................................343

Figure 3.16. Cumulative Oil and Gas Production Rates from Federal, Tribal, Private, and State Wells 

in the Planning Area..................................................................................................................344

Figure 3.17. Annual Water Injection and Water Production Rates in the Planning Area (includes the 

Wind River Indian Reservation)...............................................................................................348

Figure 3.18. Acres Burned and Number of Wildfires per Year within the Lander Field Office,

1974-2008..................................................................................................................................360

Figure 3.19. Total Authorized Animal Unit Months in the Planning Area, 1989-2008..............................482

Figure 3.20. Population Trends in Carbon, Fremont, Hot Springs, Natrona, and Sweetwater Counties, 

Wyoming, 1970-2008 ...............................................................................................................528

Figure 3.21. Change in Median Family Income and Average Home Price since 2001 in Fremont 

County and Wyoming...............................................................................................................533

Figure 3.22. Assessed Property Valuation Trends by County, 1997-2008..................................................535

Figure 3.23. Cost of Living Changes in Central Wyoming, Wyoming and the Nation, 1996-2008...........539

Figure 3.24. Arrests per 10,000 Persons in the Study Area, 2000-2008......................................................540

Figure 3.25. School Enrollment Trends by County, 1997-2008 ..................................................................541

Figure 3.26. Assessed Valuation of Oil Production by County in the Study Area, 1998-2007 ..................544

Figure 3.27. Assessed Valuation of Gas Production by County in the Study Area, 1998-2007 .................545

Figure 3.28. Travel and Tourism Spending in the Study Area, 2001-2007 .................................................547

Figure 3.29. Total Number of Farms in Fremont County, 1992-2007.........................................................548

Figure 3.30. Total Farm Acres in Fremont County, 1992-2007...................................................................549

Figure 3.31. Number of Farms in Fremont County Grouped by Sales Volume, 1992-2007 ......................550

Figure 3.32. Average Market Value per Acre of Farms in Fremont County, 1992-2007 ...........................551
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS xv

February 2013 Table of Contents

Figure 3.33. Historical Earnings Trends, Five-County Aggregation, 1980-2000........................................554

Figure 3.34. Historical Earnings Trends, Fremont County, 2001-2007.......................................................555

Figure 3.35. Percent of Total Personal Income from Dividends, Interest, Rent, and Transfer Payments ..559

Figure 3.36. Amount of Dividends, Interest, Rent, and Transfer Payments................................................560

Figure 3.37. Resident Adjustment Factors....................................................................................................561

Figure 3.38. Historical Employment Trends, Five-County Aggregation, 1980-2000.................................564

Figure 3.39. Historical Employment Trends, Fremont County, 2001-2007 ................................................565

Figure 3.40. Average Earnings per Job, 2001-2007 (adjusted for inflation)................................................566

Figure 3.41. Unemployment Rates, 2000-2008 ............................................................................................570

Figure 3.42. Estimated State Severance Taxes, 1998-2007..........................................................................572

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
xvi Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table of Contents February 2013

List of Tables

Table 1.1. Acreage of Surface Land within Each Jurisdiction of the Planning Area ...................................2

Table 1.2. Acreage of Subsurface Mineral Ownership within Each Jurisdiction of the Planning Area......2

Table 2.1. Alternatives Development Workshops.......................................................................................18

Table 2.2. Reductions to Animal Unit Months............................................................................................30

Table 2.3. Acreage of Surface Land and Mineral Estate in the Planning Area ..........................................44

Table 2.4. Comparative Summary of Proposed Land Use Decisions in the Lander Planning Area..........45

Table 2.5. Comparative Summary of Areas of Critical Environmental Concern by Alternative ..............50

Table 2.6. Category Restrictions Key..........................................................................................................73

Table 2.7. Detailed Alternative Descriptions by Resource .........................................................................74

Table 2.8. 1000 Physical Resources (PR) – Air Quality.............................................................................75

Table 2.9. 1000 Physical Resources (PR) – Soil .........................................................................................77

Table 2.10. 1000 Physical Resources (PR) – Soil Reclamation....................................................................79

Table 2.11. 1000 Physical Resources (PR) – Water......................................................................................83

Table 2.12. 1000 Physical Resources (PR) – Cave and Karst Resources.....................................................87

Table 2.13. 1000 Physical Resources (PR) – Lands with Wilderness Characteristics.................................88

Table 2.14. 2000 Mineral Resources (MR) ...................................................................................................89

Table 2.15. 3000 Fire and Fuels Management (FM)...................................................................................100

Table 2.16. 4000 Biological Resources (BR) – Vegetation – General .......................................................104

Table 2.17. 4000 Biological Resources (BR) – Vegetation - Forests, Woodlands, and Aspen 

Communities.............................................................................................................................105

Table 2.18. 4000 Biological Resources (BR) – Vegetation - Grassland and Shrubland Communities.....108

Table 2.19. 4000 Biological Resources (BR) – Invasive Species and Pest Management..........................109

Table 2.20. 4000 Biological Resources (BR) – Riparian-Wetland Resources...........................................111

Table 2.21. 4000 Biological Resources (BR) – Fish and Wildlife..............................................................113

Table 2.22. 4000 Biological Resources (BR) – Special Status Species......................................................122

Table 2.23. 4000 Biological Resources (BR) – Wild Horses......................................................................133

Table 2.24. 5000 Heritage Resources (HR) – Cultural Resources..............................................................135

Table 2.25. 5000 Heritage Resources (HR) – Paleontological Resources..................................................143

Table 2.26. 5000 Heritage Resources (HR) – Visual Resources ................................................................148

Table 2.27. 6000 Land Resources (LR) – Lands and Realty ......................................................................151

Table 2.28. 6000 Land Resources (LR) – Renewable Energy....................................................................153

Table 2.29. 6000 Land Resources (LR) – Rights-of-Way and Corridors...................................................154

Table 2.30. 6000 Land Resources (LR) – Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management......................159

Table 2.31. 6000 Land Resources (LR) – Livestock Grazing Management ..............................................169

Table 2.32. 6000 Land Resources (LR) – Recreation .................................................................................178

Table 2.33. 7000 Special Designations (SD) – Congressionally Designated Trails ..................................191

Table 2.34. 7000 Special Designations (SD) – Wilderness Study Areas ...................................................204

Table 2.35. 7000 Special Designations (SD) – Wild and Scenic Rivers....................................................206

Table 2.36. 7000 Special Designations (SD) – Areas of Critical Environmental Concern........................211

Table 2.37. 7000 Special Designations (SD) – The Lander Slope ACEC (Existing) ................................214

Table 2.38. 7000 Special Designations (SD) – Red Canyon ACEC (Existing).........................................216
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS xvii

February 2013 Table of Contents

Table 2.39. 7000 Special Designations (SD) – Dubois Badlands ACEC (Existing)..................................218

Table 2.40. 7000 Special Designations (SD) – Whiskey Mountain ACEC (Existing)..............................220

Table 2.41. 7000 Special Designations (SD) – East Fork ACEC (Existing)..............................................222

Table 2.42. 7000 Special Designations (SD) – Beaver Rim ACEC (Existing)..........................................224

Table 2.43. 7000 Special Designations (SD) – Green Mountain ACEC (Existing)...................................226

Table 2.44. 7000 Special Designations (SD) – South Pass Historic Mining Area ACEC (Existing)........228

Table 2.45. 7000 Special Designations (SD) – National Historic Trails ACEC (Existing).......................232

Table 2.46. 7000 Special Designations (SD) – Continental Divide National Scenic Trail ACEC 

(Proposed) .................................................................................................................................233

Table 2.47. 7000 Special Designations (SD) – Cedar Ridge ACEC (Proposed) .......................................234

Table 2.48. 7000 Special Designations (SD) – Castle Gardens ACEC (Proposed)...................................237

Table 2.49. 7000 Special Designations (SD) – Sweetwater Rocks ACEC (Proposed)..............................240

Table 2.50. 7000 Special Designations (SD) – Regional Historic Trails and Early Highways ACEC 

(Proposed) .................................................................................................................................242

Table 2.51. 7000 Special Designations (SD) – Government Draw/Upper Sweetwater Sage-Grouse 

ACEC (Proposed) .....................................................................................................................245

Table 2.52. 8000 Socioeconomic Resources (SR) and Health and Safety .................................................248

Table 2.53. Summary of Environmental Consequences by Alternative.....................................................253

Table 3.1. Air Quality Monitoring Sites In or Near the Planning Area....................................................272

Table 3.2. Summary of Climate in the Planning Area ..............................................................................273

Table 3.3. Average Annual Precipitation for Locations in the Planning Area .........................................274

Table 3.4. Applicable National and State Primary Air Quality Standards for Criteria Pollutants and 

Existing Representative Concentrations for the Planning Area...............................................277

Table 3.5. Class I and Class II Areas in the Vicinity of the Planning Area..............................................283

Table 3.6. Soils with Slight, Moderate, and Severe Wind and Water Erosion Potential in the 

Planning Area............................................................................................................................295

Table 3.7. Sub-basins in the Planning Area...............................................................................................298

Table 3.8. Waters Requiring TMDLs on BLM-Administered Land in the Planning Area......................301

Table 3.9. Comparison of Historical and Recent Inflow at Boysen Reservoir.........................................303

Table 3.10. Comparison of Historical and Recent Flows in the Sweetwater River ...................................303

Table 3.11. Uppermost Unconsolidated Water-Bearing Formations and their Characteristics.................305

Table 3.12. Description of Water-Bearing Formations in the Uppermost Regional Hydrologic Unit......309

Table 3.13. Geologic Formations Comprising the Regional Aquitard .......................................................310

Table 3.14. Transitional Hydrologic Unit Formations................................................................................311

Table 3.15. Characteristics of Water-Bearing Formations Included in the Lower Hydrologic Unit.........312

Table 3.16. Estimated Groundwater Use in 1990 in Fremont County........................................................315

Table 3.17. Notices and Plans of Operations in the Planning Area, as of the End of 2008 .......................324

Table 3.18. Segregated Lands at Uranium Mill Sites in the Planning Area ...............................................326

Table 3.19. Thermal Springs in the Planning Area .....................................................................................333

Table 3.20. Producing Oil and Gas Fields and Cumulative Production in the Planning Area as of the 

End of 2007 ...............................................................................................................................340

Table 3.21. Summary and Estimates of Oil and Gas Resources for the Planning Area.............................345

Table 3.22. Cumulative Production (through October 2008) for Coalbed Natural Gas Wells within 

the Planning Area......................................................................................................................346
xviii Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table of Contents February 2013

Table 3.23. Estimated Coalbed Natural Gas Development Potential in the Planning Area between 

2008 and 2027...........................................................................................................................347

Table 3.24. Percentage of Phosphate Lands in Moderate and High Favorability Classifications in the 

Planning Area............................................................................................................................351

Table 3.25. Authorized Mineral Material Free Use Permits in the Planning Area.....................................355

Table 3.26. Pending Mineral Material Free Use Permits in the Planning Area..........................................355

Table 3.27. Current and Pending Authorized Sales of Mineral Materials..................................................356

Table 3.28. Selected Large Wildfire Occurrences in the Planning Area, 1988-2008 ................................358

Table 3.29. Fire Regime Groups and Descriptions .....................................................................................361

Table 3.30. FRCC Ratings and Management Prescriptions by Fire Management Unit.............................363

Table 3.31. Wildland Urban Interface Treatment Areas in the Planning Area...........................................364

Table 3.32. Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation Plans and Treatments in the Planning Area 

between 2000 and 2007 ............................................................................................................368

Table 3.33. Acreage of Vegetative Communities in the Planning Area.....................................................373

Table 3.34. Wyoming Weed and Pest Control Act Designated List...........................................................382

Table 3.35. Declared List of Weeds and Pests by Counties in the Planning Area .....................................383

Table 3.36. Results of Proper Functioning Condition Assessment Ratings...............................................389

Table 3.37. Fish Species Known to Occur in the Planning Area................................................................393

Table 3.38. Big Game Herd Units, Acreage, and Population Estimates in the Planning Area..................398

Table 3.39. Acres of Big Game Seasonal Habitats on BLM-Administered Surface in the Planning 

Area ...........................................................................................................................................399

Table 3.40. Special Status Plants in the Planning Area...............................................................................408

Table 3.41. Special Status Wildlife Known to Occur in Suitable Habitat..................................................415

Table 3.42. Herd Management Areas and Appropriate Management Levels in the Planning Area..........423

Table 3.43. Wild Horse Removals from 1980 through 2006 by Herd Management Area ........................423

Table 3.44. Selected Cultural Resource Sites and NRHP Status in the Planning Area..............................431

Table 3.45. Cultural Resource Statistics for the Planning Area..................................................................442

Table 3.46. Formations Containing “High” and “Very High” Potential Fossil Yield Classifications in 

the Planning Area......................................................................................................................448

Table 3.47. Visual Resource Inventory Classes..........................................................................................452

Table 3.48. Unique Scenic Features in the Planning Area, Current Management, and New Inventory 

Classes.......................................................................................................................................454

Table 3.49. Surface Ownership in the Planning Area .................................................................................458

Table 3.50. BLM-Administered Surface by County in the Planning Area.................................................458

Table 3.51. Existing Withdrawals, Classifications, and Other Segregations in the Planning Area...........463

Table 3.52. Wind Energy Potential by Wind Power Class in the Planning Area.......................................467

Table 3.53. Existing Rights-of-Way in the Planning Area..........................................................................471

Table 3.54. Travel Management Designations in the Planning Area .........................................................476

Table 3.55. Livestock Grazing Permits and Leases on BLM-Administered Lands in the Planning 

Area ...........................................................................................................................................480

Table 3.56. Type and Number of Rangeland Improvements Completed in the Planning Area,

1986-2009..................................................................................................................................485

Table 3.57. Extensive Recreation Management Area and Special Recreation Management Area 

Management and Objectives.....................................................................................................488
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS xix

February 2013 Table of Contents

Table 3.58. Outdoor Recreation Survey ......................................................................................................489

Table 3.59. Current WSA Acreage in the Planning Area and BLM-Recommended Acreage for 

Wilderness Areas ......................................................................................................................511

Table 3.60. Characteristics for Wild and Scenic River-Eligible Waterways in the Planning Area ...........516

Table 3.61. Existing and Proposed ACECs in the Planning Area ..............................................................518

Table 3.62. Population of Counties and Towns Over Time in the Study Area ..........................................529

Table 3.63. Change in Population Age Groups in Study Area Counties, 1990-2008 ................................530

Table 3.64. Population Age Groups by Race and Ethnicity in Select Areas, 2000....................................531

Table 3.65. Population and Housing Units Over Time in the Study Area..................................................531

Table 3.66. Monthly Rent and Median Family Income in 2008 and Change from 2000 ..........................534

Table 3.67. Rental Vacancy Rates Over Time in the Study Area (Percent)...............................................534

Table 3.68. Estimated Mineral Production Value by County in the Study Area, Production Year 2007..542

Table 3.69. Personal Income by Source in Study Area Counties, 2007 (Percent of Total).......................552

Table 3.70. Earnings and Employment for Mining Activities in Study Area Counties, 2007...................555

Table 3.71. Employment by Industry in Study Area Counties, 2007 (Percent of Total)...........................562

Table 3.72. Average Earnings per Job for Study Area Counties, Wyoming, and the Nation, 2007..........565

Table 3.73. Fourth Quarter 2008 Average Monthly Employment and Average Weekly Wage for the 

Five Counties in the Study Area...............................................................................................567

Table 3.74. Estimated State Severance Tax Collections (dollars) on Mineral Production in the Study 

Area Counties, Production Year 2007......................................................................................571

Table 3.75. Local and State Assessed Property Valuation, 2007................................................................573

Table 3.76. State and Local Sales Tax Collections by Sector, 2008 (percent)...........................................574

Table 3.77. Retail, Accommodation, and Food Sales – State and Local Sales Tax Collections, 2008 

(percent).....................................................................................................................................575

Table 3.78. Local and State Tax Receipts due to Travel and Tourism in Study Area Counties and 

Wyoming in 2007 ($ million)...................................................................................................576

Table 3.79. Local and State Tax Receipts due to Travel and Tourism, 2001-2007 ($ million).................577

Table 3.80. Minority Populations in 2000 and 2008; Low-Income Populations in 2000 and 2007 ..........582

Table 3.81. Racial and Ethnic Groups for Planning Area Counties, WRIR, and Wyoming (percent)......583

Table 3.82. Population, Racial and Ethnic Groups, and Poverty for Tribal Census Tracts of the 

WRIR, 2000 ..............................................................................................................................584

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
xx Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table of Contents February 2013

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

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
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS xxi

February 2013 Table of Contents

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

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
xxii Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table of Contents February 2013

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

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
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS xxiii

February 2013 Table of Contents

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

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
xxiv Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table of Contents February 2013

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

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
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS xxv

February 2013 Table of Contents

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

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

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

February 2013 Table of Contents

Map 42. Fire Management - Fire Regime Condition Classifications ..................................................1447

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
xxviii Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table of Contents February 2013

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

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

Map 81. Land Resources - Transportation Features.............................................................................1449

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
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS xxix

February 2013 Table of Contents

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

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
xxx Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table of Contents February 2013

This page intentionally

left blank


Resource Management Plan Protest 

Critical Item Checklist

The following items must be included to constitute a valid protest 

whether using this optional format, or a narrative letter. 

(43 CFR 1610.5-2) 

BLM’s practice is to make comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review. 

Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your 

comment, be advised that your entire comment--including your personal identifying information--may be made publicly 

available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold from public review your personal identifying 

information, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. All submissions from organizations and businesses, and 

from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations and businesses, will be available 

for public inspection in their entirety. 

Resource Management Plan (RMP) or Amendment (RMPA) being protested: 

Name: 

Address: 

Phone Number: ( ) 

Your interest in filing this protest (how will you be adversely affected by the approval or 

amendment of this plan?): 

Issue or issues being protested: 

Statement of the part or parts of the plan being protested: 

Chapter: 

Section: 

Page: 

(or) Map:

Attach copies of all documents addressing the issue(s) that were submitted during the 

planning process by the protesting party, OR an indication of the date the issue(s) were 

discussed for the record. 

Date(s): 

A concise statement explaining why the State Director’s decisions is believed to be wrong: 
This page intentionally 

left blank 
Abstract

Lead Agency: U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

Type of Action: Administrative (Final)

Jurisdiction: Portions of Fremont, Natrona, Carbon, Sweetwater, Hot Springs, and Teton

counties, Wyoming

Abstract: This Proposed Resource Management Plan (RMP) and Final Environmental Impact

Statement (EIS) describes and analyzes alternatives for the planning and management of public

lands and resources administered by the BLM, Lander Field Office. The planning area is located

in west-central Wyoming, and comprises approximately 6.6 million acres of land in Fremont,

Natrona, Carbon, Sweetwater, Hot Springs, and Teton counties. Although Teton County is in the

administrative boundary for the Lander Field Office, no BLM-administered surface or mineral

estate occurs in Teton County and, therefore, no management is proposed for the lands in this

county. Within the planning area, the BLM administers approximately 2.4 million acres of surface

estate and 2.8 million acres of federal mineral estate.

Through this RMP revision, the BLM is revising the existing plan (the 1987 Lander Field

Office RMP) to address the availability of new data and policies, emerging issues, and changing

circumstances that have occurred during the approximately 25 years since the Record of Decision

(ROD) for the existing plan was signed. As part of the RMP revision process, the BLM conducted

scoping to solicit input from the public and interested agencies on the nature and extent of issues

and impacts to be addressed in the Draft RMP and EIS. Planning issues identified for this RMP

revision focus on watershed and air resources management, energy and minerals management,

fire and fuels management, invasive species, wildlife and special status species habitat, wild

horses, cultural and paleontological resources, visual resources management, land ownership

adjustments, access to public lands and travel, recreation and visitor use, livestock grazing,

special designations, and socioeconomic conditions.

The Draft RMP and EIS presented alternatives A through D. Alternative A is a continuation

of current management (No Action Alternative). Under this alternative, the BLM would

continue to manage the use of public lands and resources under the existing RMP, as amended.

Alternative B emphasizes protection of physical, biological, and heritage resources, while

providing for comparatively more limited resource development. Alternative C emphasizes

resource development, while limiting protective management of physical, biological, and heritage

resources. Alternative D balances the use and conservation of planning area resources.

After careful consideration of both public and internal comments received on the Draft RMP and

EIS, adjustments and clarifications have been made to the document, including Alternative D. As

modified, Alternative D is now presented as the Proposed RMP in the Final EIS.

Protest: Protests must be postmarked or received no later than 30 days after publication of the

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Notice of Availability in the Federal Register.

xxxiii
Refer to the instructions in the letter preceding this abstract for additional information on how to

protest. The close of the protest period will be announced in news releases, newsletters, and on

the Lander RMP website at www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/programs/Planning/rmps/lander.html.

For Further Information Contact:

Lander Field Office RMP/EIS

Bureau of Land Management Lander Field Office

1335 Main

Lander, Wyoming 82520

Telephone: (307) 332-8400

E-mail: BLM_WY_LRMP_WYMail@blm.gov

xxxiv
Executive Summary

Introduction

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

(EIS) describes and analyzes alternatives for the future management of public lands and resources

administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Lander Field Office. Located in

west-central Wyoming, the administrative area covers approximately 6.6 million acres of land

in Fremont, Natrona, Carbon, Sweetwater, Hot Springs, and Teton counties. Although a part of

Teton County is in the administrative boundary for the Lander Field Office, no BLM-administered

surface or mineral estate occur in Teton County and, therefore, no management is proposed for

lands in this county. Of the total area administered by the Lander Field Office (planning area),

approximately 2.4 million acres are BLM-administered federal surface estate and 2.8 million

acres are BLM-administered federal mineral estate. BLM-administered lands in the planning

area are intermingled with state and private lands, and are adjacent to the Wind River Indian

Reservation (WRIR) and the Shoshone National Forest. While the BLM has Trust Duties for the

management of minerals on the WRIR, the BLM does not make management decisions for the

WRIR and Trust Duties are conducted independent of this RMP.

Revising existing land use plans is a major federal action for the BLM. The National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended, requires federal agencies to prepare an

EIS for major federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment; thus,

this Proposed RMP and Final EIS is a combined document. The Final EIS analyzes the impacts of

four alternative RMPs for the planning area, including the No Action Alternative (Alternative A)

and the Proposed RMP (Alternative D). The No Action Alternative reflects current management

under the existing land use plan. The analysis considers a range of alternatives that provide for

various levels of physical, biological, and heritage resource protection as well as opportunities

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

resources, livestock grazing, and other land use activities.

Modifications in the Proposed RMP and Final EIS

The Draft RMP and EIS was published on September 9, 2011, initiating a 90-day public comment

period that was later extended to close on January 20, 2012. During the public comment

period, the BLM received and considered comments that touched on a wide range of issues. In

consideration of the public comments received on the Draft RMP and EIS, internal review, new

guidance, and new information, the BLM prepared this Proposed RMP and Final EIS. Substantive

changes from the Draft RMP and EIS to the Proposed RMP and Final EIS are presented in

the document as shaded text. A detailed summary of the substantive management changes is

provided in Chapter 2. The following provides an overview of the primary management changes

from the Draft RMP to the Proposed RMP:

● Greater Sage-Grouse Management: Additional protections, including Required Design

Features, for greater sage-grouse and their habitat were incorporated to better protect

sagebrush habitat for the benefit of all sagebrush obligate species.

● Right-of-Way (ROW) Avoidance and Exclusion Areas: Approximately 411,906 fewer

acres are managed as ROW exclusion areas and approximately 321,334 more acres are

managed as ROW avoidance areas. Avoidance criteria were also added.

● ROW Corridors: 50,047 additional acres were designated as ROW corridors.

xxxv
● Management of the Hudson to Atlantic City Area: The management focus in the Hudson

to Atlantic City area (referred to as the Government Draw/Upper Sweetwater Sage-Grouse

Reference and Education Area in the Draft RMP and EIS) was broadened to protect values

beyond greater sage-grouse. The primary changes include additional acreage pursued for

mineral withdrawal (406,213 more acres are pursued for mineral withdrawal in the Proposed

RMP than in the Preferred Alternative in the Draft RMP and EIS).

● Mule Deer Management: The Proposed RMP extends the same seasonal restrictions to mule

deer winter habitat as crucial winter habitat.

● Management of Congressionally Designated Trails: The Heritage Tourism and Recreation

Corridor was replaced by the National Trails Management Corridor (NTMC) which was

designed to better meet the nature and purposes of the Congressionally Designated Trails,

including a more uniform management approach.

Purpose and Need

The Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) requires developing, maintaining, and,

as appropriate, revising land use plans for public lands. BLM-administered lands within the

planning area are currently managed according to the 1987 Lander Field Office RMP (existing

plan). Since the Record of Decision (ROD) for the existing plan, new data have become available

and laws, regulations, and policies regarding management of these public lands have changed.

In addition, decisions in the existing plan do not satisfactorily address all new and emerging

issues in the planning area. These changes and potential deficiencies created the need to revise

the existing plan.

The purpose, or goal, of the RMP is to ensure lands administered by the BLM are managed in

accordance with the FLPMA and the principles of multiple use and sustained yield. The land use

plan establishes management direction for land within an administrative area through desired

outcomes and actions needed to achieve them. The reason for revising the existing plan is to

address the changes occurring in the planning area and to select a future management strategy that

best achieves a combination of the following elements:

● Employ a community-based planning approach to collaborate with federal, state, and local

cooperating agencies.

● Establish goals and objectives for managing resources and resource uses in the approximately

2.4 million surface acres and 2.8 million acres of federal mineral estate in the planning area

administered by the BLM in accordance with the principles of multiple use and sustained yield.

● Identify land use plan decisions to guide future land-management actions and subsequent

site-specific implementation decisions.

● Identify management actions and allowable uses anticipated to achieve the established goals

and objectives and reach desired outcomes.

● Provide comprehensive management direction by making land use decisions for all

appropriate resources and resource uses administered by the Lander Field Office.

● Provide for compliance with applicable tribal, federal, and state laws, standards, and

implementation plans, and BLM policies and regulations.

xxxvi
● Recognize the nation’s need for domestic sources of minerals, renewable energy, food, timber,

and fiber, and incorporate requirements of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-58).

● Retain flexibility to adapt to new and emerging issues and opportunities and to provide for

adjustments to decisions over time based on new information and monitoring.

● Strive to be compatible with the plans and policies of adjacent local, state, tribal, and federal

agencies and consistent with federal law, regulations, and BLM policy.

Cooperating Agencies and Tribal Consultation

Title II, Section 202, of 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 accomplished coordination with other agencies

and consistency with other plans through ongoing communications, meetings, and collaborative

efforts with the Interdisciplinary Team, which includes BLM specialists and federal, state, and

local agencies. The Lander Field Office extended cooperating agency status to the State of

Wyoming, Fremont County, Natrona County, Carbon County, Sweetwater County, Hot Springs

County, various conservation districts, federal agencies, and tribal governments. Cooperating

agencies provided input during the initial scoping process on issues of special expertise or

legal jurisdiction. In addition, cooperating agencies participated in a series of alternative

formulation workshops, reviewed draft information and documents, and periodically met with

BLM management and resource specialists throughout the revision process to discuss planning

issues and provide input to the process.

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires that a federal lead agency consult with

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to determine whether its proposed action would

jeopardize the continued existence of a threatened or endangered species. The USFWS provided a

species list to the Lander Field Office for evaluating BLM Section 7 responsibilities. This list is

updated at least annually and the RMP revision reflects the most up to date list from the USFWS.

Consultation with Native American tribes is a requirement of FLPMA and BLM guidance. The

BLM took steps to contact the tribes and include them in the scoping process. The BLM sent

letters to multiple tribes requesting information to be considered in the planning process and

inviting them to be part of the planning process through consultation, public scoping meetings,

field trips, and meetings with tribal representatives. Representatives from the Lander Field Office

followed up on these letters with telephone calls to each tribe. In letters and during the follow-up

calls, the BLM stressed the desire for the tribes to review and comment on the Draft RMP and EIS.

Public Involvement

Scoping

The intent of the scoping process is to provide an opportunity for the public, tribes, government

agencies, and interest groups to participate in determining the scope and issues to be addressed

by alternatives and analyses in the planning process and the EIS. In general, public involvement

assists the agency by broadening the information base for decision making, disseminating

information to the public about the RMP and EIS, and ensuring that public needs and viewpoints

are brought to the attention of the BLM.

xxxvii
The scoping period was from February 13, 2007 to April 16, 2007. The BLM solicited written

comments on the RMP revision process, issues, and impacts and held a series of five public

meetings in the planning area. The BLM structured the meetings in an open house format, with

resource specialists and other representatives of the BLM on hand to personally address questions

and provide information to meeting participants.

Public Comment Period on 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

later extended the comment period for an additional 45 days, ending the comment period on

January 20, 2012. During the public comment period, the BLM held a series of three commenting

workshops and five public meetings in September and October 2011, in towns and cities

throughout the planning area. During this time, the public was encouraged to review the Draft

RMP and EIS and provide comments. The BLM considered all substantive comments received

and revised the plan based on certain issues raised in the comments, as presented in this Proposed

RMP and Final EIS.

Future Public Involvement

Members of the public with standing have the opportunity to protest the content of the Proposed

RMP and Final EIS during the specified 30-day protest period. The ROD will be issued by the

BLM following the Governor’s Consistency Review and protest resolution.

Issues Addressed

Planning issues identified through the scoping process and other public outreach efforts focus

on the demands, concerns, conflicts, or problems concerning use or management of public

lands and resources in the planning area. Key planning issues within the scope of the EIS are

used to develop alternatives or are otherwise addressed in the EIS. The main issues described

and analyzed in the EIS include the following:

Energy and Minerals Management

● What areas are suitable or not suitable for energy and mineral resources development?

● What areas should be offered for oil and gas leasing with Master Leasing Plans?

● What level of development should be allowed in areas suitable for energy and mineral

resource development?

Management of Riparian Areas and Water Quality Concerns

● How should riparian areas be managed to protect the integrity of fish and wildlife habitat as

well as to protect local water quality?

Livestock and Wild Horse Grazing and Vegetation Management

● How should soil, water, and vegetation be managed to reduce fuel loads and achieve forest

health and healthy rangelands while providing for livestock and wild horse grazing and fish

and wildlife habitat?

xxxviii
Recreation/Visitor Use and Safety Management

● How should BLM-administered land be managed to provide access for recreation and general

enjoyment of the public lands while protecting cultural and natural resources and public

safety?

Travel Management, Including Off-Highway Traffic

● How should travel be managed to provide access for recreation, commercial uses, and general

enjoyment of the public lands while protecting cultural and natural resources?

Management of Wildlife Habitat, Including Protection of Sensitive Species Habitat

● How should special status species conservation strategies be applied given the BLM’s

requirement for multiple use management and sustained yield? How will these strategies

affect other public land resources?

Access to Public Lands and Management Considerations

● What land adjustments are necessary to improve access and management of public lands?

Management of Areas with Special Values

● What areas, if any, contain unique or sensitive resources requiring special management?

Management and Protection of Public Land Resources While Allowing for Multiple Uses

● How should BLM-administered land be managed to protect natural and cultural resources

while fulfilling the BLM’s mandate to provide access for multiple uses?

Planning Criteria

Planning criteria are the standards, rules, and guidelines that help direct the RMP planning

process. In conjunction with planning issues, planning criteria ensure that the planning process is

focused and incorporates appropriate analyses. The criteria also help guide final RMP selection

and the BLM uses the criteria as a basis for evaluating the responsiveness of planning options.

Planning criteria for this RMP revision are summarized below; the full planning criteria are listed

in Chapter 1, Introduction.

● Planning decisions will cover BLM-administered public lands, including split-estate

lands where the subsurface minerals are severed from the surface right, and the BLM

has legal jurisdiction over one or the other. No decisions will be made relative to

non-BLM-administered lands.

● All proposed management actions will be based upon current scientific information, research

and technology, as well as existing inventory and monitoring information.

● The RMP will recognize valid and existing rights.

● The planning process will incorporate the Standards for Healthy Rangelands and Guidelines

for Livestock Grazing Management for Public Lands Administered by the BLM in the State

of Wyoming as goal statements.

xxxix
● The RMP will comply with all applicable laws, regulations, and policies.

● A reasonable foreseeable development scenario for fluid minerals will be developed from

analysis of past activity and production, which will aid in environmental consequences

analysis.

● The RMP revision planning effort will be collaborative and multi-jurisdictional. The BLM

will strive to ensure that its management decisions complement its planning jurisdictions and

adjoining properties within the boundaries prescribed by law and regulation.

● Decisions in the plan will strive to be compatible with the existing plans and policies of

adjacent local, state, federal, and tribal agencies as long as the decisions are consistent with

the purposes, policies, and programs of federal law and regulations applicable to public lands.

The BLM and cooperating agencies will jointly develop a range of alternatives for resolution

of resource management issues and management concerns.

● Areas with special environmental quality will be protected and if necessary designated as

areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs), wild and scenic rivers (WSRs) and lands

with wilderness characteristics or other appropriate designations.

● The National Sage-grouse Strategy (BLM 2004a) requires that impacts to sagebrush habitat

and sagebrush-dependent wildlife species be analyzed and considered in BLM land use

planning efforts for public lands with sagebrush habitat in the planning area. The BLM

recognizes the Wyoming Governor’s designation of the greater sage-grouse Core Area

and will cooperate with the State of Wyoming to manage these areas for healthy greater

sage-grouse populations. In addition, the BLM will follow applicable greater sage-grouse

guidance, including Instruction Memorandum (IM) 2010-012, IM 2012-043, and IM

2012-044, which provide for the conservation of greater sage-grouse and their habitats.

Alternatives Considered in Detail

To comply with NEPA requirements in the development of alternatives for this RMP and EIS, the

BLM sought public input and analyzed a range of alternatives, including a No Action Alternative

(Alternative A). The BLM conducted a series of workshops with an Interdisciplinary Team

comprised of BLM specialists and local, state, and federal cooperating agencies. The BLM and

cooperating agencies formulated two alternatives (B and C) that reflect a range of resource use and

conservation. The major issues addressed include: (1) energy and mineral resource exploration

and development; (2) vegetation and habitat management; (3) land ownership adjustments and

trails and travel management; and (4) special designations. Following analysis of alternatives

A, B, and C, the Interdisciplinary Team provided recommendations for selecting the Preferred

Alternative (Alternative D). Based on comments received during the 135-day public comment

period on the Draft RMP and EIS, the BLM revised the Preferred Alternative. As modified,

Alternative D is now presented as the Proposed RMP in the Final EIS.

Including the No Action Alternative (Alternative A), the four alternatives analyzed in this

Proposed RMP and Final EIS represent differing approaches to managing resources and resource

uses in the planning area. Each alternative comprises two categories of land use planning

decisions: (1) desired outcomes (goals and objectives) and (2) allowable uses and management

actions.

xl
Goals and objectives direct BLM actions to most effectively meet legal mandates, regulations,

and agency policy, as well as local and regional resource needs. Goals are broad statements of

desired outcomes that are usually not quantifiable. Objectives identify more specific desired

outcomes for resources and might include a measurable component. Objectives are generally

expected to achieve the stated goals.

Allowable uses are a category of land use decisions that identify where specific land uses are

allowed, restricted, or excluded on BLM-administered lands and federal mineral estate in the

planning area. Management actions are proactive measures (for example, measures the BLM will

implement to enhance watershed function and condition), or limitations intended to guide BLM

activities in the planning area. Allowable uses often contain a spatial component because the

alternatives identify whether particular land uses are allowed, restricted, or excluded. Alternatives

may include specific management actions to meet goals and objectives and may exclude certain

land uses to protect resource values.

Alternative A

The No Action Alternative represents continuation of current management and provides a

baseline from which to identify potential environmental consequences when compared to the

action alternatives. The No Action Alternative describes current resource and land management

direction in the planning area under the existing plan. Current management identifies constraints

on mineral leasing in the planning area to protect resource values that are incompatible with

mineral resources activity. Current management includes nine ACECs and nine WSR eligible

waterways. The BLM manages three Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMAs) to protect

the recreation setting and provide for specific recreation opportunities. Alternative A allows

livestock grazing on 2,324,934 acres in the planning area. The BLM would continue to manage

vegetative communities to meet vegetative attributes as identified in the Natural Resource

Conservation Service’s Ecological Site Guides and utilize vegetation treatments to increase

forage production while meeting the Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands. Constraints on

resource uses specifically to protect fish and wildlife resources are only used in a few cases under

Alternative A, including seasonal limitations on surface-disturbing activities in important habitat

and buffers to restrict surface-disturbing activities around greater sage-grouse leks.

Alternative B

Alternative B emphasizes conservation of physical, biological, heritage and visual resources

while managing the public lands for multiple use. Resource development and other active land

uses would still be authorized, but greater restrictions would be placed on where and how they

occur. Alternative B would use a low impact approach to resource management, utilizing natural

systems to achieve goals and objectives – particularly towards achieving Wyoming Standards for

Healthy Rangelands, proper functioning condition, and forest health – and allow the least amount

of infrastructure and human presence as possible. In order to avoid potential lasting impacts

from more intensive management, making improvements to resource condition may take longer

to achieve than under a more development oriented approach. Compared to other alternatives,

Alternative B would preserve the most land area for physical, biological, and heritage resources;

would designate the highest number of ACECs and SRMAs; and would be the most restrictive to

motorized travel and mineral development.

Alternative C

xli
Alternative C emphasizes resource uses by reducing constraints placed on physical, biological,

heritage, and visual resources. Alternative C gives priority to land uses such as oil and gas

development, mining, ROWs, and livestock grazing when managing the public lands for multiple

use. Fewer restrictions protecting biological, physical, heritage and visual resources would be

placed on surface-disturbing and disruptive activities to facilitate land uses and development.

Compared to other alternatives, Alternative C would preserve the least land area for physical,

biological, and heritage resources – no ACECs are designated and National Wild and Scenic

River System (NWSRS)-eligible waterways would not be found suitable and would be managed

in accordance with other resource programs without special protections – and it is the least

restrictive to motorized vehicle use, mineral development, and livestock grazing.

Alternative D (Proposed RMP)

Alternative D balances the use and conservation of planning area resources. This alternative

generally allows resource use if the activity can be conducted in a manner that conserves physical,

biological, heritage and visual resources. Alternative D designates the second largest land area as

ACECs and emphasizes moderate constraints on resource uses (e.g., mineral development) to

reduce adverse impacts to resource values. Fish and wildlife resources under Alternative D, in

general, receive more protection compared to Alternative A, especially within important habitat

areas including larger buffers around active raptor nests (3⁄4 mile to 1 mile) and greater sage-grouse

leks (0.6 mile within Core Area), and increased protections of winter habitat, crucial winter

habitat, and migration areas for elk and mule deer. Under Alternative D, the Wyoming Governor’s

greater sage-grouse Core Area strategy is incorporated into management actions. Additionally,

under Alternative D, areas of big game habitat and greater sage-grouse lek habitat are identified

for withdrawal from locatable mineral entry. Extensive Best Management Practices (BMPs) and

Required Designed Features are also identified under Alternative D that would provide protections

for greater sage-grouse, wildlife, and other resources. In areas of high mineral potential,

Designated Development Areas are established which emphasize mineral use. In Dubois, mineral

activities are limited and the area is closed to oil and gas leasing for the protection of special status

species and to support destination recreation associated with bighorn sheep. Congressionally

Designated Trails are managed within the NTMC, which applies specific prescriptions to meet the

nature and purposes of the five Congressionally Designated Trails in the planning area.

Environmental Consequences

This section summarizes the environmental consequences that would result from implementing

each of the four alternatives. The purpose of the environmental consequences analysis is to

determine the potential impacts of the federal action under each of the four alternatives on the

human environment, while focusing on key planning issues identified by the BLM and raised

during the scoping process. The analysis of environmental consequences is arranged by the

following resource areas: physical resources, mineral resources, fire and fuels management,

biological resources, heritage and visual resources, land resources, special designations, and

socioeconomics.

Physical Resources

Physical Resources include air quality, soil, water, cave and karst resources, and lands with

wilderness characteristics. Emissions of air pollutants in the planning area would primarily result

from oil and gas development, mining, and other mineral development. Emissions associated

with these actions would outweigh those produced from other proposed activities. Compared

xlii
against 2008 baseline emissions, Alternative B would result in the smallest increase in total air

pollutant emissions in 2018 and 2027; however, this alternative would result in the highest carbon

monoxide emissions of any alternative. However, limitations on the use of prescribed burning in

Core Area would limit this increase. Total emissions estimated under Alternative D would result

in the second-smallest increase over the baseline, while Alternative C would result in the greatest

increase. Emissions for all analyzed pollutants are estimated to increase over baseline levels in

the short term (2018), and then begin to decrease from the short term to the long term (2027).

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has determined that six greenhouse gases (GHGs)

are pollutants and subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act (CAA): carbon dioxide

(CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur

hexafluoride. Carbon sequestration through CO2 injection is not addressed because it was

considered too speculative for estimation at the time of analysis. Carbon dioxide, CH4, and N2O

are the most commonly emitted GHGs by the types of activities that occur in the planning area. Oil

and gas production is the major contributor to GHG emissions under all alternatives. Under all of

the alternatives, GHG emissions are estimated to increase in the short term (2018) and then begin

decrease in the long term (2027). Alternative C is estimated to result in the greatest increase of

GHG emissions in the short and long term, followed closely by Alternative A, then Alternative D.

Alternative B would result in the smallest increase of GHG emissions. The total estimated GHG

emissions under Alternative D in 2018 are approximately 0.01 percent of the total U.S. emissions

in 2008. Worldwide GHG emissions, atmospheric conditions, and a variety of other factors

contribute to climate change at a global scale, and, therefore, it is not possible to distinguish the

impacts to global climate change from localized GHG emissions originating in the planning area.

Impacts to soil resources result from surface disturbance associated with a variety of resource

programs including mineral development, road construction, and recreation such as off-highway

vehicle (OHV) use. Actions that restrict surface disturbance or restore vegetation on disturbed

areas occur under all alternatives and generally are considered to have a beneficial impact on soil

resources by limiting erosion. Alternative B is anticipated to produce the least potential adverse

impacts to soil resources because management actions are anticipated to result in the least soil

disturbance. Based on anticipated surface disturbance, Alternative C is anticipated to result in

the most adverse impacts to soil resources, followed by Alternative A. Alternative D, though

anticipated to result in more disturbance than Alternative B, would utilize similar erosion-reducing

measures and would result in the second-fewest adverse impacts to soil resources. Required

Design Features under Alternative D would limit impacts to the soil resource.

Surface disturbance has an adverse impact on water resources when it contributes to offsite

erosion and sediment delivery. Management actions under Alternative B would result in the least

amount of projected surface disturbance and greatest number of resource use restrictions, and

thus the fewest adverse impacts to surface and groundwater quality and quantity. Similarly, based

on anticipated surface disturbance, Alternative C would result in the greatest adverse impacts

to water resources. Alternative A manages surface-disturbing activities similar to Alternative

C. Management under Alternative D is most similar to that under Alternative B, though it

would likely result in more adverse impacts to water resources compared to that alternative due

to greater total surface disturbance and allowing necessary and mitigated surface-disturbing

activities within 500 feet of surface water. Required Design Features under Alternative D would

reduce adverse impacts to water quality but less so than the more restrictive management under

Alternative B. Under all alternatives, BMPs, watershed enhancement projects, conservation

practices, Stormwater Discharge Plans, Weed Management Area Plans, project-specific soil

xliii
investigations, water protection plans, and reclamation plans would reduce impacts to soil,

limiting adverse impacts to surface water.

Adverse impacts to cave and karst resources result from actions that disturb or destroy these

resources or disrupt the habitat of flora and fauna that utilize them. Actions that result in data

collection or preservation of cave and karst resources and their associated values are considered

beneficial impacts. Designating the Lander Slope ACEC under alternatives A, B, and D would

protect cave and karst resources known to be in that area. Under all alternatives, the discovery of

significant caves that fall within the protection of federal legislation would be specially managed

under a protocol developed to meet preservation needs. Currently, the BLM has not completed a

formal survey of cave and karst resources in the planning area.

Lands with wilderness characteristics include those of appropriate size, naturalness and

opportunities for solitude or primitive/unconfined recreation that are not within designated

Wilderness areas or Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs). The Little Red Creek Complex is the only

identified land with wilderness characteristics in the planning area. Alternatives A and C do

not propose specific management for the Little Red Creek Complex to preserve its wilderness

characteristics. Although Alternative A manages the area as an ACEC to preserve the naturalness

of the area, this designation would only result in limited beneficial impacts to opportunities for

solitude and primitive/unconfined recreation because it allows motorized vehicle use. Alternative

C would not manage the area as an ACEC, which would increase adverse impacts to wilderness

characteristics from a variety of resource uses. Under Alternative B, the entire Little Red Creek

Complex (5,490 acres) would be managed as non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics

to protect wilderness values. The area would be closed to motorized and mechanized vehicle

use while providing access and recreational opportunities that maintain the area's wilderness

characteristics. Alternative D manages 4,954 acres of the Little Red Creek Complex as non-WSA

lands with wilderness characteristics with similar prescriptions as Alternative B.

Mineral Resources

Implementation of any of the alternatives would result in public lands being opened (a beneficial

impact to mineral resources), or withdrawn or segregated (an adverse impact to mineral resources)

from locatable mineral activity. Alternative B, due to withdrawals to protect areas with cultural,

paleontological, and wilderness resource values, SRMAs, and ACECs would result in the largest

acreage recommended for withdrawal from locatable mineral entry (1,632,605 acres), followed

by Alternative D (449,068 acres), Alternative A (23,114 acres) and Alternative C (0 acres). The

process by which locatable mineral withdrawal occurs is only initiated by the ROD and requires

many additional steps (see Chapter 2 for additional information). Approximately 8,634 acres of

pre-FLPMA classifications are also recommended for withdrawal from application of the mining

laws and would apply under each alternative. These withdrawals, designated by Congress, are not

within BLM authority to modify and would continue indefinitely.

Lands in the planning area have been classified as having low, very low, and negligible potential

for geothermal development. There could, however, be increased interest in geothermal

exploration and development in the planning area over the life of the plan. The primary impacts

to geothermal exploration and development – closing areas to leasing or managing areas with

restrictions – are similar to those described for oil and gas and, therefore, impacts to geothermal

development would parallel those described below under oil and gas.

The potential for oil and gas occurrence in the planning area ranges from high to very

low. Adverse impacts to oil and gas exploration and development result from management

xliv
actions that restrict or constrain the potential for oil and gas leasing, development, and

exploration. Management actions that limit restrictions or maintain areas as open for oil and gas

exploration and development would result in beneficial impacts. 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 surface-use restrictions. Alternative

C only applies no surface occupancy (NSO) restrictions within 1⁄4 mile of greater sage-grouse leks

and around some cultural resources. Adverse impacts to oil and gas exploration and development

would be greatest under Alternative B, which closes the greater sage-grouse Core Area to oil and

gas leasing. Alternative D would result in the second-most potential adverse impacts to oil and

gas exploration, as it closes the second-most acreage to leasing and manages the most area with

major restrictions, such as NSO restrictions, applies Required Design Features for the protection

of greater sage-grouse and other resources, and applies Master Leasing Plan-derived constraints

to 150,782 acres in the Beaver Rim area (Alternative B closes this area to oil and gas leasing).

The planning area contains 42,291 surface acres with phosphate potential; phosphate is the only

solid leasable mineral with substantial occurrence and development potential in the planning area.

Alternative A closes 10,047 surface acres to phosphate leasing (approximately 24 percent of the

area with phosphate potential), Alternative B closes 39,592 acres (approximately 94 percent of

the area with phosphate potential), Alternative C closes 1,721 acres (approximately 4 percent

of the area with phosphate potential), and Alternative D closes 42,164 acres (approximately 99

percent of the area with phosphate potential). Alternative D would result in the largest adverse

impact to developing known phosphate resources, followed by alternatives B, A, and C.

The likelihood of any other types of leasable mineral (i.e., coal and oil shale) exploration or

development in the planning area is remote. 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 coal

development and leasing (in accordance with 43 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 3420.1-4).

The Programmatic EIS for Oil Shale and Tar Sands included the southern edge of the planning

area as oil shale-tar sand resources; however, the area identified is not economically feasible to

produce. Additional evaluation and an RMP amendment would be required for the exploration,

development, and leasing of oil shale-tar sand.

Mineral materials (also called salable minerals) 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. 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. Such management commonly includes restrictions on

surface-disturbing activities or closures to mineral materials disposals. 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 due to ACECs, the NTMC, and other resource

protective areas closed to disposal for the benefit of a broad range of resources. Alternative A

has the second fewest adverse impacts, followed by Alternative C, which places no restrictions

on disposals other than standard stipulations and has the fewest adverse impacts with regard

to ACECs.

Fire and Fuels Management

xlv
Fire is an integral part of natural ecosystem function; however, the natural fire regime has largely

been suppressed in the planning area. Although the suppression of the natural fire regime is

considered an adverse impact to fire ecology, actions contributing to an increase in the incidence

of wildfire or limiting the ability to effectively fight wildfires are considered adverse impacts to

fire and fuels management. The various alternatives would affect the management of wildfires

(unplanned ignitions), prescribed fires (planned ignitions), and the stabilization and rehabilitation

of areas following wildland fires. For all alternatives, the use of prescribed fire would be limited

in greater sage-grouse Core Area where annual precipitation is below 12 inches, which comprises

approximately 70 percent of the planning area. Fire suppression in Core Area is prioritized under

all alternatives; therefore the impacts from fire suppression do not vary by alternative in most of

the planning area. Alternative B would result in the most adverse impacts to wildfire suppression

by restricting suppression tactics; Alternative C would result in the most beneficial impacts

to wildfire suppression by allowing the full range of management actions across the planning

area not within greater sage-grouse Core Area. Alternatives A and D are more restrictive than

Alternative C, but provide similar flexibility to suppress wildfire while also minimizing damage

to resources and use full suppression on a case-by-case basis. Conversely, Alternative B would

provide 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 certain

ecosystems over the long term. Alternative B would also have the highest short-and long-term

adverse impacts to areas outside greater sage-grouse habitat.

Restricting the use of prescribed fire would result in adverse impacts to fire and fuels management

by limiting its use to meet other resource objectives, while treating areas with prescribed fire

would result in beneficial impacts. Alternatives A and C would result in prescribed burns on

approximately 300 acres per year. Alternative B would result in the greatest use of prescribed

burns (1,000 acres per year) followed by Alternative D (500 acres per year). Under Alternative B,

prescribed fire may be restricted in ACECs to protect resource values, but the larger ACEC area

under alternatives B and D would also allow the reestablishment of natural fire regimes using

natural processes. These alternatives would also emphasize treatments to reduce fuels in the WUI.

Specific Required Design Features under Alternative D would beneficially impact fire and fuels

management by limiting the size and locations of surface disturbances.

Biological Resources

Biological Resources include vegetation, fish, wildlife, special status species, and wild horses.

Vegetation resources analyzed in this RMP revision include forests, woodlands, and aspen

communities; grassland and shrubland communities; the management of invasive nonnative

species (INNS); and riparian-wetland resources. Long-term surface disturbance would contribute

to the decline in abundance, distribution, or health of vegetation communities in the planning area

and could increase the presence of INNS. Conversely, vegetation treatments causing short-term

surface disturbance would improve vegetation health and diversity over the long term, and may

reduce the severity of wildland fires that alter the vegetation communities.

Alternative C would result in the most long-term impacts from surface disturbance, followed

by alternatives A, D, and B, a portion of which could result in adverse impacts to forests

and woodlands by contributing to the declines in forests and forest health and forest products.

Alternative C would allow the most motorized vehicle use and would result in the most new road

construction, followed by alternatives A, D, and B; these activities could increase the risk of

unplanned ignitions and unauthorized wood cutting. Alternative C, followed by alternatives A, B,

and D, implements the most silvicultural practices to actively manage forests and woodlands,

xlvi
which would benefit forest and woodland health by decreasing the risk of landscape-level

wildfires and increasing forest product availability. Alternative C would, generally, result in the

most beneficial impacts from active silviculture treatments. Alternative B would provide the

greatest beneficial impact to the forest and woodland ecology because it emphasizes natural

processes. Alternative D would result in more beneficial impacts to forest and woodlands

management than Alternative A because it allows all available tools and silvicultural techniques

to maintain forest health, while considering the potential adverse impacts of certain techniques to

other resources (e.g., impacts of clear-cuts to soil and riparian-wetland areas).

Management actions that advance active vegetation management would result in beneficial

impacts to grassland and shrubland communities, while management that allows long-term

surface disturbance or activities that cause vegetation to be removed would result in adverse

impacts. Long-term disturbance and vegetation removal would contribute to the decline in

abundance, distribution, or diversity of grasslands and shrubland communities. Alternative

C would result in the greatest area of long-term disturbance from development, followed by

alternatives A, D, and B. In energy development areas, reclamation standards under alternatives C

and D address soil stabilization in the interim with a higher percentage of grasses, rather than

restoring predisturbance plant communities. Alternative B would result in the greatest chance

of successful reestablishment of predisturbance plant community grasses and shrubs following

construction. Overall, Alternative B contains the least surface disturbance due to closures

of greater sage-grouse Core Area to development and the most proactive management such

as vegetative treatments and would result in the greatest beneficial impacts to grassland and

shrubland communities, followed by alternatives D, A, and C.

The presence of INNS is considered an adverse impact to other biological resources in the

planning area and, in spite of management proposed in this RMP, invasive species are expected

to spread under all alternatives. Those alternatives projected to involve the greatest amount of

surface disturbance would have the potential to result in the greatest adverse impacts from the

spread of invasive species. Based on projected surface disturbance and the types of reclamation

requirements imposed, Alternative C would result in the greatest potential for the spread of

invasive species, followed by alternatives A, D, and B. Alternative D is projected to result

in greater surface disturbance than Alternative A, but contains more stringent reclamation

requirements, Required Design Features, and selected BMPs, especially in sagebrush areas, that

would result in a reduced potential for the spread of invasive species.

Adverse impacts to riparian-wetland resources arise from surface disturbance associated with

mineral resources development, motorized vehicle use, road construction, and livestock grazing

that cause a change in riparian-wetland functionality, such as changes in sediment loading rates

or hydrology. 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 contribution to sediment loading, followed by alternatives A, D, and

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-wetland 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. In general, Alternative D would result

in more adverse impacts to riparian-wetland resources than Alternative B (which prohibits

surface disturbance), but applies more restrictions on surface-disturbing activities and utilizes

Required Design Features for added beneficial impacts to riparian-wetland resources, compared

to Alternative A.

xlvii
Fish and fish habitat are directly impacted by activities that generate soil erosion and can increase

sediment into fish-bearing waterbodies. Fish habitat is also affected by the amount of vegetative

cover along stream banks to regulate water temperatures or vehicles in the stream channel.

Alternative B provides the greatest protection from surface-disturbing activities and would have

the greatest beneficial impact to fish resources. Alternative C provides the least amount of

protection and would have the greatest potential for adverse impacts to fish resources, followed

by alternatives A and D. Alternative D is similar to Alternative A, but Alternative D includes

increased protection in areas important for other resources (particularly ACEC, WSRs, and

WSAs), which would benefit fish resources. Additionally, the Required Design Features under

Alternative D would provide added indirect benefits to fish and fish habitat through limitations on

the size and locations of surface disturbances allowed adjacent to surface water in the planning

area.

The primary adverse impacts to wildlife result from habitat loss or degradation,

disturbance/disruption of wildlife during sensitive times, or direct mortality; the primary beneficial

impacts to wildlife result from management that restricts surface-disturbing activities in known or

potential wildlife habitat and disruptive activities (e.g., motorized vehicle use, recreation, etc.) that

can cause the abandonment of nest sites or home ranges. Alternative B minimizes wildlife habitat

loss and fragmentation in the planning area (e.g., closing greater sage-grouse Core Area to oil and

gas development) the most, followed by alternatives D, A, and C respectively. Under alternatives

A, B, and D, timing limitation stipulations (TLS) protect big game crucial winter range and elk

winter range. Alternative C includes a TLS for elk crucial winter range protection only, which is a

smaller area of protection compared to the other alternatives. Extending the TLS buffer for active

raptor nests from 3⁄4 mile (under Alternative A) to 1.5 miles would protect an additional 480,406

acres under Alternative B during raptor nesting periods. Alternative D extends this buffer to 1 mile

around bald eagle and ferruginous hawk nests. Alternative C restricts surface-disturbing activities

in the fewest areas and contains the least management designed to improve wildlife habitat

quality. Alternative B designates the most ACECs that preserve wildlife habitat, followed by

Alternative D. Alternative C designates no ACECs to protect wildlife habitat. Overall Alternative

B would have the greatest beneficial impacts to wildlife, followed by alternatives D, A, and C.

Impacts to special status plants, fish, and wildlife species generally parallel those for vegetation,

fish, and wildlife; however, all the alternatives include additional protective management for

special status species. Overall, proactive management actions would be most beneficial to special

status species under Alternative B, followed by alternatives D, A, and C. Activities that disturb

soil and vegetation communities would directly impact special status plants. Alternatives B

and D require surface-disturbing activities and facilities to have the smallest footprint possible

to minimize the impacts of habitat loss and fragmentation. Alternative B provides the greatest

protection from surface-disturbing activities and includes the greatest amount of beneficial

proactive management; potential beneficial impacts would be lower under alternatives D, A,

and C, respectively. Allowable uses and management actions with potential to degrade water

quality in the headwaters of the Wind River would affect special status fish species. Alternative B

provides the greatest protection from surface-disturbing activities and would result in the greatest

beneficial impacts to special status fish habitat, followed by alternatives D, A, and C. Alternative

B would have the greatest beneficial impact because it includes the most proactive management to

restore and enhance habitats for special status wildlife species, while Alternative C would have the

greatest adverse impacts. While Alternative D applies fewer protections that would benefit special

status wildlife compared to Alternative B, surface-disturbing restrictions, special designations,

Required Design Features, and other management such as limiting the density of disturbance in

greater sage-grouse Core Area, would limit adverse impacts to special status species from habitat

xlviii
loss and fragmentation. Alternative D also recommends withdrawal of extensive areas from

locatable mineral entry, which would benefit special status species in those areas.

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. Impacts to wild horses

include management that affects vegetation for forage, the availability of water, or other habitat

components necessary to maintain the health and free-roaming nature of horses at the appropriate

management level in Herd Management Areas (HMAs). Alternative B would result in the

greatest beneficial impact to wild horses because it would increase forage and support the general

free-roaming nature of wild horses through fence removal. Although less so than Alternative

B, 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 that would benefit wild horses. Alternative C, followed by Alternative A, would result in the

greatest expansions of infrastructure to support managed grazing and the most human presence in

HMAs, resulting in the greatest adverse impacts to wild horses’ free-roaming nature.

Heritage and Visual Resources

Heritage and Visual Resources include cultural resources, paleontological resources, and

visual resources management. Cultural resources are defined as the places where the physical

remains of past peoples can be found. Adverse effects to cultural resources typically result

when there is a loss of information and/or a loss of integrity of the resource, including visual

and audible intrusions or vandalism. Overall, Alternative C is projected to result in the most

surface disturbance and uses reactive management to comply with regulations to protect cultural

resources. Alternative A, uses a similar management approach to protect important cultural

resources, but also includes proactive management for certain sites. Alternative B relies on

proactive management to prevent effects to a wider range of important cultural sites where

setting is important, and includes more protective measures for Warm Springs Canyon Flume.

Alternative D overall reflects the middle ground between alternatives B and C, providing less

protection to Warm Springs Canyon Flume than Alternative B, but also identifying situations in

which more protective measures than those specified in alternatives A or C will be used. Similar

protections for spiritual, sacred, and traditional sites are provided under all alternatives; however,

management would be more effective under alternatives B and D, followed by alternatives A

and C, respectively. Additionally, Required Design Features that reduce the extent of surface

disturbances under Alternative D would have added beneficial impacts for cultural resources

compared to alternatives A and C, but still offer less protections than afforded under Alternative B.

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. Adverse effects to significant paleontological

resources typically result in a loss of information and/or a loss of integrity of the resource.

Adverse effects to significant paleontological resources on BLM-administered lands include

actions that physically damage or destroy all or part of a resource and lack of protective

action, which can result in resource deterioration. Adverse effects also result from increased

access to areas containing paleontological resources, which can lead to increased use, erosion,

looting, and vandalism. Alternatives B and D would result in the least adverse effects and most

resource protection compared to the other alternatives by restricting resource uses in important

paleontological areas like Beaver Rim, Bison Basin, Bonneville to Lost Cabin, Lander Slope,

and Gas Hills, and by generally restricting surface-disturbing activities and limiting motorized

vehicle access. Alternative C provides the least protection and the greatest exposure to direct

xlix
effects from surface-disturbing activities, followed by Alternative A. Alternatives A and C also

manage the important paleontological areas specifically protected under alternatives B and D on a

less protective case-by-case basis. Generally, Alternative D management is between alternatives

A and B in that it employs a more proactive management approach than Alternative A, including

applying Required Designed Features that would reduce surface disturbance impacts, but does not

provide the same degree of protective measures as Alternative B.

Activities that disturb the surface are allowed under all alternatives, and these activities can impact

scenic values. Visual Resource Management (VRM) Classes establish a measurable standard

for the amount of change allowed to visual resources in a specific area, and comparing VRM

Classes to the planning area’s Visual Resource Inventory (VRI) Classes, or the baseline for scenic

values in the planning area, provides an indicator of the level of impact to visual resources from

the alternatives. 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. As such, Alterative B would result in the greatest

beneficial impact to visual resources, with Alternative D also benefiting scenic values. Alternative

C will 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. 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 affect

to scenic features by managing most of these areas as VRM Class III or IV.

Land Resources

Land Resources include lands and realty, renewable energy, ROWs and corridors, comprehensive

trails and travel management, livestock grazing, and recreation. Included in the lands and realty

program are land tenure adjustments (e.g., sales, exchanges, acquisitions), land use authorizations

(i.e., leases and permits), withdrawals, classifications, and segregations.

Impacts to the lands and realty program results from implementing the alternatives which include

land tenure adjustments, withdrawals, and management that makes realty actions more difficult to

complete. The biggest difference among the alternatives is in the segregation of lands to pursue

locatable mineral withdrawal. Withdrawals close areas to operation of the General Mining Law

and can limit the application of other public land laws (depending upon the withdrawal order) and

could result in long-term adverse impacts to the lands and realty program by limiting or restricting

lands and realty actions in these areas. Alternative A continues withdrawals identified in the 1987

RMP, but recommends no new withdrawals. Under Alternative B, 1,632,605 acres (68 percent

of the planning area) are withdrawn, while under Alternative D, 449,068 acres 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. As mentioned

under the Mineral Resources section above, approximately 8,634 acres are existing pre-FLPMA

withdrawals which do not expire and would apply under each alternative. No private lands are

identified for acquisition under any alternative; lands that have been proposed for exchange have

been identified for disposal in this document.

Renewable energy management focuses on wind energy in the planning area. Direct impacts

to wind-energy development result from the designation of renewable energy avoidance and

l
exclusion areas, actions that prohibit, or otherwise decrease the potential for wind-energy

development, and actions that cannot be mitigated to allow for wind-energy development.

Alternative C manages the largest area as open for wind-energy development (2,284,235 acres),

and would therefore result in the greatest beneficial impacts. Open areas would be similar to

Alternative C under Alternative A (2,113,512 acres), but substantially smaller under alternatives

D (224,289 acres) and B (41,372 acres). Actions associated with wind-energy development under

Alternative D would have Required Design Features identified to reduce the amount and location

of surface disturbances for improved benefits for other resources, including greater sage-grouse.

General protections that further restrict wind-energy development, such as for wildlife, viewshed,

and the establishment of the NTMC, result in Alternative D being much more like Alternative

B than Alternative A or C.

ROWs are for infrastructure and facilities, including wind-energy development, that are

in the public interest and require authorization for location over, under, on, or through

BLM-administered land. Adverse impacts to ROWs and designated corridors result from

management actions for other resources that limit, prohibit, or otherwise decrease the potential for

ROWs. Alternative C would result in the least impact to ROWs by managing the least area as

ROW avoidance and exclusion areas (158,767 acres), followed by alternatives A (272,015 acres),

D (1,786,726 acres) and B (2,234,248 acres). Alternative D management of the NTMC would

result in similar adverse impacts to ROWs as Alternative B through increased areas excluded

for ROW use, although adverse impacts would be less severe under Alternative D compared to

Alternative B; impacts associated with management under alternatives B and D would be more

severe than those under alternatives A and C.

The trails and travel management program is considered a support function for all BLM resource

programs and, as such, the program goals are: 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. Because of these somewhat divergent goals, blanket

statements of adverse and beneficial impacts are not possible. Instead, impacts to trails and travel

management are based on a given area's travel management focus or priority (e.g., resource

protection focused or public access focused). An increased resource protection focus for the

travel management system would occur on 185,253 acres under Alternative A, 276,338 acres

under Alternative B, and 56,247 acres under Alternative C; Alternative D would be similar to

Alternative B. For each alternative, the decisions across the remainder of the planning area

would result in travel management systems focused on increased access. To manage travel, the

alternatives include limitations on certain types of travel; an increased level of travel management

(e.g., more areas limited to designated roads and trails or closures to cross-country motorized

travel) increases resource protection and decreases access. Alternative B limits the most acreage

to designated roads and trails in the planning area (193,704 acres), followed by alternatives A

(163,075 acres), D (154,772 acres), and C (50,776 acres). Alternative B also closes the largest

acreage to motorized vehicle use (71,761 acres), followed by alternatives D (26,357 acres), A

(5,923 acres), and C (5,472 acres); closures are adverse impacts to trails and travel management.

Alternatives A and C allow cross-country motorized travel for necessary tasks in areas where

motorized vehicle use is limited to existing roads and trails. Alternatives B and D prohibit, with

some exceptions, motorized cross-country travel in areas with limited travel designations.

The primary impacts to livestock grazing result from management that alters the area available

to livestock grazing, constrains the placement or types of range improvements, changes the

number of animal unit months (AUMs) available to operators, alters rangeland health, or

changes the cost associated with livestock grazing management. Alternative B would result

li
in the greatest adverse impact to livestock grazing; Alternative C would result in the greatest

beneficial impact. Alternative B places the most restrictions on livestock use of forage and the

placement and construction of range improvements. In addition, Alternative B closes lands in

elk and bighorn sheep crucial winter range in the Dubois area (Map 3), which would result in

the loss of approximately 1,043 AUMs. 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 fall somewhere

between the other alternatives, and this alternative is the most likely to apply management on a

case-by-case basis. Alternative D develops rangeland infrastructure when necessary to implement

comprehensive grazing management strategies and avoids projects that would expand grazing on

the landscape without a clear link to a comprehensive grazing strategy and consideration of other

resources. Under all alternatives, 69,276 acres have been unavailable for grazing since before

1987; these acres do not vary by alternative and are not analyzed in this document. Additionally,

all alternatives prioritize management of greater sage-grouse in Dubois, Red Canyon, Lander

Slope, Green Mountain, and Core Area for added protection to greater sage-grouse and the

ability to maintain a higher degree of residual forage in areas preferred by livestock, such as

riparian-wetland areas. Alternatives A and C are all likely to result in a moderate utilization level

(41- 60 percent) with utilization levels under Alternative D variable based upon implementation of

a comprehensive grazing strategy or as needed to address vegetation objectives. Light utilization

levels, generally corresponding to 21- 40 percent would result under Alternative B.

Impacts to recreation are those that affect the recreational setting, the recreational experience

of users, or the ability of recreationists to achieve desired beneficial outcomes from the use

of public lands. Recreation management under the alternatives reflects the diversity of visitor

preferences in the planning area, and adverse impacts to the experience of some recreational users

may be beneficial impacts to the experience of others. For example, primitive settings benefit

nonmotorized recreation and limit access to motorized recreation. Under all of the alternatives,

the amount of acres trending towards an urban/industrialized setting is greater than the amount of

acres trending towards a primitive setting. The primitive setting would expand the most under

Alternative B, followed by alternatives D, A, and C. Under alternatives A and C, visitor services

are least responsive to visitor demands for recreation settings, activities, and/or outcomes,

resulting in adverse impacts to recreationists. Alternatives B and D increase visitor services in all

important recreation areas and provide allowable use decisions that ensure the future recreational

enjoyment of these areas, with the main differences being that Alternative D manages less area

towards a primitive setting and identifies fewer actions to enhance wildlife-dependent recreation

than Alternative B; however, Alternative D would apply Required Design Features to reduce

adverse impacts from surface disturbances and would have increased beneficial impacts in

comparison to alternatives A and C.

Special Designations

Special Designations include ACECs, Congressionally Designated Trails, WSRs, and WSAs. The

BLM designates ACECs to protect resources, natural systems, and natural hazards (referred to

as the ACEC values of concern). Values of concern for ACECs proposed in the planning area

include cultural, scenic, and wildlife values. To protect the values of concern, ACECs include

restrictions on mineral development and other surface-disturbing activities (e.g., mechanical fuels

treatments and ROWs) or motorized vehicle use. Alternative B would designate more area as

ACECs than any of the other alternatives, encompassing almost 62 percent of BLM-administered

land in the planning area. ACECs designated under Alternative D encompass over 10 percent of

BLM-administered land in the planning area, which is twice as much acreage (243,836 acres)

lii
as the area designated under Alternative A (119,622 acres). Alternative C does not designate

any ACECs. Alternative B would be the most effective at protecting the values of concern

within ACECs by restricting resource uses and activities within these areas, followed closely by

Alternative D, and then alternatives A and C, respectively.

The planning area contains the Congressionally designated Oregon, Mormon Pioneer, California,

and Pony Express National Historic Trails (NHTs) and the Continental Divide National Scenic

Trail (CDNST). Adverse impacts to NHTs result mostly from surface-disturbing activities

and, to a lesser extent, increased public access. This may physically destroy parts of an

NHT, alter a significant element of an NHT, or introduce elements that diminish the historic

integrity of an NHT. Alternative A and C manage NHTs similarly, focusing on protecting the

immediate area around the NHTs but not addressing visual impacts farther away from the trails.

However, Alternative A applies some additional protective management of NHTs compared

to Alternative C, such as designating an ACEC, which avoids major ROWs within 1⁄4 mile.

Alternative B provides more protection for the immediate area around NHTs and the extended

historic setting, such as excluding ROWs outside of designated corridors within 20 miles of

NHTs. Alternative D is more protective than Alternative A or Alternative C, and somewhat less

protective than Alternative B. Alternative D protects the historic setting of the NHTs from visual

impacts similarly to Alternative B, but to a lesser extent. Alternatives B and D also manage

recreational use of the trails for beneficial outcomes and to protect their visual resources, while

alternatives A and C do not. Alternative D establishes the NTMC, with limitations on mineral

development, ROWs, realty actions, and other resource uses to protect the nature and purpose of

the Congressionally Designated Trails. Although the nature and purposes of the NHTs and the

CDNST are different, both are supported by the uniform management applied to the corridor.

Additionally, Alternative D uses Required Design Features, which combined with the NTMC,

include protections similar to those under Alternative B.

Protecting or enhancing their free-flowing characteristics and outstanding remarkable values

(ORVs) – including scenic, recreational, and wildlife values – are the primary management

objectives for WSR eligible waterways. Recommending a waterway as suitable for inclusion in

the NWSRS would have the greatest benefit to eligible waterways. If a waterway is not managed

to preserve its suitability for the NWSRS, impacts would vary based on the degree to which

overlapping management from other resource programs protect the waterways' ORVs. Overall,

Alternative B would result in the most beneficial impacts to WSR eligible waterways, followed by

alternatives D, A, and C. Alternative A continues to manage WSR eligible waterways to maintain

their ORVs, but does not make suitability determinations to recommend eligible waterways

for inclusion in the NWSRS. Subjecting eligible waterways to case-by-case actions under the

existing plan may result in contrasting management stipulations, allowing varying degrees of

resource uses and development that threaten free-flowing characteristics and ORVs. Alternative

B recommends all nine eligible waterways for inclusion in the NWSRS, and would provide the

most protection for their ORVs and free-flowing characteristics. Alternative D recommends three

eligible waterways (Baldwin Creek Unit, Warm Springs Segment 1, and the Sweetwater Unit) for

inclusion in the NWSRS and manages the other eligible waterways to improve characteristics

that would improve future suitability classification. Alternative C recommends no WSR eligible

waterways for inclusion in the NWSRS and, in general, does not require management of these

areas that would preserve their ORVs.

Under all of the alternatives, the BLM manages WSAs under Manual 6330, Management of

BLM Wilderness Study Areas, which restricts discretionary activities in WSAs to ensure that

their suitability for Wilderness designation is not impaired. Wilderness characteristics include

liii
naturalness and opportunities for solitude and primitive/unconfined recreation. Although there

are limited discretionary actions the BLM can take that would affect WSAs, management under

Alternative B would result in the greatest beneficial impacts to WSAs by emphasizing resource

protection and limiting activities, such as motorized and mechanized vehicle use, that may impact

wilderness characteristics. Alternatives A, C, and D include similar management for WSAs,

except that Alternative D closes the Copper Mountain and Whiskey Mountain WSAs to motorized

vehicle use to better protect wilderness characteristics in these areas.

Socioeconomic Resources

Socioeconomic resources include social conditions, economic conditions, health and safety,

environmental justice, and tribal treaty rights.

Impacts to social conditions in the planning area 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. Social conditions are closely tied to economic

impacts, including changes in regional economic output, employment, and earnings, and in tax

revenues for the local, state, and federal governments. Earnings, output, employment, and tax

revenues due to activities on BLM-administered surface and mineral estate, based on modeling

as well as qualitative analysis of economic activity from other sectors, would be highest under

alternatives A and C, slightly less under Alternative D, and substantially less under Alternative B.

Impacts on the social conditions in the planning area would be greatest from reduced oil and gas

development and livestock grazing and increased emphasis on recreational opportunities and land

preservation under Alternative B. Conversely, under current management (Alternative A) and

Alternative C, more areas open to oil and gas development would bring more job opportunities,

greater demand for community services, and greater tax revenues to local governments, allowing

them to expand community services to meet the needs of a slightly larger population. Alternative

D balances the resource conservation and development approaches, but its impacts to social

conditions are generally closer to alternatives A and C.

Programs to manage health and safety include the management of Abandoned Mine Lands

(AMLs), coalbed fires, physical hazards, and hazardous substances. Impacts to the health and

safety program would result from management that affects the risk of accidents in the areas

in which AMLs, geologic hazards, or hazardous waste and materials spills or releases occur.

Beneficial impacts to health and safety from management of AML sites and coalbed fires would

occur under all alternatives. Under all alternatives, the BLM and Wyoming Department of

Environmental Quality (DEQ) will identify and plan for remediation of AML and coalbed fire

sites which would result in adverse impacts to health and safety. Under all alternatives, the BLM

expects the impacts from management of hazardous substances to be similar. Alternatives B and

D would have the least potential for adverse impacts to health and safety as Alternative B closes

large portions of the planning area to development, including oil and gas, and Alternative D

applies Required Design Features which will have beneficial impacts to health and safety similar,

but slightly less beneficial than actions under Alternative B. Alternative C, with the greatest

amount of mineral activity, could increase the generation, use, transportation, and disposal of

hazardous substances, but spill response plans, stipulations, and applicable laws and regulations

would reduce potential impacts.

liv
While minority and low-income populations exist in the planning area, no particular BLM

actions proposed under any of the alternatives would result in disproportionate adverse impacts

to these populations.

Impacts to tribal treaty rights can include limitations on access to tribal hunting, fishing, or

resource collection areas that were reserved by certain treaty. Impacts to such resources are

usually identified on a project specific basis, in consultation with the appropriate tribes.

The Next Steps

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 have the opportunity to protest the content of the Proposed RMP and Final EIS during

the specified 30-day protest period. The BLM will issue the ROD following the Governor’s

Consistency Review and protest resolution.

lv
This page intentionally

left blank
Reader's Guide to this Document

Chapter 1. Introduction. This chapter introduces the Proposed Resource Management Plan

(RMP) and Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), describes the purpose and need to

which the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is responding, provides an overview of the BLM

planning process, identifies planning issues and criteria, and identifies topics not addressed by this

RMP revision.

Chapter 2. Resource Management Alternatives. Chapter 2 describes how the four alternatives

(A, B, C, and D) were developed, the components and content of each alternative, and it

discusses the alternatives considered but eliminated from further consideration. It also presents a

comparative summary of impacts of each alternative. Resource discussions in chapters 2, 3, and 4

are organized according to the following eight resource topics:

1000. Physical Resources – Air Quality, Geologic Resources, Soil, Water, Cave

and Karst Resources, and Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

2000. Mineral Resources – Locatable, Leasable, and Salable Minerals

3000. Fire and Fuels Management – Unplanned/Wildfire, Planned/Prescribed

Fires and Other Fuels Treatments, and Stabilization and Rehabilitation

4000. Biological Resources – Vegetation, Fish and Wildlife, Special Status

Species, and Wild Horses

5000. Heritage and Visual Resources – Cultural, Paleontological, and Visual

6000. Land Resources – Lands and Realty, Renewable Energy, Rights-of-Way

and Corridors, Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management, Livestock Grazing

Management, and Recreation

7000. Special Designations – Congressionally Designated Trails, Wilderness

Study Areas, Wild and Scenic Rivers, and Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

8000. Socioeconomic Resources – Social and Economic Conditions, Health and

Safety, Environmental Justice, and Tribal Treaty Rights

Chapter 3. Affected Environment. This chapter describes the Lander Field Office planning area

and the existing environmental conditions that could be impacted by the alternatives.

Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences. Chapter 4 forms the scientific and analytic basis

for comparing environmental impacts of each alternative, including the No Action Alternative.

Impacts generally are described in terms of direct or indirect, short-term or long-term, and

minor, moderate, or major, when applicable. Potential cumulative and unavoidable impacts and

irreversible and irretrievable commitments also are discussed in this chapter.

Chapter 5. Public Involvement, Consultation, and Coordination. Chapter 5 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. This chapter also includes a list of

preparers displaying the names and qualifications of the people responsible for preparing this

Proposed RMP and Final EIS. In hardcopy documents, Chapter 5 can be found on a compact disk

(CD) attached to the inside back cover of Volume 2.

lvii
Chapter 6. References. This chapter provides full citation information for all references cited

within the document. In hardcopy documents, Chapter 6 can be found on a CD attached to

the inside back cover of Volume 2.

Glossary. The Glossary defines selected terms used throughout this document. In hardcopy

documents, the Glossary can be found on a CD attached to the inside back cover of Volume 2.

Appendices. The appendices include documents that support existing resource conditions or

situations, substantiate analyses, provide resource management guidance, explain processes,

or provide information directly relevant or supporting conclusions in the Proposed RMP and

Final EIS. Maps referenced in the Proposed RMP and Final EIS are included as a separate

appendix. In hardcopy documents, maps and appendices can be found on a CD attached to

the inside back cover of Volume 2. For CD versions of the document, maps are provided as

a separate file on the CD. Electronic versions of the maps are also available on the project

website: www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/programs/Planning/rmps/lander.html. Twenty-four appendices

are included.

lviii
Acronyms and Abbreviations

<:

less than

μg/m3:

micrograms per cubic meter

ACEC:

Area of Critical Environmental Concern

AIRFA:

American Indian Religious Freedom Act

AML:

Abandoned Mine Land

AMP:

Allotment Management Plan

AMS:

Analysis of the Management Situation

ANC:

acid neutralizing capacity

APD:

Application for Permit to Drill

APHIS:

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

AQD:

Air Quality Division

AQRV:

Air Quality Related Values

ARPA:

Archeological Resources Protection Act

ASCS:

Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service

AUM:

animal unit month

BA:

Biological Assessment

lix
BACT:

Best Available Control Technology

bbl:

barrel

BCF:

billion cubic feet

BEA:

Bureau of Economic Analysis

BIA:

Bureau of Indian Affairs

BLM:

Bureau of Land Management

BLS:

Bureau of Labor Statistics

BMP:

best management practice

BOR:

Bureau of Reclamation

BP:

Before Present

CAA:

Clean Air Act

CBNG:

coalbed natural gas

CDC:

Continental Divide-Creston

CDNST:

Continental Divide National Scenic Trail

CEQ:

Council on Environmental Quality

CFR:

Code of Federal Regulations

CH4:

methane

CIAA:

Cumulative Impact Assessment Area

lx
CO:

carbon monoxide

CO2:

carbon dioxide

COA:

Conditions of Approval

CPW:

Citizen Proposed Wilderness

CREG:

Consensus Revenue Estimating Group

CRM:

Coordinated Resource Management

CSU:

Controlled Surface Use

CUA:

common use area

CWA:

Clean Water Act

CY:

cubic yard

dBA:

A-weighted decibels

DCCD:

Dubois-Crowheart Conservation District

DDA:

Designated Development Area

DEQ:

Department of Environmental Quality

DOE:

United States Department of Energy

DOI:

United States Department of the Interior

DOR:

Department of Revenue

EA:

Environmental Assessment

lxi
EIA:

Energy Information Administration

EIS:

Environmental Impact Statement

EPA:

United States Environmental Protection Agency

ERMA:

Extensive Recreation Management Areas

ES&R:

Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation

ESA:

Endangered Species Act

FCRPA:

Federal Cave Resources Protection Act

FLPMA:

Federal Land Policy and Management Act

FMP:

Fire Management Plan

FMU:

Fire Management Unit

FR:

Federal Register

FRCC:

Fire Regime Condition Class

FRG:

Fire Regime Group

FRO:

Final Reclamation Objective

GCRP:

Global Change Research Program

GHG:

greenhouse gas

GIS:

Geographic Information System

GWP:

Global Warming Potential

lxii
H2S:

hydrogen sulfide

H2SO4:

sulfuric acid

HAP:

Hazardous Air Pollutant

HMA:

Herd Management Area

HMAP:

Herd Management Area Plan

HMP:

Habitat Management Plan

HNO3:

nitric acid

HUC:

Hydrologic Unit Code

IBA:

Important Bird Area

IM:

Instruction Memorandum

IMPLAN:

Impact Analysis for Planning

IMPROVE:

Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments

INNS:

invasive nonnative species

IPCC:

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

IPM:

Integrated Pest Management

IRO:

Interim Reclamation Objective

ISR:

in situ recovery

kg/ha/yr:

kilograms per hectare per year

lxiii
KLA:

Known Leasing Area

LAC:

Limits of Acceptable Change

LAU:

Lynx Analysis Unit

lb:

pound

LRP:

Limited Reclamation Potential

MACT:

Maximum Achievable Control Technology

MBTA:

Migratory Bird Treaty Act

mcf:

thousand cubic feet

mg/L:

micrograms per liter

MLP:

Master Leasing Plan

MLRA:

Major Land Resource Area

MMBF:

million board feet

MMBNGL:

million barrels of natural gas liquid

MMBO:

million barrels of oil

MMt:

million metric tons

MOA:

Memorandum of Agreement

MOU:

Memorandum of Understanding

mph:

miles per hour

lxiv
MW:

Megawatt

N2O:

nitrous oxide

NAAQS:

National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NADP:

National Atmospheric Deposition Program

NAGPRA:

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act

NASS:

National Agricultural Statistics Service

NCA:

National Conservation Area

NCSL:

National Conference of State Legislatures

NEPA:

National Environmental Policy Act

NH3:

ammonia

NH4:

ammonium

NHL:

National Historic Landmark

NHPA:

National Historic Preservation Act

NHT:

National Historic Trail

NISC:

National Invasive Species Council

NLCS:

National Landscape Conservation System

NNL:

National Natural Landmark

NO2:

nitrogen dioxide

lxv
NO3:

nitrate

NOA:

Notice of Availability

NOAA:

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NOI:

Notice of Intent

NOLS:

National Outdoor Leadership School

NOx:

nitrogen oxides

NPS:

National Park Service

NRCS:

Natural Resources Conservation Service

NREL:

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

NRHP:

National Register of Historic Places

NSO:

No Surface Occupancy

NSRE:

National Survey on Recreation and the Environment

NSS:

Native Species Status

NST:

National Scenic Trail

NTMC:

National Trails Management Corridor

NTSA:

National Trails System Act

NTT:

National Technical Team

NWSRS:

National Wild and Scenic River System

lxvi
O&M:

operations and maintenance

O3:

ozone

OHV:

off-highway vehicle

ORV:

Outstandingly Remarkable Value

OSA:

Outside Service Area

P.L.:

Public Law

Pb:

lead

PEIS:

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

PFC:

Proper Functioning Condition

PFYC:

Potential Fossil Yield Classification

PM10:

particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter

PM2.5:

particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter

ppb:

parts per billion

ppm:

parts per million

PSD:

Prevention of Significant Deterioration

R.S.:

Revised Statute

R&PP:

Recreation and Public Purposes

RAAT:

Reduced Agent Area Treatment

lxvii
REA:

Recreation Enhancement Act

REL:

Reference Exposure Level

RFD:

Reasonable Foreseeable Development

RHT&EH:

Regional Historic Trails and Early Highways

RMP:

Resource Management Plan

RMZ:

Recreation Management Zone

ROD:

Record of Decision

ROS:

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum

ROW:

Right-of-Way

RVD:

Recreation Visitor Day

SGIT:

Sage-grouse Implementation Team

SHPO:

State Historic Preservation Office

SLAMS:

State and Local Air Monitoring Station

SO2:

sulfur dioxide

SO4:

sulfate

SPM:

Special Purpose Monitoring

SRMA:

Special Recreation Management Area

SRP:

Special Recreation Permit

lxviii
SVR:

Standard Visual Range

SWAP:

Source Water Assessment Program

TCFG:

trillion cubic feet of gas

TCP:

Traditional Cultural Property

TDS:

Total Dissolved Solids

TLS:

Timing Limitation Stipulation

TMDL:

Total Maximum Daily Load

U.S.:

United States

U.S.C.:

United States Code

UIC:

Underground Injection Control

USDA:

United States Department of Agriculture

USFS:

United States Forest Service

USFWS:

United States Fish and Wildlife Service

USGS:

United States Geological Survey

VOC:

volatile organic compound

VRI:

Visual Resource Inventory

VRM:

Visual Resource Management

WAAQS:

Wyoming Ambient Air Quality Standards

lxix
WAFWA:

Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies

WARMS:

Wyoming Air Resource Monitoring System

WGFD:

Wyoming Game and Fish Department

WHMA:

Wildlife Habitat Management Area

WHMP:

Wild Horse Management Plan

WIA:

Wyoming Infrastructure Authority

WLSO:

Wyoming Legislative Service Office

WMA:

Wildlife Management Area

WMP:

Watershed Management Plan

WNV:

West Nile virus

WO:

Washington Office

WRAP:

Western Regional Air Partnership

WRIR:

Wind River Indian Reservation

WSA:

Wilderness Study Area

WSGS:

Wyoming State Geological Survey

WSR:

Wild and Scenic River

WTT:

Wyoming Travel and Tourism

WUI:

wildland-urban interface

lxx
WYPDES:

Wyoming Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

lxxi
This page intentionally

left blank
Chapter 1. Introduction
This page intentionally

left blank
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 1

1.1. Introduction and Background

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

(EIS) describes and analyzes alternatives for the future management of public lands and resources

administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Lander Field Office. The administrative

area is located in west-central Wyoming and includes approximately 6.6-million acres of land

in most of Fremont County and some of Natrona, Carbon, Sweetwater, Hot Springs, and Teton

counties. Although Teton County is in the large administrative boundary for the Lander Field

Office, no BLM-administered surface or mineral estate lands occur in Teton County and the RMP

makes no management decisions for Teton County lands. Within the Lander administrative area,

the BLM manages approximately 2.4-million acres of public land surface and 2.8-million acres

of mineral estate. Please note most acreage figures in this document are approximate and have

been rounded to simplify reporting. Shaded text in this document identifies substantive changes

between the Draft RMP and EIS and the Proposed RMP and Final EIS.

After passage of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA),

BLM-administered lands were managed according to the principles of multiple use and sustained

yield. Thus, since 1976, the BLM has managed for multiple use and to balance increasing and

competing demands for resources on public lands. Current management follows the 1987 Lander

Field Office RMP (existing plan) (BLM 1987a). The existing plan has undergone maintenance

actions, updates, and amendments. However, the 1987 plan is now out-of-date because of

changing circumstances, new information, and new, more modern planning requirements. Thus, as

discussed further below, a new RMP is necessary to meet the need for current and future multiple

use management of the public lands as mandated by FLPMA and BLM’s planning regulations.

1.1.1. Land Ownership within the Lander Field Office Planning

Area

BLM-administered surface land in the planning area is intermingled with state and private lands

and is adjacent to the Wind River Indian Reservation (WRIR) and the Shoshone National Forest.

While the BLM has Trust Duties for the management of minerals on the WRIR, the BLM does

not make management decisions for the WRIR and Trust Duties are conducted independently of

the RMP. Activities on the WRIR will be considered where appropriate in the cumulative analysis

section of this document. Intermingled mineral ownerships, as well as federal minerals under

privately owned surface, which are referred to as split-estate land, are located throughout the

planning area. County governments have land use planning responsibility for the private lands

located within their jurisdictions. Table 1.1, “Acreage of Surface Land within Each Jurisdiction

of the Planning Area” (p. 2) and Table 1.2, “Acreage of Subsurface Mineral Ownership within

Each Jurisdiction of the Planning Area” (p. 2) contain summaries of the surface and mineral

ownership and administrative relationships for the planning area. The approved RMP will not

include planning and management decisions for (1) lands or minerals privately owned or owned

by the State of Wyoming or local governments or (2) lands and minerals administered by other

federal agencies.

February 2013

Chapter 1 Introduction

Introduction and Background
2 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table 1.1. Acreage of Surface Land within Each Jurisdiction of the Planning Area

Agency

Fremont

County

Natrona

County

Carbon

County

Sweetwater

County

Hot Springs

County

Teton

County

Total

Bureau of

Land Management1,933,368 297,981 38,406 122,624 1,831 0 2,394,210

U.S.

Bureau of

Reclamation

125,666 40 0 0 0 0 125,706

Department

of Defense

1,340 0 0 0 0 0 1,340

National

Park Service

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

State of

Wyoming

239,364 30,042 3,174 5,386 164 0 278,131

U.S. Fish

and Wildlife

Service

0 112 0 0 0 0 112

U.S. Forest

Service

873,947 0 0 0 0 1,658 875,605

Other

federal

agencies

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Other

(water and

private

lands)

1,123,148 94,344 3,853 325 44,184 0 1,265,855

Tribal

Lands

1,326,018 0 0 0 220,487 0 1,546,505

Total 5,622,851 422,519 45,434 128,335 266,667 1,658 6,487,464

Source: BLM 2012a

Table 1.2. Acreage of Subsurface Mineral Ownership within Each Jurisdiction of the

Planning Area

Agency

Fremont

County

Natrona

County

Carbon

County

Sweetwater

County

Hot Springs

County

Teton

County

Total

Bureau of

Land Management2,281,159 364,256 41,482 119,407 2,796 0 2,809,100

Other (state,

tribal, and

private)

2,468,482 58,279 3,951 8,974 263,747 0 2,803,433

Total 4,749,641 422,535 45,433 128,381 266,543 0 5,612,533

Source: BLM 2012a

1.2. Purpose and Need for the Resource Management Plan

Revision

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR]

1502.13) require the purpose and need of an EIS to “briefly specify the underlying purpose and

need to which the agency is responding in proposing the alternatives including the proposed

action.” The purpose and need section of this Proposed RMP and Final EIS provides a context

Chapter 1 Introduction

Purpose and Need for the Resource Management

Plan Revision February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 3

and framework for establishing and evaluating the range of reasonable alternatives described in

Chapter 2.

1.2.1. Need for Revising the Existing Plan

The BLM identified the need to revise the existing plan based on considerations identified in the

Analysis of the Management Situation (AMS) (BLM 2009a), an examination of issues identified

during the public scoping process, and through collaboration with cooperating local, state, and

federal agencies.

Additionally, since the Record of Decision (ROD) was signed (June 1987) for the existing plan,

new data have become available, new policies have been established, and policies have been

revised. These developments, along with emerging concerns and changing circumstances,

resulted in the need to revise the existing plan.

New Data

Monitoring, availability of new information, and advances in science and technology provide

new data to consider in the revision of the existing plan. Examples of this new data can be

found in the following documents and sources:

● Final Programmatic EIS on Wind Energy Development on BLM-Administered Lands in the

Western United States (BLM 2005a) and Final Programmatic EIS for Geothermal Leasing in

the Western United States (BLM and USFS 2008), which identify areas within the planning

area with wind or geothermal energy potential.

● Lander Field Office Mineral Occurrence and Development Potential Report (BLM 2009b),

which identifies areas of mineral potential including locatable minerals, solid leasable

minerals, and salable minerals.

● Lander Field Office AMS (BLM 2009a), which identifies areas that require a change in

management and areas of potential concern.

● Scientific Inventory of Onshore Federal Lands Oil and Gas Resources and Reserves and the

Extent and Nature of Restrictions or Impediments to their Development (DOI 2006a), which

identifies constraints on development of oil and gas reserves.

● Reasonable Foreseeable Development (RFD) Scenario for Oil and Gas, Lander Field Office

(BLM 2009c), which identifies the historic development of oil and gas resources and the

likelihood and location of future development.

● Lander Field Office Visual Resource Inventory Data (BLM 2012a), which provides

information about the existing visual resources and its current condition.

● Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Plan (Wyoming Sage-Grouse Working Group

2003), Conservation Assessment of Greater Sage-Grouse and Sagebrush Habitats (Connelly

et al. 2004), and Greater Sage-Grouse: Ecology and Conservation of a Landscape and Its

Habitats (Knick and Connelly 2011), which identifies greater sage-grouse habitat, population

concentration areas, and connectivity. In 2010, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)

made a determination that the listing of greater sage-grouse under the Endangered Species

Act was warranted but precluded.

● Lynx data for Lynx Analysis Units (BLM 2012a), which identify areas in the Dubois area as

having lynx habitat and the potential for native lynx populations.

New and Revised Policies

February 2013

Chapter 1 Introduction

Need for Revising the Existing Plan
4 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Numerous policies either have been revised or adopted since the ROD for the existing RMP

was signed in 1987 and are important to consider in revising the existing plan. Appendix

A (p. 1427) includes a complete list of relevant policies, including new and revised policies. For

example, on September 28, 2009, the BLM Washington Office issued Instruction Memorandum

(IM) 2009–215 which provided special guidance for land use plans in connection with

components of the National Landscape Conservation System with regard to multiple use of

those lands. The policy states in part:

A presidential proclamation or act of Congress that designates an area within the

National System of Public Lands supersedes conflicting direction by the FLPMA.

These designations include, but are not limited to, National Monuments, National

Conservation Areas (NCAs), Wilderness Areas, National Scenic or Historic

Trails, Wild and Scenic Rivers, Cooperative Management and Protection Areas,

Outstanding Natural Areas, National Recreation Areas, Forest Reserves or any

other lands described in Public Law 111-11 Sec. 2002(b). Specifically, the land

use plan and management direction for such a designation must comply with the

purposes and objectives of the proclamation or act of Congress regardless of any

conflicts with the FLPMA’s multiple-use mandate.

Emerging Concerns and Changing Circumstances

Emerging concerns and changes in local, regional, and national circumstances were considered

during the revision of the existing plan, as identified in the Notice of Intent (NOI).

Management under BLM's multiple use mandate can result in conflicts between resource uses,

such as energy and minerals management, and resources, such as areas with special resource

values like sensitive species habitat. This tension is further compounded by changing conditions

in surrounding areas, such as air quality concerns in southwestern Wyoming, greater sage-grouse

habitat protection issues, the growing recognition of the difficulty of establishing reclamation

following surface disturbance, and the increased potential for the introduction and spread of

invasive plant species. Increasing demand for rights-of-way on public land and access for

recreational use including travel management issues may conflict with protection of the values

of concern in Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs). Changing demographics

and a continuation of the shift from labor income to non-labor income such as retirement and

investments may have changed the demands for different types of uses on the public lands. Visual

resources are an important component to the quality of life in the community; visual resource

management decisions have important implications for development and land use. Guidance and

regulations for analysis of lands with wilderness characteristics and waterway segments with

wild and scenic characteristics result in the need for public involvement in planning processes

associated with these areas. The pace of mineral development and the areas in which development

will be authorized have important implications for the local and state economy and are directly

related to land use decisions and authorizations. The BLM has issued guidance following oil and

gas leasing reform (IM 2010-117) which authorizes analyzing external and internal proposals for

Master Leasing Plans (MLPs) in RMP revisions. Both external and internal proposals have been

received for having MLPs in different portions of the planning area.

1.2.2. Purpose of Revising the Existing Plan

Section 102 of the FLPMA sets forth the policy for periodically projecting the present and

future use of public lands and their resources using the land use planning process. Sections 201

Chapter 1 Introduction

Purpose of Revising the Existing Plan February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 5

and 202 of the FLPMA and BLM’s planning regulations (43 CFR 1600) establish the BLM’s

land use planning requirements. BLM Handbook H-1601-1, Land Use Planning Handbook,

provides more detailed and up-to-date guidance for implementing the BLM land use planning

requirements. The purpose of the land use plan is to ensure BLM-administered lands are managed

in accordance with the FLPMA and the principles of multiple use and sustained yield. The land

use plan establishes management direction for land within an administrative area through desired

outcomes and actions needed to achieve them. The reason for revising the existing plan is to

address the changes occurring in the planning area and to select a future management strategy that

best achieves a combination of the following:

● Employ a community-based planning approach to collaborate with federal, state, and local

cooperating agencies.

● Establish goals and objectives for management of resources and resource uses within the

approximately 2.4-million surface acres and 2.8-million acres of federal mineral estate

administered by the Lander Field Office in accordance with the principles of multiple use

and sustained yield.

● Identify land use plan decisions to guide future land-management actions and subsequent

site-specific implementation decisions.

● Identify management actions and allowable uses anticipated to achieve the established goals

and objectives and reach desired outcomes.

● Provide comprehensive management direction by making land use decisions for all

appropriate resources and resource uses administered by the Lander Field Office.

● Provide for compliance with applicable tribal, federal, and state laws, standards,

implementation plans, and BLM policies and regulations.

● Recognize the nation’s needs for domestic sources of minerals, food, timber, and fiber, and

incorporate requirements of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-58).

● Retain flexibility to adapt to new and emerging issues and opportunities and to provide for

adjustments to decisions over time based on new information and monitoring.

● Strive to be compatible with existing plans and policies of adjacent local, state, tribal, and

federal agencies and consistent with federal law, regulations, and BLM policy.

1.3. Planning Process

The BLM is directed by the FLPMA to plan for and manage “public lands.” As defined by the

Act, public lands are those federally owned lands, and any interest in lands (e.g., federally owned

mineral estate), that are administered by BLM. RMPs are developed to address the BLM’s

mission to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the public lands for the use and

enjoyment of present and future generations.

The RMP provides basic program direction with the establishment of goals, objectives, and

allowable uses. The RMP focuses on what resource conditions, uses, and visitor experiences

should be achieved and maintained over time. Since this involves considering natural processes

with long-term timeframes, the RMP must take a long-term view.

An approved RMP establishes the 1) resource condition goals and objectives, 2) the allowable

resource uses and related levels of production or use to be maintained, 3) land areas to be managed

for limited, restricted, or exclusive resource uses or for transfer from BLM administration, 4)

program constraints and general management practices and protocols, and 5) intervals and

standards for monitoring the plan.

February 2013

Chapter 1 Introduction

Planning Process
6 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Revision of an existing plan is a major federal action for the BLM. The National Environmental

Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended, requires federal agencies to prepare an EIS for major

federal actions; thus, this Proposed RMP and Final EIS accompanies the revision of the existing

plan. This Proposed RMP and Final EIS analyzes the impacts of four alternative RMPs for the

planning area, including the No Action Alternative. The No Action Alternative identifies current

status of resources and land uses as well as current management practices (the existing plan).

Under the No Action Alternative, current management practices would continue for all resources

and land uses. NEPA requires analysis of a No Action Alternative.

The BLM planning process, as set forth in the BLM Handbook H-1601-1, Land Use Planning

Handbook (BLM 2005b), is designed to help the BLM identify the uses of BLM-administered

lands desired by the public and to consider these uses to the extent they are consistent with the

laws established by Congress and the policies of the executive branch of the federal government.

The steps in the planning process include:

1. Identification of Issues

2. Development of Planning Criteria

3. Collect and Compile Inventory Data

4. Analysis of the Management Situation

5. Formulate Alternatives

6. Estimation of Impacts of Alternatives

7. Selection of a Preferred Alternative

8. Selection of the Resource Management Plan

9. Monitoring and Evaluation

As part of these steps, the BLM wrote a preparation plan to focus the planning process and

provide management direction, oversight, structure, and a cost estimate for the RMP revision.

The publication of the NOI in the Federal Register on February 13, 2007 announced BLM’s

decision to prepare an EIS, formally initiated the plan revision, and began the scoping process.

The BLM utilized the public scoping process to identify planning issues to direct the revision of

the existing plan (see Chapter 5). The BLM also used the scoping process to introduce the public

to preliminary planning criteria, which set limits to the scope of the RMP revision.

As appropriate, the BLM collected data to address planning issues and to fill data gaps identified

during public scoping. Using these data, the planning issues, and the planning criteria, the BLM

conducted an AMS to describe current management and identify management opportunities for

addressing the planning issues. Current management, under the existing plan, would continue

through selection of the No Action Alternative. Results of the scoping process and the AMS

clarified the purpose and need and identified key planning issues that focus planning efforts and

that need to be addressed by the RMP revision.

During alternative formulation, the BLM collaborated with cooperating agencies to identify goals

and objectives for resources and resource uses in the planning area. These desired outcomes

addressed the key planning issues, were constrained by the planning criteria, and incorporated the

management opportunities identified by the BLM.

Chapter 1 Introduction

Planning Process February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 7

The details of alternatives were developed through the development of management actions

and allowable uses anticipated to achieve the goals and objectives. The alternatives represent a

reasonable range for managing resources and resource uses within the planning area. Chapter 2

of this document describes and summarizes the alternatives.

The BLM analyzed the impacts of each alternative in Chapter 4. With input from cooperating

agencies and BLM specialists, and consideration of planning issues, planning criteria, and

the impacts of alternatives, the BLM selected Alternative D as the Preferred Alternative, and

published the plan in the Draft RMP and EIS.

A Notice of Availability (NOA) 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 later extended the comment period for an additional 45 days, ending the comment period on

January 20, 2012. Following receipt and consideration of public comments on the Draft RMP

and EIS, the BLM prepared this Proposed RMP and Final EIS. The BLM prepared a Comment

Analysis Report, which summarizes all substantive comments received during the 135-day public

comment period and the BLM’s responses to those comments, including how the agency revised

the RMP and EIS based on comments. The report is presented in Appendix X (p. 1829).

The publication of the NOA in the Federal Register for this Proposed RMP and Final EIS began a

30-day protest period and 60-day Governor’s consistency review period. The BLM will resolve

protests and the Governor’s recommended changes and prepare a ROD and Approved RMP.

After issuing the Approved RMP and ROD, an Implementation Strategy will be developed.

The Implementation Strategy will include an annual coordination meeting between BLM and

the agencies cooperating in the RMP revision. The annual coordination meeting will include

an update on implementation of the plan, foreseeable activities for the upcoming year, and

opportunities for continued collaboration with the RMP cooperators. Additional coordination

meetings may be held as needed.

1.4. Planning Issues

The BLM conducted an early public scoping process to determine the scope of issues to be

addressed in this RMP and EIS. Scoping is a collaborative public involvement process to identify

planning issues to be addressed in the planning process. As part of the scoping process, the BLM

solicited comments and issues (including during five public scoping meetings [see Chapter 5])

from the public, organizations, tribal governments, and federal, state, and local agencies, as well

as from BLM specialists. The BLM’s Land Use Planning Handbook (BLM 2005b) defines

planning issues as “...disputes or controversies about existing and potential land and resource

allocations, levels of resource use, production, and related management practices.” Issues

identified during the scoping and RMP revision process comprise two categories:

● Issues within the scope of the EIS and used to develop alternatives or otherwise addressed

in the EIS

● Issues outside the scope of the EIS or that could require policy, regulatory, or administrative

actions

February 2013

Chapter 1 Introduction

Planning Issues
8 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

1.4.1. Issues Addressed

Those planning issues determined to be within the scope of the EIS are used to develop one or

more of the alternatives or are addressed in other parts of the EIS. For example, as planning

issues were refined, the BLM collaborated with cooperating agencies to develop a range of

reasonable alternatives designed to address and/or resolve key planning issues, such as what areas

are suitable for energy and mineral resource development. A range of reasonable alternatives

provides various management approaches for how the BLM and cooperating agencies can address

this and other key planning issues, including the management of resources and resource uses in

the planning area. During the scoping period, the key planning issues identified for developing

alternatives in the Draft RMP and EIS are listed below:

Energy and Minerals Management

● What areas are suitable or not suitable for energy and mineral resource development?

● What areas should be offered for oil and gas leasing with MLPs?

● What level of development should be allowed in areas suitable for energy and mineral

resource development?

Management of Riparian Areas and Water Quality Concerns

● How should riparian areas be managed to protect the integrity of fish and wildlife habitat as

well as protect local water quality?

Livestock and Wild Horse Grazing and Vegetation Management

● How should soil, water, and vegetation be managed to reduce fuel loads and achieve forest

health and healthy rangelands while providing for livestock and wild horse grazing and fish

and wildlife habitat?

Recreation/Visitor Use and Safety Management

● How should BLM-administered land be managed to provide access for recreation and general

enjoyment of the public lands while protecting cultural and natural resources and public

safety?

Travel Management, Including Off-highway Traffic

● How should travel be managed to provide access for recreation, commercial uses, and general

enjoyment of the public lands while protecting cultural and natural resources?

Management of Wildlife Habitat, Including Protection of Sensitive Species Habitat

● How should special status species conservation strategies be applied given the BLM’s

requirement for multiple use management and sustained yield? How will these strategies

affect other public land resources?

Access to Public Lands and Management Considerations

● What land adjustments are necessary to improve access and management of public lands?

Chapter 1 Introduction

Issues Addressed February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 9

Management of Areas with Special Values

● What areas, if any, contain unique or sensitive resources requiring special management?

Management and Protection of Public Land Resources While Allowing For Multiple Uses

● How should BLM-administered lands be managed to protect natural and cultural resources,

while fulfilling the BLM’s mandate to provide access for multiple uses?

For a detailed description of all issues identified during scoping, please refer to the Lander Field

Office Scoping Comment Summary Report (BLM 2007a). The scoping report is available on

the Lander RMP website, http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/content/wy/en/programs/Planning/rmps/

lander.html.

1.4.2. Issues Considered but Not Further Analyzed

Laws, regulations, policies, and executive orders require specific resource topics be examined

during the NEPA process. In some instances, initial evaluation reveals issues that are not relevant

to the planning area or do not require further analysis. Examples of these topics are listed below.

Prime and Unique Farmlands – In accordance with the Farmland Protection Policy Act, the BLM

determined that no prime or unique farmlands or farmland of statewide or local importance

occur on public lands in the planning area. None of the actions proposed in this RMP revision

would disturb farmlands; therefore, impacts on prime and unique farmlands were not analyzed

further in this RMP revision.

1.5. Planning Criteria

Planning criteria are the standards, rules, and guidelines that help to guide the RMP planning

process. These criteria influence all aspects of the planning process, including inventory and data

collection, developing issues to address, formulating alternatives, estimating impacts, selecting

the Preferred Alternative and the Proposed RMP. In conjunction with the planning issues, planning

criteria ensure that the planning process is focused and incorporates appropriate analyses.

Planning criteria are developed from appropriate laws, regulations, and policies. The criteria also

help to guide the final plan selection and are used as a basis for evaluating the responsiveness of

the planning options. Planning criteria used in this RMP revision are as follows:

● The plan will be completed in compliance with the FLPMA (43 United States Code

[U.S.C.]1701 et seq.) and NEPA.

● The plan will recognize valid existing rights.

● Public participation will be encouraged throughout the process by collaborating and building

relationships with tribes, state and local governments, federal agencies, local stakeholders,

and others with interest in the plan.

● Planning decisions will cover BLM-administered public lands, including split-estate

lands where the subsurface minerals are severed from the surface right, and the BLM

has legal jurisdiction over one or the other. No decisions will be made relative to

non-BLM-administered lands.

● The proposed RMP will comply with all applicable laws, regulations, and policies.

● Impacts from the management alternatives considered in the revised RMP will be analyzed in

an EIS developed in accordance with regulations at 43 CFR 1610 and 40 CFR 1500.

February 2013

Chapter 1 Introduction

Issues Considered but Not Further Analyzed
10 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

● The planning process will follow the stages of an EIS-level planning process. For specific

information, please see the Land Use Planning Handbook, H-1601-1 (BLM 2005b).

● For program specific guidance of land use planning level decisions, the process will follow

the Land Use Planning Manual 1601 and Handbook H-1601-1, Appendix C (BLM 2005b).

● Decisions in the plan will strive to be compatible with the existing plans and policies of

adjacent local, state, federal, and tribal agencies as long as the decisions are consistent with

the purposes, policies, and programs of federal law, and regulations applicable to public lands.

● The RMP will recognize the State of Wyoming’s responsibility and authority to manage

wildlife. BLM will consult with the Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD).

● Planning decisions will comply with the Endangered Species Act and BLM interagency

agreements with the USFWS.

● The National Sage-grouse Habitat Conservation Strategy (BLM 2004a) requires that impacts

to sagebrush habitat and sagebrush-dependent wildlife species be analyzed and considered

in BLM land use planning efforts for public lands with sagebrush habitat in the planning

area. Management of surface-disturbing and disruptive activities will follow the policy set

forth in IMs Washington Office (WO)-2012–044, WY-2010–012, and WY-2010–013 for

the protection of greater sage-grouse habitat.

● The planning team will work cooperatively and collaboratively with cooperating agencies

and all other interested groups, agencies, and individuals.

● The BLM and cooperating agencies will jointly develop alternatives for resolution of resource

management issues and management concerns.

● The planning process will incorporate the Standards for Healthy Rangelands and Guidelines

for Livestock Grazing Management for Public Lands Administered by the BLM in the State

of Wyoming as goal statements.

● Areas with special environmental quality will be protected and if necessary designated as

ACECs, Wild and Scenic Rivers, or other appropriate designations.

● Any public land surface found to meet the eligibility criteria to be given further consideration

for inclusion in the Wild and Scenic River System will be addressed in the RMP revision

effort in terms of developing interim management options in the alternatives for the EIS.

● Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) will be managed under BLM Manual 6330, Management

of Wilderness Study Areas, which replaces the Interim Management Policy for Lands under

Wilderness Review, until Congress either designates all or portions of the WSA as wilderness

or releases the lands from further wilderness consideration. It is no longer the policy of the

BLM to make formal determinations regarding wilderness character, to designate additional

WSAs through the RMP process, or to manage any lands other than existing WSAs in

accordance with BLM Manual 6330.

● The BLM will consider management to protect and maintain lands with wilderness

characteristics through the RMP revision process.

● The BLM will protect, manage, and control for a healthy wild horse population consistent

with the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971.

● Forest management strategies will be consistent with the Healthy Forests Restoration Act.

● Fire management strategies will be consistent with the Wyoming Fire Management Plan

(BLM 2004b).

● Geographic Information System (GIS) and metadata information will meet Federal

Geographic Data Committee standards, as required by Executive Order 12906. All other

applicable BLM data standards will also be followed.

● The planning process will involve American Indian tribal governments and will provide

strategies for the protection of recognized traditional uses.

Chapter 1 Introduction

Planning Criteria February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 11

● All proposed management actions will be based upon current scientific information, research

and technology, as well as existing inventory and monitoring information.

● The RMP will include adaptive management criteria and protocol to deal with future issues.

Adaptive management is a system of management practices based on clearly identified

outcomes, monitoring to determine if management actions are meeting outcomes, and, if not,

facilitating management changes that will best ensure that outcomes are met or to re-evaluate

the outcomes.

● The planning process will use the Wyoming BLM Mitigation Guidelines to develop

management options and alternatives and analyze their impacts, and as part of the

planning criteria for developing the options and alternatives and for determining mitigation

requirements.

● A RFD scenario for fluid minerals will be developed from analysis of past activity and

production, which will aid in environmental consequences analysis.

● Planning and management direction will be focused on the relative values of resources and

not the combination of uses that will give the greatest economic return or economic output.

1.6. Related Plans

BLM planning policies require that the BLM review approved or adopted resource plans of other

federal, state, local, and tribal governments and, to the maximum extent consistent with federal

law and the purposes of FLPMA, be consistent with those plans. The following plans are related

to the management of land and resources and apply to this RMP revision.

● Shoshone National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (USFS 2009a)

● Fremont County Land Use Plan (Fremont County 2004)

● Natrona County Development Plan (Natrona County 1998)

● Carbon County Land Use Plan (Carbon County 1998)

● Sweetwater County Comprehensive Plan (Sweetwater County 2002)

● Hot Springs County Land Use Plan (Hot Springs County 2002)

● Natrona County Conservation District Long Range Strategic Plan 2011-2015 (Natrona

County Conservation District 2010)

● Popo Agie Conservation District Long Range Plan 2008-2012 (Popo Agie Conservation

District 2007)

● Saratoga-Encampment-Rawlins Conservation District Long Range and Natural Resource

Management Plan 2007-2011 (Saratoga-Encampment-Rawlins Conservation District 2006)

● Sweetwater County Conservation District Land and Resource Use Plan and Policy (January

2005) (Sweetwater County Conservation District 2005)

● Dubois-Crowheart Conservation District Land Use and Resource Management Plan

2011-2015 (DCCD 2010)

● Lower Wind River Conservation District Long Range Plan 2011-2015 (Lower Wind River

Conservation District 2010)

● U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Pathfinder Interim Management Plan (USFWS 2004)

● National Park Service’s Comprehensive Management and Use Plans for the California, Pony

Express, Oregon and Mormon Pioneer National Historic Trails (NPS 1999)

● The 2009 Continental Divide National Scenic Trail Comprehensive Plan (USFS 2009b)

● Lander Field Office Resource Management Plan (BLM 1987a)

● Pinedale Field Office Draft Resource Management Plan (BLM 2008a)

● Cody Field Office Resource Management Plan (BLM 1990)

● Grass Creek Resource Management Plan (BLM 1998)

February 2013

Chapter 1 Introduction

Related Plans
12 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

● Washakie Resource Management Plan (BLM 1988)

● Casper Resource Management Plan (BLM 2007b)

● Rawlins Field Office Resource Management Plan (BLM 2004c)

● Green River Resource Management Plan (BLM 1997a)

Chapter 1 Introduction February 2013
Chapter 2. Resource Management

Alternatives
This page intentionally

left blank
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 15

2.1. Resource Management Alternatives

This chapter presents four alternative resource management plans (RMPs) for managing the

Lander Field Office planning area. The letters A, B, C, and D identify the four alternative plans.

Alternative A, the No Action Alternative, represents the continuation of current management

direction. Alternatives B and C represent the “bookends,” or the range of alternatives. The

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) identified Alternative D as its Preferred Alternative in the

Draft RMP and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Based on comments received during the

public comment period on the Draft RMP and EIS, the BLM revised the Preferred Alternative.

As modified, Alternative D is now presented as the Proposed RMP in the Final EIS. Each

alternative provides a different approach for managing public lands and resources within the

planning area, and represents a complete and reasonable land use plan that meets the purpose and

need described in Chapter 1.

2.2. Summary of Changes to the Proposed RMP and Final EIS

The Draft RMP and EIS was published in September 2011, and the public comment period closed

in January 2012. The BLM identified 1,685 individual comments from the comment documents

received, which touched on a wide range of issues. While many of the comments strongly

supported the Preferred Alternative in the Draft RMP and EIS, commenters also identified areas

where the document could be improved. The Lander Field Office carefully evaluated these

comments (see Appendix X (p. 1829)). The Proposed RMP and final EIS contains a number

of changes made in response to comments. Before the public comment period for the Draft

RMP and EIS ended, the BLM published the Notice of Intent (NOI) for the greater sage-grouse

programmatic EIS. The BLM received extensive comments on that planning effort regarding

management for the benefit of greater sage-grouse, and the agency also considered these

comments during revision of the Draft Lander RMP and EIS. Substantive changes are identified

in the document with shaded text. A summary of the key management changes follows.

Changes related to greater sage-grouse: Protections for greater sage-grouse and their habitat

were incorporated to better protect sagebrush habitat for the benefit of all sagebrush-obligate

species. For example, the BLM incorporated Required Design Features identified by the

Sage-grouse National Technical Team (NTT) and other sources to address impacts from

surface-disturbing activities. These protections will have the effect of limiting surface disturbance

and habitat fragmentation, which will benefit many resources, including soil and water,

vegetation, viewshed, and wildlife. For the most part, the Required Design Features were a

restatement of existing management practices, such as co-location of rights-of-way (ROWs) or

clustering of development infrastructure. Some of the measures recommended by the NTT, while

not incorporated in the Proposed RMP and Final EIS, were analyzed under other alternatives.

This type of change includes the limitation on use of prescribed fire, the requirement for full

suppression of wildfire in Core Area receiving less than 12 inches of precipitation per year, and

the prioritization of Core Area for rangeland health assessments and reclamation projects.

Changes of ROW management from exclusion to avoidance: A number of commenters, and

particularly local and state Cooperating Agencies, stated that the exclusion areas associated with

the Congressionally Designated Trails and the Greater Sage Grouse Reference and Education Area

were unnecessarily restrictive, and that the resource objectives could be achieved with avoidance

management and appropriate avoidance criteria. Additional analysis by the Lander Field Office

confirmed that exclusion was too restrictive because it involved a complete prohibition with no

February 2013

Chapter 2 Resource Management Alternatives

Resource Management Alternatives
16 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

provision for exception or waiver, whereas avoidance allowed ROWs to be authorized where

suitable and properly mitigated. The Proposed RMP manages approximately 411,906 fewer acres

as ROW exclusion areas and approximately 321,334 more acres as ROW avoidance areas. The

BLM also identified avoidance criteria in Appendix E (p. 1483).

Designation of additional ROW corridors: State and local Cooperating Agencies and industry

commented that there were insufficient designated corridors, particularly for underground

pipelines. The Governor of Wyoming emphasized the need to facilitate the transportation of

carbon dioxide (CO2) for enhanced oil recovery and carbon sequestration. The Lander Field

Office had evaluated the demand for CO2 transportation, which has been a BLM-authorized use

for many years. However, the Governor identified future demands in other parts of Wyoming that

could best be supported by pipelines through the planning area. Accordingly, 50,047 additional

acres, all in areas with existing disturbance, were designated as ROW corridors.

Broadening the management focus of the Greater Sage Grouse Reference and Education

Area: Commenters pointed out that management of the area from Hudson to Atlantic City,

identified in the Draft RMP and EIS as emphasizing research on greater sage-grouse, is also the

location of other very important values, and that sole species management direction overlooked

opportunities to manage the area as a whole to protect those other values. These values include

important viewsheds such as the backdrop of the Wind River foothills and the Towns of Lander,

Red Canyon, and Atlantic City; important cultural values, including regional and Congressionally

Designated Trails; historic mining locations in South Pass; and crucial winter range for elk, mule

deer, pronghorn and moose. In addition to emphasizing multiple resource management, the

commenters also noted that the management emphasis was too narrowly focused on protecting

the greater sage-grouse migration corridor in the proposed Twin Creek ACEC, but overlooked

development threats to other resources. The management in the Preferred Alternative was overly

restrictive of ROWs, which are a discretionary action for BLM, and did not protect the area from

locatable mineral entry, which is a non-discretionary action. Accordingly, the Hudson to Atlantic

City area, including the Twin Creek ACEC, and the Lander Slope and Red Canyon ACECs are

proposed for withdrawal from locatable mineral entry. Although all of the area is excluded for

major ROWs, it is avoided for minor ROWs, which provides the multiple-use management

flexibility for the BLM to protect resources but to allow use that does not have adverse impacts.

This management focus is in keeping with the management already identified for the Lander

Slope, Red Canyon, and South Pass ACECs, and the efforts to work with the State of Wyoming

to acquire state trust lands to protect values in the area while allowing the state to acquire lands

elsewhere that could be managed to provide more trust income.

Extending mule deer crucial winter range timing stipulations to mule deer winter range: The

1987 RMP protected both elk crucial winter range and winter range because of the importance

of the elk herds, but did not do so for mule deer. Since 1987, elk populations have stabilized

and in some places increased, but mule deer numbers are down not only in the planning area,

but also across the Rocky Mountain region. Several commenters identified the need for special

management for mule deer, particularly in response to increasing oil and gas development in

important mule deer habitat. Subsequent to the release of the Draft RMP and EIS, the BLM

received a proposed Plan of Development for a large oil and gas field in the Lysite area. The

Lysite area was identified for intensive development in the Draft RMP and EIS. The Plan of

Development, which will be analyzed in an EIS, identifies a larger area than had originally been

projected, with increased development pressures on crucial mule deer populations. The Proposed

RMP extends the same seasonal restrictions to mule deer winter habitat as crucial winter habitat.

Chapter 2 Resource Management Alternatives

Summary of Changes to the Proposed RMP and

Final EIS February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 17

Changes in the National Trails Management Corridor: Between publication of the Draft RMP

and EIS and the preparation of the Proposed RMP and Final EIS, national guidance for units of

the National Landscape Conservation System (NLCS) changed, with important alterations in the

guidance for Congressionally Designated Trails. This change in guidance supported many of the

public comments received regarding the boundaries of the Congressionally Designated Trails.

The Preferred Alternative managed the corridor in which Congressionally Designated Trails are

located as the Heritage Tourism and Recreation Corridor. The boundaries of the Heritage Tourism

and Recreation Corridor were based on a 5-mile distance from the Congressionally Designated

Trails farthest apart, without regard to the setting or visual resources. Within the 5-mile distance

there were two different oil and gas management zones (with controlled surface use [CSU] or

no surface occupancy [NSO] management). The Heritage Tourism and Recreation Corridor was

excluded to major ROWs except for three designated crossings. Public comments indicated that

there was a need for one additional crossing at the location where the Bison Basin Road meets

Highway 287. The Proposed RMP and Final EIS incorporates the request for an additional

crossing that meets strict criteria, including staying within the existing disturbance of the County

Road. The National Trails Management Corridor (NTMC) was redrawn based on the setting of

the Congressionally Designated Trails and their nature and purposes, as required by guidance.

The overall size of the NTMC is smaller than the Heritage Tourism and Recreation Corridor, but

within the NTMC, management is uniform rather than differing by zones. The NTMC is managed

as an avoidance area for ROWs but, except for crossing of the actual ruts of the National Historic

Trails (NHTs), ROWs may be considered that meet the NTMC nature and purposes and Visual

Resource Management (VRM) objectives.

Comments submitted on the Draft RMP and EIS fell within the wide range of alternatives

analyzed by the BLM. The changes made in the Proposed RMP and Final EIS prompted by the

comments do not require a supplemental EIS because they do not include or raise any issues

that were outside the range of the alternatives.

2.3. Alternative Development Process

To comply with National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements in the development

of alternatives for this RMP and EIS, the BLM sought public input and analyzed a range of

alternatives, including the No Action Alternative (Alternative A). Alternative formulation

considered existing land use plan decisions and issues and concerns developed internally and

solicited from the public during the scoping process. Broadly, the BLM followed five steps to

develop alternatives:

1. Receive Public Input (Scoping)

2. Identify Current Management (Alternative A – No Action Alternative)

3. Develop the Range of Alternatives (alternatives B and C)

4. Analyze the Effects of the Alternatives (alternatives A, B, and C)

5. Develop the Preferred Alternative (Alternative D)

February 2013

Chapter 2 Resource Management Alternatives

Alternative Development Process
18 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

2.3.1. Receive Public Input

The BLM collected and considered public input received during the scoping process

in developing the alternatives and the associated management actions. The BLM

considers public input throughout the alternative development process. Chapter 5 and

the project Scoping Comment Summary (available on the RMP revision website at

http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/programs/Planning/rmps/lander/docs.html) summarize the results

of the public scoping process and opportunities for future public involvement.

2.3.2. Identify Current Management

The 1987 Lander Field Office RMP (existing plan), is the basis for the No Action Alternative

(Alternative A) also called current management. Alternative A, in conjunction with the planning

criteria and the key issues identified during the scoping process, was used as a baseline for

developing the range of alternatives.

2.3.3. Develop the Range of Alternatives

The BLM conducted a series of 10 alternatives development workshops with a team comprised

of BLM staff and cooperating agencies. During the initial workshop, the team shared their

knowledge and expertise and collaborated to identify goals and objectives for each resource.

Each subsequent workshop refined the management composing each alternative and narrowed

the scope of alternatives to a reasonable range, limited by the planning criteria (refer to Chapter

1, Planning Criteria). Table 2.1, “Alternatives Development Workshops” (p. 18) identifies the

dates and focus of each workshop. Prior to each workshop, the BLM provided preliminary

draft alternatives prepared by BLM specialists to the cooperating agencies for each resource to

be discussed during the workshop. These preliminary alternatives served as a starting point for

alternative formulation and a basis for discussion by team members during the workshops.

Table 2.1. Alternatives Development Workshops

Workshop Number Dates Focus

1 March 18 – 20, 2008 Goals and Objectives

2 May 21 – 23, 2008 Range of Alternatives

3 June 18 – 20, 2008 Range of Alternatives

4 August 20 – 21, 2008 Range of Alternatives

5 September 24 – 25, 2008 Range of Alternatives

6 December 3 – 5, 2008 Range of Alternatives

7 January 21 – 23, 2009 Range of Alternatives

8 February 18 – 20, 2009 Range of Alternatives

9 December 9, 2009 Range of Alternatives

10 May 12 – 14, 2010 Preferred Alternative

The team formulated a range of alternatives (alternatives B and C) to meet the purpose and need

of this RMP and EIS using different approaches to resource use. The Preferred Alternative was

subsequently developed based upon the range identified at the meetings.

Management actions developed under all alternatives are subject to valid existing rights. In

addition, management actions may only be implemented when consistent with applicable laws,

regulations, and policies. The BLM considered, but did not carry forward for detailed analysis,

Chapter 2 Resource Management Alternatives

Receive Public Input February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 19

alternatives that did not meet the planning criteria or the purpose and need (see Chapter 1), or

were already part of an existing plan, policy, requirement, or administrative function that would

continue under the revised RMP.

2.3.4. Analyze the Effects of the Alternatives

The fourth step in the alternatives development process involved analyzing the effects of the

range of alternatives. This task involved analyzing the impacts of one set of resource management

actions on other resources and resource uses. The BLM compiled these data into Chapter 4

and considered them in step five.

2.3.5. Develop the Preferred Alternative

The BLM developed Alternative D, the Preferred Alternative, by considering the impacts analysis

(Chapter 4) for alternatives A through C; knowledge of specific issues raised throughout the

planning process; planning criteria; and recommendations from cooperating agencies, BLM

specialists, and resource experts.

The BLM presented the Preferred Alternative to the team during the Preferred Alternative

workshop. Refer to Table 2.1, “Alternatives Development Workshops” (p. 18) for the date of the

Preferred Alternative workshop. The BLM refined the Preferred Alternative using the following

selection criteria:

● Reflects what the BLM believes to be the best combination of decisions to achieve its goals

and policies

● Represents the best solution to the purpose and need as described in Chapter 1

● Provides the best approach to address key planning issues

● Considers cooperating agencies, public scoping comments, and BLM specialists’

recommendations

The BLM presented the Preferred Alternative (Alternative D) in the Draft RMP and EIS for public

comment. Based on comments received during the public comment period on the Draft RMP and

EIS, the BLM revised the Preferred Alternative. As modified, Alternative D is now presented

as the Proposed RMP in the Final EIS. Following resolution of protests and the Governor’s

consistency review, the BLM will prepare a Record of Decision (ROD) and Approved RMP.

2.4. Alternative Components

Each alternative comprises two categories of land use planning decisions: (1) goals and objectives

and (2) allowable uses and management actions.

2.4.1. Goals and Objectives

Goals and objectives direct BLM actions to most effectively meet legal mandates, regulations,

agency policy, as well as local and regional resource needs. Goals are broad statements of desired

outcomes that are usually not quantifiable. The BLM has developed Land Health Standards

applicable to all ecosystems and management actions that are typically included as goals in

land use plans. Objectives identify specific desired outcomes for resources. Objectives are

usually quantifiable and measurable and may have established timeframes for achievement.

February 2013

Chapter 2 Resource Management Alternatives

Analyze the Effects of the Alternatives
20 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

When quantified, the indicators associated with Land Health Standards are a possible source of

objectives in land use plans. The Detailed Alternative Descriptions by Resource section (Section

2.7 (p. 72)) of this chapter describes the management goals and objectives for each resource.

2.4.2. Allowable Uses and Management Actions

The BLM developed allowable uses and management actions to achieve the goals and objectives

defined for each resource.

2.4.2.1. Allowable Uses

Allowable uses are a category of land use decisions that identify where specific land uses are

allowed, restricted, or excluded on BLM-administered lands and federal mineral estate in the

planning area. Alternatives may include specific land use restrictions to meet goals and objectives

and can exclude certain land uses (e.g., mineral leasing, recreation, utility corridors, and livestock

grazing) to preserve resource values. For example, alternatives considered in this RMP revision

restrict surface-disturbing activities from oil and gas development within certain occupied greater

sage-grouse leks and the associated buffers. Allowable uses often contain a spatial component to

identify the management prescription for particular geographic areas. Maps of the planning area

in Appendix B (p. 1445) illustrate these spatial components and define the geographical extent of

the management actions. The maps 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 could 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 Proposed RMP are in all cases

the decision and not modified by the manner in which the decision is displayed on the maps.

2.4.2.2. Management Actions

Management actions are proactive measures (e.g., measures the BLM will pursue to enhance

watershed function and condition), or limitations intended to guide BLM activities in the planning

area. An example of this type of management action is to manage forests and woodlands to

improve vegetation health and for the benefit of other resources using natural processes to the

greatest extent possible.

2.4.2.3. Organization of Allowable Uses and Management Actions in the

Alternatives

For simplicity, the remainder of this chapter uses the term “management action” to include both

allowable uses and management actions. Therefore, when text refers to management actions, it

includes both categories. The alternatives include two types of management actions. Management

actions common to all alternatives, apply regardless of the alternative. Management actions by

alternative, represent the range of land use management decisions considered across alternatives.

These management actions vary among the alternatives and represent a range of management

options the BLM considered to meet the stated goals and objectives and the purpose and need

for the RMP revision.

Chapter 2 Resource Management Alternatives

Allowable Uses and Management Actions February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 21

2.5. Alternatives Considered but Not Carried Forward for

Detailed Analysis

The BLM considered several alternatives and management options as possible methods for

resolving resource management issues and conflicts, but after further review and consideration,

did not carry several of those forward for detailed analysis. This section describes these

alternatives and options. Reasons for not carrying these alternatives/options forward include: (1)

they would not fulfill requirements of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) or

other existing laws or regulations; (2) they would not meet the purpose and need; (3) they were

already part of an existing plan, policy, or administrative function; or (4) they did not fall within

the limits of the planning criteria.

2.5.1. Require a Plan of Operations for the Entire Field Office

The BLM considered an alternative that would have required a mining Plan of Operations

for all locatable mineral activities in the planning area. The requirement for when a Plan of

Operations for locatable minerals is needed is determined by federal regulation (43 Code of

Federal Regulations [CFR] 3809 et seq.) and is not an RMP decision. Accordingly, the proposed

alternative is unreasonable because it is inconsistent with basic policy and regulation.

To the extent that this is a request that the entire planning area be evaluated as an Area of Critical

Environmental Concern (ACEC), which is the only RMP decision that would require a Plan of

Operations that could be applied to all BLM-administered lands, this alternative would not meet

the purpose and need for the EIS and would prevent other reasonable uses. In any event, the

proposal does not identify relevant and important values that are more than regionally important

or that require special management. To the extent that this is a request for an ACEC for all

occupied greater sage-grouse habitat, this is addressed in Section 2.7, “Greater Sage-Grouse

Management” (p. 34).

2.5.2. Close Abandoned Mine Land Reclaimed Areas to New

Surface Disturbance

A citizen proposal suggested that lands that had been reclaimed under the Abandoned Mine Land

program, which the BLM operates in conjunction with the State of Wyoming, be closed to new

surface disturbance. The proposal was intended to protect the investment in reclamation that had

been made with public funds. The BLM considered prohibiting additional surface disturbance

on these lands both to protect the investment already made in reclamation and to help to ensure

that the reclamation continued to improve. However, the BLM determined that the decision to

allow or not allow new development should be made on a site-specific basis. In some cases,

disturbance might not be appropriate, such as where health and safety issues exist because of prior

use. A total prohibition was determined to be unreasonable and not to meet the purpose and

need of the RMP because it could prevent reasonable multiple use and because the goals of the

proposed alternative could be achieved through other means. For example, any new development

would be required to meet reclamation standards, something that was not required at the time

the original mines were abandoned. Moreover, there are situations where it is less destructive

to the ecosystem as a whole to disturb soils in the process of being reclaimed than historically

undisturbed areas. This determination must be made on a site-specific basis. The BLM lacks data

February 2013

Chapter 2 Resource Management Alternatives

Alternatives Considered but Not Carried

Forward for Detailed Analysis
22 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

or information to support a planning area-wide closure; an alternative considering a closure

would be arbitrary and without scientific basis.

2.5.3. Prohibit Oil and Gas Development

A citizen proposal suggested closing all of the planning area to oil and gas development because

of important resources such as greater sage-grouse habitat, crucial winter range, and visual

resources. The BLM determined that a planning area-wide closure was not in conformance with

policy and regulations. Oil and gas development is an authorized use of BLM-administered lands

and encouraged by national energy policy. Therefore, it would be arbitrary and inconsistent with

existing laws to analyze closing the entire planning area to development. Moreover, that analysis

would be misleading since extensive valid lease rights exist that could be developed regardless of

changes in management in this RMP revision. The alternatives analyzed include modifications

to the approach under Alternative A, in which most of the planning area is open to oil and gas

development, with small areas having a NSO restriction. In addition, the alternatives analyzed

include modifications of oil and gas development:

● Alternative B closes many areas with resource and use conflicts including approximately 2.4

million acres with only 187,524 acres open to leasing.

● Alternative B has more areas with either NSO restrictions or CSU stipulations, particularly in

the vicinity of Congressionally Designated Trails.

● Alternative B analyzes closing all greater sage-grouse Core Area to oil and gas leasing.

Approximately 1 percent of the planning area does not contain greater sage-grouse habitat;

29 percent contains general habitat, and 70 percent contains priority greater sage-grouse

habitat or Core Area. This action translates to the closure of 70 percent of BLM-administered

surface to oil and gas leasing.

A subset of this proposed alternative is to close all occupied greater sage-grouse habitat to oil

and gas leasing. Only 1 percent of the planning area is outside greater sage-grouse habitat. Such

closure would not be consistent with national energy policy and would, similarly, not meet the

purpose and need for this RMP revision.

2.5.4. Identify Oil and Gas Lease Parcels to be Offered Instead

of Responding to Industry Requests and Utilize Master Leasing

Plans

Several proposals suggested that the BLM identify which parcels would be offered for oil and gas

leasing rather than responding to industry nominations. The BLM determined that this alternative

is not an RMP level decision. The BLM addresses the issue raised by the approach – that the

BLM focus development in areas with low resource conflict – through alternatives that open or

close an area to leasing or impose lease restrictions (e.g., CSU or NSO stipulations or timing

limitations). In addition, the existing alternatives identify different ways to protect resources

while allowing resource use.

Subsequent to the start of the RMP revision process, the BLM issued guidance regarding Master

Leasing Plans (MLPs) to address oil and gas leasing in areas with resource values of concern;

see Instruction Memorandum (IM) 2010–117. The BLM received nominations for five areas in

the planning area (either in whole or in part) for which MLPs were requested. BLM guidance

requires land use plan revisions to analyze MLP proposals.

Chapter 2 Resource Management Alternatives

Prohibit Oil and Gas Development February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 23

The Wyoming State Office evaluated the proposals for MLPs in the planning area. Two areas

were determined to be appropriate for analysis under the MLP concept. The other three areas

did not meet the criteria identified in IM 2010–117 because of low development potential or

because much of the area is already leased. The Wind River Hydrologic Basin contains areas with

moderate to high potential. However, the lands with this potential are substantially leased (Map

33). In addition, other management such as greater sage-grouse protections would achieve similar

protection objectives as would be identified in an MLP analysis. The three areas determined not

appropriate for analysis under an MLP include:

Sweetwater/South Pass: The nominated portion in the planning area is entirely within an area

analyzed under Alternative B as closed to leasing and as an ACEC that is open to oil and gas

leasing subject to NSO stipulations under Alternative D. The BLM analyzed other protections

for resource values under the alternatives through limitations on surface disturbance and the

requirement of a Plan of Operation. BLM determined that these alternatives analyze the types

of protections that would be provided for under an MLP analysis.

Green Mountain/Ferris Mountain: The Wyoming State Office determined that the portion of

the proposed MLP area in the Green Mountain/Ferris Mountain area of the planning area

was within the existing Green Mountain ACEC. Alternative B analyzes closing the entire

nominated area to oil and gas leasing, and Alternative D analyzes managing a larger area than

the existing ACEC as open to oil and gas leasing subject to NSO stipulations. The southern

part of the nominated area that is not part of the ACEC in Alternative D is already leased; IM

2010–117 applies to areas where a substantial portion is not leased. The BLM determined

that because the ACEC management would afford the same kind of protections that would be

a part of an MLP analysis, the effect of resource protective management through an MLP

approach was fully considered.

However, in evaluating the Green Mountain/Ferris Mountain proposal, areas to the south of

the ACEC were identified as highly visible with steep slopes that are not suitable for oil and

gas surface operations. Accordingly, this area will be open for oil and gas leasing subject to an

NSO stipulation under Alternative D. These acres were not included in the Impact Analysis

for Planning Model (IMPLAN) analysis of lands open to oil and gas development with

major constraints. However, some of this area has overlapping wildlife timing limitations,

which would be a major constraint. In addition, the economic impacts associated with this

management were not considered to be sufficiently great to reduce the utility of IMPLAN

data as a tool to compare alternatives, particularly in light of the relatively small difference in

impacts between Alternative B (which is more restrictive than Alternative D) and Alternative

C (which is less restrictive than Alternative D). The NSO management is analyzed under

Alternative D in Chapter 4.

The Wind River Hydrologic Basin: The proposal to prepare an MLP analysis for the entire

Bighorn Basin drainage (which includes the Wind River hydrologic basin) includes a vast

area, covering approximately two-thirds of the planning area, and incorporates vastly different

resources, including areas that are already substantially leased and areas with little to no

mineral potential. This type of “broad stroke” oil and gas management approach is suitable

at an RMP level, and not the finer, site-specific planning scale that the MLP approach is

designed to achieve. Since such a large scale proposal does not meet MLP guidance, it is

not further analyzed.

February 2013

Chapter 2 Resource Management Alternatives

Identify Oil and Gas Lease Parcels to be Offered

Instead of Responding to Industry Requests and

Utilize Master Leasing Plans
24 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

The two parcels identified for MLPs that the statewide evaluation determined should be analyzed

were the Dubois Area and Beaver Rim:

Dubois: The proposal identified many resource values in the Dubois Area, some of which

were identified for special management in the 1987 RMP including the East Fork, Whiskey

Mountain, and Dubois Badlands ACEC, and the Whiskey Mountain and Dubois Badlands

Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs). These areas are managed as open to oil and gas leasing

subject to an NSO stipulation. Dubois has high value wildlife resources including three species

listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA): the gray wolf, grizzly bear, and Canada lynx.

In addition, Dubois is home to the largest wintering elk herd outside of elk feeding grounds

and to the nationally famous bighorn sheep herd in the Whiskey Mountain area. However,

the use of an MLP analysis for Dubois was not carried forward for detailed analysis because

two alternatives (B and D) manage the entire Dubois Area as closed to leasing. Alternative C

manages oil and gas as open subject to standard stipulations, and current management under

Alternative A does not include an MLP analysis. As such, protections provided by an MLP

are within the range of alternatives already analyzed. The analysis showed that an MLP that

allowed leasing under any terms would not meet the resource protections the BLM identified

as being required due to the unique resources in the Dubois area. An MLP analysis presumes

that leasing would occur and offers additional site-specific resource protections. These lease

stipulations would be unnecessary if the entire area is closed to leasing. If at a later date, the

BLM made a decision that leasing was appropriate, then a detailed analysis under an MLP

would be appropriate. The BLM considered including an MLP analysis area under Alternative

C (the resource utilization alternative), but determined that this management did not meet

the assumptions for Alternative C management and that maximum utilization under standard

lease stipulations would be analyzed.

Beaver Rim: Application of an MLP in the Beaver Rim area is analyzed in detail under

Alternative D in Chapter 4. The initial citizens’ proposal did not include a map of the

proposed MLP area. After preliminary mapping efforts and further input from the citizens’

proposal group, the BLM refined the boundary of the Beaver Rim MLP area to the area

displayed on Map 135. The Beaver Rim MLP area is further described in the Leasable

Minerals – Oil and Gas section in Chapter 3.

2.5.5. Defer Oil and Gas Leasing until Infrastructure is in Place to

Ensure Price Parity with Other Parts of the Country

The price of natural gas produced in Wyoming is generally lower than gas produced in other

locations, which is often attributed to a lack of infrastructure such as pipelines to take the

product out of Wyoming. Consequently, there is less competition for Wyoming-produced gas

and therefore a lower price is paid. This results in lower revenues to the United States as

well as to the State of Wyoming and local governments. A proposed alternative was to defer

additional leasing until additional infrastructure is in place in order to increase the competition for

Wyoming-produced natural gas and thus increase the economic benefit from oil and gas leasing.

The BLM determined that this approach would inappropriately involve the BLM in industry

financial decisions. Although the prices of oil and natural gas determine the financial contribution

of oil and gas production to Wyoming state and county budgets, lower prices in Wyoming may be

more beneficial to the country as a whole. Accordingly, the proposal was not analyzed in further

detail because the maximization of tax payments associated with oil and gas pricing was not

within the purpose and need for the RMP revision identified in Chapter 1.

Chapter 2 Resource Management Alternatives

Defer Oil and Gas Leasing until Infrastructure is in

Place to Ensure Price Parity with Other Parts of the

Country February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 25

2.5.6. Evaluate Oil Shale-Tar Sands Production

The very southern portion of the planning area has potential for oil shale-tar sands or other

unconventional oil and gas production (BLM 2009b). However, the potential is not high. The

areas are remote from existing oil and gas transportation facilities and have very limited water, a

requirement for oil shale-tar sands production. Consequently, the BLM determined that the

likelihood for commercially viable oil shale-tar sands production was too remote and speculative

to support analysis. Should oil shale-tar sands production become viable in the future, an EIS

would determine if such an action is in compliance with the RMP’s goals and objectives and

whether the RMP would need to be amended. Accordingly, BLM determined that analyzing oil

shale-tar sands was not reasonable.

2.5.7. Consolidate All Wild Horse Herd Management Areas in the

Green Mountain Common Allotment

The BLM considered if there would be resource benefits to consolidating all seven wild horse

Herd Management Areas (HMAs) into one management area in the livestock grazing allotment

called the Green Mountain Common Allotment in lieu of the sheep and cattle that currently utilize

the allotment (along with one HMA). The BLM determined that there were not sufficient data

to make analysis of this alternative feasible. Not enough is known about the benefits of mixing

herds with separate genetic ties, some of which are more typical of the mustangs descended from

Spanish horses. The BLM does not fully understand the herd structures and what moving the

herds would do while still allowing them to be free-roaming. Although identifying an HMA is a

land use planning decision, there has been no public support for changing the use of the Green

Mountain allotment to wild horses only and substantial opposition to any use of the area by

wild horses. Wild horse management is in flux and is being addressed nationally in response to

growing herd numbers and conflicts among all public land users. It might be necessary to consider

a change in HMAs in response to national direction.

Regarding allocating all forage to wild horses by closing the allotment to livestock grazing, the

BLM determined that there were not sufficient resource conflicts to warrant this decision.

2.5.8. Open or Close the Planning Area to Solar Energy

Generation

Solar energy generation is authorized by the BLM through ROW grants. The BLM, through land

use planning decisions, determines if areas will be open or excluded to solar energy generation

ROWs. The BLM determined that the potential for industrial-level solar energy generation in the

planning area is low (BLM and DOE 2003) and Wyoming is not included in the study area for the

Final Solar Energy Development Programmatic EIS (BLM and DOE 2012). Therefore, specific

industrial-level solar energy ROW avoidance and exclusion areas are not analyzed. However,

should an industrial solar energy ROW application be received it would be subject to the ROW

avoidance and exclusion areas within the selected alternative and would undergo the appropriate

environmental analyses. The BLM determined that analysis of solar-energy specific avoidance

and exclusion areas was not reasonable and speculative without more information regarding

demand and potential. Small, individual solar-energy projects such as are associated with small

water wells can be addressed on a site-specific basis.

February 2013

Chapter 2 Resource Management Alternatives

Evaluate Oil Shale-Tar Sands Production
26 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

2.5.9. Close the Lander Slope and Dubois Section 15 Leases to

Livestock Grazing

Several citizen proposals identified an alternative that closes Section 15 leases to livestock

grazing. (See Chapter 3 for a discussion of the two types of grazing allotments; Section 15 leases

are generally small allotments, with more intermingled private lands. The Section 3 leases are

on the Lander Slope and in Dubois.) Although closing these leases to livestock grazing would

be less arbitrary than closing bigger sections to livestock grazing because the leases involve a

smaller area, the data for these allotments still need to be collected as part of rangeland health

assessments. The BLM does not have data showing that resource conflicts in these areas can be

resolved only by closing them to public land grazing. Moreover, because of the intermingling of

private lands, each allotment needs to be evaluated to determine the extent to which additional

fencing would be required in order to enforce a grazing closure. The Lander Slope and Dubois

areas are very important wildlife habitat (see Chapter 3) and the need for fencing could have far

more adverse impacts than the speculative beneficial impacts of removing livestock grazing

use. The BLM determined that the issue for closing the Section 15 leases would be based on

speculation and not data if achieved at the RMP level and thus would be arbitrary to analyze.

2.5.10. Require Planning Area Wide Phased Development

An alternative was suggested to require planning area-wide “phased development” as an approach

to prevent the “boom-bust” aspect of intensive development and to limit additional disturbance

until adequate reclamation has been achieved. The BLM determined that the appropriate scale

for addressing economic issues and disturbance associated with major development was on a

project specific basis. The RMP makes a decision where development may or may not occur by

opening or closing areas to mineral and realty development. Other limits such as lease stipulations

help on a site-specific basis to limit the potential adverse impacts that may result from major

development. However, the market determines when demand for that development will occur and

the actual sites for the development. Accordingly, the pace of development can be identified only

on a site-specific basis. Adequate NEPA analysis requires that economic and cultural impacts

(both direct and cumulative) be analyzed before a particular project is authorized. The same is

true for reclamation. The issues raised by this alternative are addressed in Table 2.52, “8000

Socioeconomic Resources (SR) and Health and Safety” (p. 248). Analysis of these impacts across

the planning area through the RMP revision process would be speculative and arbitrary.

2.5.11. Manage the Beaver Creek Ski Area as a Special

Management Area

The BLM received a citizen proposal to manage the Beaver Creek Ski Area with special

management. The type of management was not identified in the proposal. The BLM agrees that

the area is appropriate for individual management and, in accordance with extensive scoping and

travel management comments, that analysis of the management of the area as a distinct Extensive

Recreation Management Area (ERMA) was appropriate.

Chapter 2 Resource Management Alternatives

Close the Lander Slope and Dubois Section 15

Leases to Livestock Grazing February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 27

2.5.12. Manage Highway 287 as a Scenic Byway

Public comment suggested managing Highway 287 as a BLM Scenic Byway, a part of the

National Scenic Byway System, and a RMP revision is an appropriate time for making this

management decision (BLM 2005b). Generally, this determination is made in conjunction with

state designation: “Byways must be identified, designated, planned, developed, and managed

within the framework of State programs” (BLM 1993a). The State of Wyoming maintains

a program to designate highways as scenic byways called the Wyoming Scenic Byway and

Backway Program (Wyoming Department of Transportation 2009). An important consideration

for the State of Wyoming in designating a highway is whether it has strong local support including

support of adjoining private property owners (Wyoming Department of Transportation 2009).

The BLM has not received any indication that this proposal has strong local support; the proposal

was not accompanied by any information regarding the interest of the public in establishing

this management.

Accordingly, none of the alternatives analyze this management. However, two of the alternatives

would manage the lands within the viewshed of Highway 287 to protect its scenic character and

its important contributions to the historical setting of the NHTs; see Map 125 and Map 127

which show the protections in the area around Highway 287. Although this management does

not have the same effect as byway designation in terms of financial benefits, these alternatives

preserve the setting should local support develop.

2.5.13. Manage the Sweetwater River Corridor as a High Priority

Management Area

Public comments suggested that the Sweetwater River corridor (which the BLM understood to

mean the lands within the watershed of the Sweetwater River) should be managed as a separate,

high priority area for resource protection. The BLM analyzed a similar but somewhat different

approach to protecting the area’s specific resources. The watershed of the Sweetwater River

includes the route followed by the Congressionally Designated Trails, which themselves requires

management in accordance with BLM Manuals 6250 and 6280 (BLM 2012b and BLM 2012c).

Specifically, to the greatest extent possible, the BLM shall manage Congressionally Designated

Trails so as to safeguard the nature and purposes of the trails, and in a manner that protects

the values for which the components of the trail systems were designated, recognizing the

nationally significant scenic, historic, cultural, recreation, natural, and other landscape values

(hereinafter referred to as resources, qualities, values, and associated settings) of the public land

areas through which such Congressionally Designated Trails may pass, and the primary trail use

or uses. Alternatives B would manage the viewshed along the Sweetwater River as a Heritage

and Recreation Corridor to protect the viewshed from the Congressionally Designated Trails.

Alternative D would manage this area as the NTMC. These protections achieve the same result as

protecting the Sweetwater River corridor resources only and therefore would have substantially

similar impacts.

The commenters did not identify specific management prescriptions they wished to see applied

to the Sweetwater River watershed. However, management of the NTMC provides increased

protection for a number of resources, including the Congressionally Designated Trails and their

settings, wildlife values including greater sage-grouse, and recreational use.

February 2013

Chapter 2 Resource Management Alternatives

Manage Highway 287 as a Scenic Byway
28 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Certain comments suggested that the RMP analyze closing the area to livestock grazing or

substantially reducing grazing. Land health assessments in this area are high priority, so livestock

grazing management will be analyzed as soon as the assessments are completed. The BLM

completed rangeland health assessments for the Green Mountain Common Allotment, which

contains most of the Sweetwater River watershed in the planning area, and completed an

Environmental Assessment in 2011 analyzing grazing (including a no action alternative) for

this 500,000-acre allotment.

2.5.14. Designate Areas as “Open” to Facilitate Motorized Vehicle

Play Areas

Numerous members of the public commented on the need for an area where motorized vehicle

use is not restricted to roads and trails; thus allowing for a motorized vehicle “play area.” In

areas designated as “open” intensive motorized vehicle travel is permitted year-long anywhere

within the designated area.

Travel and Transportation Management guidance and 43 CFR 8340.05 have restricted the use

of this designation to: “...areas where there are no special restrictions or where there are no

compelling resource protection needs, user conflicts, or public safety issues to warrant limiting

cross country travel...” The Lander Field Office could not locate an area on public lands that

met the above criteria. Some factors that precluded this designation included: 3⁄4 of the field

office being located in the Wyoming Governor's greater sage-grouse Core Area, other large

areas of critical wildlife habitat (winter and parturition habitat), a multitude of areas where an

open designation would cause user conflicts (nonmotorized recreation areas) and public safety

issues (near communities), as well as areas with existing safety hazards (hydrogen sulfide gas,

mine shafts).

Many comments also requested that WSAs be designated as open to motorized vehicle use.

Several other comments recommended building new roads into WSAs or allowing travel on

all existing roads in WSAs. Various handbooks and policies, including BLM Manual 6330,

Management of Wilderness Study Areas, which implements the non-impairment standard

contained in Section 603 of FLPMA, do not allow for these decisions in WSAs. The following is

from the Land Use Planning Handbook (1601–1):

At a minimum, the travel management area designation for wilderness study areas

(WSAs) must be limited to ways and trails existing at the time the area became a

WSA. Open areas within WSAs are appropriate only for sand dune or snow areas

designated as such prior to October 21, 1976.

To address the demand for a motorized vehicle play area the BLM analyzed leasing or selling

BLM-administered lands to an entity willing to provide and manage a play area for motorized

vehicles. Two areas are identified in the recreation alternatives for this purpose: (1) The Coalmine

Draw Area near the communities of Hudson, Lander, and Riverton and (2) an area located near

the rifle range adjacent to the community of Dubois. In addition, regardless of the alternative

proposed in the document ample opportunity for motorized users will be available on existing and

designated roads across the majority of the Lander Field Office.

Chapter 2 Resource Management Alternatives

Designate Areas as “Open” to Facilitate Motorized

Vehicle Play Areas February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 29

2.6. Livestock Grazing Analysis

2.6.1. Introduction

The Lander RMP emphasizes a broad range of forage allocated to livestock grazing. In August

2012, the Land Use Planning Handbook livestock grazing planning requirements were clarified

by Washington Office (WO) IM 2012-169. Both WO IM 2012-169 and the Handbook support

analyzing a range of forage allocation. As discussed below, the BLM analyzed closing some

allotments to grazing but the number of acres is relatively small. The RMP’s range of reasonable

grazing alternatives is based on the amount of forage allocated to livestock grazing.

Forage is measured in animal unit months (AUMs), some percentage of which is allocated to

livestock and to other grazing animals such as big game; see Holechek et al. 2011. The percentage

allocated to livestock is often referred to as a harvest coefficient based on the growth requirements

of the plant species necessary to maintain healthy sustainable vegetative communities as well as

to account for wildlife forage and habitat requirements (density and cover). Grazing permits may

express the forage allocation objectives as a forage-utilization percentage. “Light utilization” is

defined as 21 to 40 percent and “moderate utilization” is 41 to 60 percent. Forage may also be

expressed as AUMs or the amount of forage needed to sustain a cow and calf for one month. A

higher number of AUMs results in a higher livestock utilization percentage.

Early in the RMP planning process for grazing, an interdisciplinary team reviewed the planning

area considering range condition, other resource values such as greater sage-grouse habitat, big

game crucial winter range, wild horse populations, existing infrastructure, the categorization of

the allotments as “I” or improve, “C” or custodial, and “M” or maintain and other factors. The

members of the interdisciplinary team all had extensive experience in the Lander area ranging

from 10 years to over 30 years resulting in a comprehensive knowledge of the planning area

allotments.

The team concluded that grazing utilization under the 1987 RMP (Alternative A) was at the

higher end of the 41 to 60 percent range. This utilization averaged 205,000 AUMs billed annually

for the 20 years preceding the analysis. The team determined that a reasonable alternative should

consider fewer AUMs allocated to livestock based on light utilization in those areas preferred

by livestock (based on factors such as distance to water and slope). Theoretically, if the average

actual use of 205,000 AUMs equaled 60 percent utilization, the 21-40 percent utilization should

be something less than 136,800 AUMs (205,000 AUMs at 60 percent utilization suggests a total

available forage of 342,000 AUMs; 40 percent of 342,000 is 136,800).

To verify this theoretical calculation, the team used geographic information system (GIS) analysis

to determine reasonably foreseeable AUMs based on a version of Holechek’s stocking rate

analysis. The interdisciplinary team estimated forage production using the Natural Resources

Conservation Service (NRCS) guidelines for ecological sites based on most of the planning

area being in a mid to late seral state of succession. The GIS model first allocated forage using

a harvest coefficient of 25 percent, i.e., 25 percent of forage produced is available to livestock.

(Recent science suggests that 50 percent, which is conventionally used, is only adequate to support

requirements of specific plant species, whereas 25 percent accounts for trampling and other uses

of that forage.) The interdisciplinary team then applied reductions based on riparian-wetland

habitat, greater sage-grouse priority habitat, big game crucial winter range, distance to water and

slope. Reductions because of wild horse management areas were considered but eliminated for

February 2013

Chapter 2 Resource Management Alternatives

Livestock Grazing Analysis
30 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

reasons described below. The reductions are identified in Table 2.2, “Reductions to Animal

Unit Months” (p. 30).

Table 2.2. Reductions to Animal Unit Months

Factor Reductions

Greater than 2 miles from water Excluded from calculation of available forage

Slope: 11-30 percent Forage reduction of 30 percent

Slope: 31-60 percent Forage reduction of 60 percent

Slope greater than 60 percent Excluded from calculation of available forage

Greater sage-grouse priority habitat Forage reduction of 10 percent

Big game crucial winter habitat Forage reduction of 5 percent

Riparian-wetland areas Forage reduction of 60 percent

The resulting analysis identified a total forage allocation of approximately 129,000 AUMs, or

a reduction of approximately 63 percent from historical actual use. These reductions were

anticipated to result in light forage utilization and are below the 136,800 AUMs theoretically

predicted for 40 percent utilization.

2.6.2. Implementation

The planning decision in Alternative B would be a light utilization standard for all allotments

without regard to range condition so as to allocate more forage for wildlife and to provide cover.

This is in keeping with the resource protection theme of Alternative B. If BLM workload were

not a limiting feature, the light utilization could be applied to all allotments at any time even

those meeting rangeland health standards, since BLM can adjust grazing permits to meet the

land use plan. (There are grazing regulations for how this process is conducted which under

any circumstances, cannot be done without consultation with the permittees and the State of

Wyoming.) With limited BLM staff, the reasonable approach to implementing the light-utilization

decision would be applied at the first time a change in the permit were needed such as a request for

a range project or while fully processing a permit renewal. If an allotment were determined to not

meet rangeland health standards it is likely that the AUM reductions to achieve light utilization

would have additional grazing management changes such as season of use, and modifications to

grazing strategies (rotations, herding, etc.) because fencing and water development would not be

used. The GIS analysis predicted that Alternative B would result in some 129,000 AUMs being

reduced over time. During implementation on a case-by-case basis, however, it is likely that the

AUMs would be reduced below 129,000 because of other Alternative B management such as

closing allotments for forage reserves, voluntary relinquishment of allotments, and extended

periods of non-use.

Alternative B management for resources other than grazing would likely reduce AUMs even

more. For example, Alternative B manages vegetation communities for the benefit of biological

diversity including wildlife, fish, and special status species rather than for livestock grazing, thus

naturally reducing the forage for grazing (such as emphasizing non-grass vegetation that is not

palatable to livestock). Protections for big game are incorporated that would likely have the

effect of reducing livestock grazing.

The economic analysis of Alternative B assumed that the 129,000 AUM reduction would occur at

5 percent per year over the 20 year planning cycle. However, it is likely that the reductions would

be heavier in the beginning of implementation of the plan since rangeland health assessments

(done in blocks as described in Chapter 3) are prioritized based on degraded riparian-wetland

Chapter 2 Resource Management Alternatives

Implementation February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 31

condition and greater sage-grouse priority habitat. (A comparison of the riparian-wetland areas

not meeting Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) as displayed on Map 48 with greater sage-grouse

priority habitat on Map 65, shows that addressing the two habitat issues together is efficient.)

The block approach to standards assessments followed by fully processing permits with NEPA

analysis (as opposed to renewing expiring permits under the Budget Rider without change) will

ensure that over time, the lighter forage utilization would be applied to all allotments in the

planning area.

The implementation of the RMP forage allocation decision is comparable to other areas requiring

implementation. The RMP decision identifying the local sites Johnny-Behind-the Rocks and the

Sinks Canyon Climbing Area for nonmotorized travel, for example, would be implemented

after the ROD during travel management planning. The light forage utilization decision would

be implemented by adjusting permits whether during permit renewal, resource conflicts, or as

staffing allows to make the permit conform to the land use plan following grazing regulations.

2.6.3. Areas Open and Closed to Livestock Grazing

Although the emphasis of the grazing alternatives was a range of forage allocated to livestock,

the interdisciplinary team also looked at the 70,000 acres that were closed to livestock grazing

in 1987. (Five of the interdisciplinary team members had participated in that planning effort.)

Some of these acres were unsuitable for livestock grazing because of terrain considerations such

as granite outcroppings which do not support vegetation or areas with important wildlife values.

The team determined that the basis for the original closure to livestock grazing had not changed

and should not be analyzed by any alternative.

The interdisciplinary team then determined that an additional 13,000 acres of lands had conflicts

with livestock grazing that might require grazing closures to resolve. These were conflicts with

wildlife habitat in the Dubois area and recreational use in the Sweetwater Canyon pasture of the

Silver Creek allotment. While other resource concerns were identified, the interdisciplinary team

determined that the conflict could be addressed through a change in grazing management after a

more detailed analysis associated with rangeland health assessments and permit renewal, rather

than closing the area to livestock grazing in the RMP.

The interdisciplinary team considered other values that were later identified in IM 2012-169.

● NHTs: The team determined that conflict between the NHTs and grazing was a result of range

infrastructure that introduces a modern element into the NHTs’ setting and also concentrates

cattle so that large areas become denuded of vegetation. The random sighting of one or

more cows was considered not to be a conflict, because livestock were part of the emigrant

experience.

● WSAs: The interim guidance (since revised) allows livestock grazing without additional

infrastructure within WSAs. However, the majority of the acreage located within WSAs has

been identified as closed to grazing based on conflicts with other resource values or lack of

forage production.

● Wild and Scenic Rivers (WSRs): Nine segments have been determined to be eligible. Due

to terrain and the difficulty of closure to livestock grazing without fencing (fencing is not

permitted in Alternative B), closing the lands surrounding these segments was not analyzed.

● ACECs:

February 2013

Chapter 2 Resource Management Alternatives

Areas Open and Closed to Livestock Grazing
32 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

○ Lander Slope and Red Canyon: Neither ACEC had livestock grazing conflicts which

adversely impacted the ACECs’ wildlife and viewsheds. Most of the Red Canyon

is managed under the Red Canyon allotment management plan which addressed the

vegetation and riparian-wetland impacts from grazing. Grazing did not conflict with the

visual resources of the ACECs. Wildlife populations were at or above the Wyoming Game

and Fish Department’s (WGFD’s) herd objectives. Closing the ACECs would also require

fencing the extensive intermingled private lands in order to avoid livestock trespass on

the public lands. New fences would impede movement of wildlife and wildlife use of the

private lands, an important source of winter forage. Accordingly, the team determined that

it was not reasonable to further analyze closing these allotments to grazing.

○ Beaver Rim: Only new range infrastructure presented a conflict with the ACEC’s visual

resources; the team did not identify grazing itself as a conflict.

○ Green Mountain: Because of terrain and heavily forested areas, there is limited livestock

use of the ACEC. The elk numbers in the ACEC are above herd objectives indicating

that there is no conflict between the elk (the relevant and important value of the ACEC)

and grazing.

○ South Pass Historical Landscape: Livestock were a part of the historic landscape; the

identified conflict was the use of range infrastructure. Overuse of vegetation that could,

over time, be detrimental to the setting could be addressed by stocking numbers and

season, based upon rangeland health assessments. These assessments had not been

completed as of the date of the Final EIS.

● The interdisciplinary team evaluated the wild horse herd areas which were above appropriate

management level. The team, which included two wild horse specialists, determined that

continued use of gathers and the administration of birth control would be necessary to control

populations, establishing that wild horses had not been limited by forage competition from

livestock grazing in HMAs.

2.6.4. Other Potential Grazing Conflicts Considered but Not

Analyzed

Conflicts between livestock grazing and valid existing rights such as mining claims are resolved

by reducing AUMs based on the acres made unavailable during mining operations; this does not

require a grazing closure. Moreover, with rare exceptions, mining disturbance must be reclaimed

to native vegetation. In addition, the existence of a valid right does not guarantee that the area

will be developed (most mining claims are not). The interdisciplinary team determined the loss

of vegetation associated with valid rights could only be addressed in a site-specific analysis

based on an approved plan of development which would analyze the loss of forage. The team

also considered grazing conflicts where industrial style development was emphasized. Oil and

gas wells, for example, typically have 40-acre spacing. Even considering roads and well pads,

which the Lander Field Office estimates as averaging 4-6 acres per well, that development leaves

substantial acres where the grazing is not impacted.

WO IM 2012-169 identifies a potential conflict with solar energy; there are no industrial-scale

solar energy projects identified in the Lander planning area. Should a proposal be received, an

RMP amendment would be required prior to approval which would address any grazing conflict.

There is no conflict between wind-energy development and livestock grazing; wind energy may

make ranch operations more economically sustainable. In any event, the likelihood of wind

energy being developed in the planning area is extremely low (forecast to be 50 turbines over the

next 20 years), so conflicts with grazing did not arise as a planning issue.

Chapter 2 Resource Management Alternatives

Other Potential Grazing Conflicts Considered but

Not Analyzed February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 33

2.6.5. Closure of Substantial Areas or All of the Planning Area to

Livestock Grazing

Livestock grazing is a well-established use within the BLM’s multiple-use mandate. The BLM

considered but did not analyze in detail an alternative that would make all 2.4 million acres of

public lands in the planning area unavailable for livestock grazing because such an alternative is

not reasonable, viable, or necessary. Instead, and in accordance with BLM’s Land Use Planning

Handbook and BLM IM No. 2012-169, BLM considered a range of alternatives with respect

to both areas that are available or unavailable for livestock grazing and the amount of forage

allocated to livestock on an area-wide basis. The range of alternatives considered includes a

meaningful reduction in livestock grazing -- both through reduction in areas available to livestock

grazing and forage allocation.

As discussed above, the BLM developed a range of alternatives that sharply defines the issues

and provides a clear basis for choice among options by the decision-maker. The BLM analyzed

closing 70,000 acres to livestock grazing under Alternative A and 83,000 acres under Alternative

B where the BLM identified unresolved conflicts concerning various uses of available resources

such as between bighorn sheep and elk winter forage or use of the Sweetwater Canyon pasture by

recreationists and unsuitability for livestock grazing because of steepness of terrain or lack of

vegetation.

The BLM also analyzed a range of alternatives that varied the amount of forage allocated to

livestock. In areas open to livestock grazing, Alternative B allocates one-third less forage to

livestock than Alternative A. Alternative B requires a stocking rate that will leave residual

cover and forage for wildlife and wild horses, which corresponds to “light utilization” or a 21

percent to 40 percent forage-utilization percentage as compared to livestock utilization near 60

percent resulting under Alternative A. Alternative B also reduces AUMs to meet rangeland

health standards. Over the twenty year analysis period, permitted AUMs under Alternative B

are expected to be reduced from 280,813 to 128,750 (54 percent) and actual-use AUMs from the

historic average of 204,993 to 122,320 -- a 40 percent reduction. Alternative B also includes

other reductions in livestock grazing through the use of forage reserves, voluntary retirement of

allotments, limitations on livestock grazing near cultural or recreation sites and limitations on the

use of salt and supplements as well as prohibiting any new range infrastructure.

In addition, all alternatives would allow suitable measures which could include reduction

or elimination of livestock grazing, in specific situations where livestock grazing causes or

contributes to conflicts with the protection or management of other resource values or uses. Such

determinations would be made during site-specific activity planning and associated environmental

review. These determinations would be based on several factors, including monitoring studies,

review of current range management science, input from livestock operators and interested

publics, and ability to meet the standards in Appendix J (p. 1537).

Current resource conditions on BLM-administered land, including range vegetation, watershed,

and wildlife habitat, as reflected in land health assessments, do not warrant prohibition of

livestock grazing throughout the entire planning area. Such a blanket prohibition, in the absence

of resource conflicts, would not meet the purpose and need and would be inconsistent with the

policy objectives of the area. However, as described above, the range of alternatives does include

a meaningful reduction in grazing throughout the planning area.

February 2013

Chapter 2 Resource Management Alternatives

Closure of Substantial Areas or All of the Planning

Area to Livestock Grazing
34 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

2.7. Greater Sage-Grouse Management

2.7.1. National Technical Team Report

On August 22, 2011, the BLM released its National Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy. The

strategy was released in response to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) decision that

listing of the greater sage-grouse under the ESA was “Warranted but Precluded.” The USFWS had

identified the principal regulatory mechanism for the BLM as conservation measures in RMPs.

The strategy stated that “the BLM needs to incorporate explicit objectives and adequate

conservation measures into RMPs within the next three years in order to conserve greater

sage-grouse and avoid a potential ESA listing.”

The strategy further identified the NTT to serve as “an independent, technical and science-based

team to ensure the best information related to greater sage-grouse management is fully reviewed,

evaluated and provided to the BLM for consideration in the land use planning process.”

On September 9, 2011, the Notice of Availability (NOA) of the Lander Draft RMP and EIS

was published in the Federal Register: https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2011/09/09/

2011-22946/notice-of-availability-of-the-draft-resource-management-plan-and-associatedenvironmental-impact. The NOA stated that comments would be accepted by the BLM until

December 7, 2011. At the request of the Wyoming Governor, the Fremont County Commissioners,

and others, the comment period was extended to January 20, 2012.

On December 11, 2011, the BLM published a NOI to begin preparation of an EIS and

Supplemental EIS to Incorporate Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Measures into

Land Use Plans and Land Management Plans. A copy of this document is available at:

https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2011/12/09/2011-31652/notice-of-intent-to-prepareenvironmental-impact-statements-and-supplemental-environmental-impact. The comment period

for the NOI ended February 7, 2012.

The NTT released a report on National Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Measures

dated December 21, 2011: http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/co/programs/

wildlife.Par.73607.File.dat/GrSG%20Tech%20Team%20Report.pdf.

On December 27, 2011, the BLM issued IM WO 2012-044, which is available at:

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/info/regulations/Instruction_Memos_and_Bulletins/

national_instruction/2012/IM_2012-044.html. This IM requires that the conservation measures in

the NTT report be analyzed in at least one alternative in the land use planning EIS and that a “hard

look” be given to the conservation measures, as applicable to local ecological site variability. The

NTT report conservation measures were put into a table which identified the measures analyzed in

the EIS and, where appropriate, why some were not analyzed. This document is provided on the

Lander RMP website at: http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/programs/Planning/rmps/lander.html.

On February 15, 2012, the Wyoming BLM issued IM 2012-019 providing interim guidance for

greater sage-grouse conservation during land use plan implementation. This IM may be found at:

http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wy/resources/efoia/IMs/2012.Par.56874.File.dat/

wy2012-019.pdf. The IM identifies Core Area (see discussion under Special Status Species in

Chapter 3) as the priority habitat for greater sage-grouse in Wyoming. In the planning area, 70

percent of BLM-administered land is within Core Area. In consultation with the WGFD, the

Chapter 2 Resource Management Alternatives

Greater Sage-Grouse Management February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 35

BLM determined an additional 29 percent of the planning area was occupied greater sage-grouse

habitat, and that 1 percent of the planning area was non-habitat. The non-habitat is primarily

forested or mountainous areas or urban areas.

Many comments were received on the Programmatic EIS NOI. Most included recommendations

that the conservation measures identified in the NTT report be incorporated as land use decisions

for greater sage-grouse conservation. Additional comments stated that the NTT priority habitat

conservation measures should be applied to all occupied habitat. Other comments addressed

issues such as wild horses without articulating a tie to greater sage-grouse, which might have

considerations or insight into a planning document for an entire resource management area.

The NTT report and the comments on the Programmatic EIS NOI raised issues that merit

evaluation in the Lander RMP. Many of these issues had already been addressed and were part of

the Draft RMP and EIS published September 9, 2011. Most prominent is the analysis of a 2.5

percent cap on surface disturbance and a greater sage-grouse ACEC. Other important, but subtle,

greater sage-grouse protective measures were analyzed, including limits on road proliferation,

ROW exclusion and avoidance areas, and habitat protective measures.

Moreover, the Draft RMP and EIS analyzed extensive protections for other resources that had the

secondary effect of protecting greater sage-grouse habitat. The 1987 RMP established ACECs

to protect big-game habitat, viewsheds, elk crucial winter and parturition ranges, and cultural

features, including the four NHTs that cross through the resource area. The Draft RMP and

EIS evaluated continuing these protections (Alternative A), expanding them (Alternative B),

eliminating them (Alternative C), or some combination thereof (Alternative D).

With the NTT report and comments on the Programmatic EIS NOI being received during the

period following the public comment period to the Lander Draft RMP and EIS, the BLM was

able to evaluate the information and identify what had been part of the original analysis and

what was not, and how consideration of the new matter might change the earlier analysis. The

recommendations from the NTT report and a description about how the Lander RMP addresses

those recommendations is provided on the Lander RMP website.

The NTT report identified recommendations to be evaluated for application in priority habitat

areas, which the State of Wyoming has defined as Core Area (see the Wyoming Governor’s

Greater Sage-grouse Core Area strategy at: http://wgfd.wyo.gov/web2011/Departments/Wildlife/

pdfs/SAGEGROUSE_EO_COREPROTECTION0000651.pdf) and some recommendations for

general habitat areas. The Lander Field Office worked with the WGFD to identify what parts of

the planning area constituted general habitat areas and what was not greater sage-grouse habitat.

The results, described in Chapter 3, showed that 99 percent of the planning area was occupied

habitat, consisting of Core Area (70 percent) and general habitat areas (29 percent), while 1

percent was non-habitat. Other general habitat areas and priority habitat areas mapping efforts are

ongoing and may differ in small respects from the Lander habitat determinations. The BLM is

basing its analysis of impacts to greater sage-grouse on the mapping it did in consultation with

the WGFD; any deviation from other mapping results is unlikely to have consequences on the

scale of the planning area. Moreover, with the possible exception of a few scattered BLM tracts in

close proximity to the City of Lander, all of the non-habitat areas are protected as ACECs for

other resources, including bighorn sheep and elk. Whether or not greater sage-grouse protections

would apply in these areas (and many others in general habitat areas), alternatives A, B, and D

analyzed wildlife protections that would secondarily benefit greater sage-grouse that might be

occasionally present in the areas or pass through it during migration.

February 2013

Chapter 2 Resource Management Alternatives

National Technical Team Report
36 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Various recommended conservation practices are reasonable when applied to isolated or scattered

parcels. However, when applied to generally contiguous 1,680,000 acres, or 70 percent of the

planning area, the overall impact can be to restrict uses in a way that does not meet basic policy

objectives for the area. The purpose and need for the RMP is to have a plan that balances

protections and uses. Moreover, some of the groups commenting on the NOI recommended

that the conservation measures be applied to all occupied habitat, or 99 percent of the planning

area (with the remaining 1 percent protected for other wildlife values). Emphasizing wildlife

conservation at the expense of all other uses is appropriate for a management plan for a wildlife

refuge, not the FLPMA-mandated variety of uses of the public lands. Closing all occupied

habitat to leasing, would preclude new oil and gas development in areas that the BLM believes

to have moderate to high potential, which would carry substantial fiscal costs and result in an

imbalance among resources and resource uses. Restricting livestock grazing on all occupied

habitat not only during early brood-rearing (as recommended in the NTT report), but during all

nesting brood-rearing, and in winter habitat, would preclude all livestock grazing, even where

rangeland health standards were achieved.

Similarly, excluding ROWs in all occupied habitat would not meet the purpose and need for the

RMP because such vast amounts of habitat exist. Under BLM guidance, exclusion is a complete

prohibition without exception. To limit new ROWs to only 1 percent of the planning area,

whether or not co-located in existing disturbance or in a designated corridor, would preclude new

authorized activities. However, Alternative B analyzes excluding ROWs in all ACECs, including

the Government Draw/Upper Sweetwater Sage-grouse ACEC. This management analyzed

excluding ROWs in 80 percent of the planning area, avoiding 13 percent of the planning area.

Impacts analysis showed that this management had a substantial adverse impact on all resource

uses.

Some recommendations such as certain Required Design Features (generally referred to as Best

Management Practices [BMPs]) could be analyzed for the entire planning area and still meet the

purpose and need. Other BMPs could not be applied as mandatory parts of all development

because without a site-specific analysis, it could not be determined if the application of the BMP

would have the effect of precluding the activity. The analysis of the recommendations of the NTT

report include BMPs such as locating compressor stations used in connection with oil and gas

development outside of Core Area. At its widest point, Core Area in the planning area is 70 by

60 miles in size. Depending on the development, requiring that a needed compressor be located

outside of Core Area would have had the effect of precluding the development of that oil and gas

lease because engineering might not support a location 30 or 40 miles distant.

On a planning area-wide basis, the BLM lacks the data to evaluate the environmental impacts

of applying some of the recommendations without regard to site-specific considerations. For

example, requiring compressor stations be located outside of Core Area, as recommended in the

NTT Report, could have the effect of making the piping of product unfeasible if the compressor

is too far away to achieve the needed pressure in the pipeline. The BLM determined that in

the absence of the data that would allow the BLM to evaluate the impacts from the proposed

management, it would be arbitrary to require them without analysis. However, it is entirely

possible to defer the analysis to a site-specific basis and require that they be analyzed in a

project-level NEPA review.

This EIS analyzes the impacts from the mandatory Required Design Features that are applied to

every development or surface disturbance in the planning area. Many of these offer protections

to many wildlife species and also to livestock, wild horses, and human health and safety.

Chapter 2 Resource Management Alternatives

National Technical Team Report February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 37

Accordingly, the EIS analyzes these Required Design Features as being appropriate for all surface

disturbance and not just oil and gas development in Core Area. The BMPs not incorporated in

the RMP as Required Design Features will be evaluated on a site-specific basis for inclusion as

Conditions of Approval (COA) with a thorough or “hard look” at the BMPs that are not made

COA.

2.7.2. Timeframes for Travel Management Implementation

Planning as Recommended by BLM Policy and in Support of

Greater Sage-Grouse

BLM Land Use Planning policy and the NTT report recommend that BLM conduct travel

management implementation planning concurrently with land use planning. This includes

individual route decisions, such as closure, open to motorized use, limited seasonally, and other

conveyance limitations. Importantly, such decisions are required to be based on sight-specific

analysis of the individual linear feature. Initially the BLM thought that conducting travel

management implementation planning concurrent with the RMP was possible during this

planning process.

BLM policy also outlines the necessary data elements required if implementation planning is to

be deferred; these items are contained in Appendix W (p. 1813).

Importantly, BLM policy and the NTT report also state that travel management implementation

planning should be completed 5 years after the signing of the ROD. Multiple BLM offices

(several of them smaller in size than the Lander Field Office) have found that this timeline is

not achievable. In addition, 70 percent of the planning area is greater sage-grouse Core Area;

therefore it also will not be possible to conduct implementation planning within the 5-year

timeframe in greater sage-grouse priority habitat. Therefore, neither recommendation is feasible

under current budget and staffing levels. The timeline reflected in Appendix W (p. 1813) reflects

an optimistic schedule for travel planning and assumes existing staffing levels as well as limited

amounts of funding increases. Importantly, these areas were prioritized based on many factors

– the 15 areas with priority greater sage-grouse habitat were prioritized higher than the 2 areas

without the habitat. These timelines can be compacted in the event of increased funding and/or

non-BLM partner assistance.

There were many suggestions regarding appropriate travel management in greater sage-grouse

habitat, including priority habitat (Core Area) and all occupied habitat. Management under

the 1987 RMP prohibits cross-country motorized travel and limits travel to existing and

designated roads and trails. Alternatives B, C, and D limit travel to existing roads as an interim

designation until route-specific planning can occur. Appendix W (p. 1813) identifies how

implementation-level planning will occur and identifies preliminary travel management areas

as well as the proposed order for analysis. The proposed outcome for travel management

implementation in this plan is to designate all the BLM-administered surface as limited to

designated routes subject to other limitations where applicable, or closed to motorized travel.

In the interim, Alternative D limits disruptive activities in greater sage-grouse Core Area; it

should be noted, however, that casual motorized vehicle use is not considered a disruptive activity.

Core Area includes 70 percent of the planning area. Occupied habitat includes an additional 29

percent of the planning area. The 1 percent that is not habitat for greater sage-grouse has seasonal

restrictions for the benefit of other wildlife. Restrictions that would either entirely preclude travel

February 2013

Chapter 2 Resource Management Alternatives

Timeframes for Travel Management Implementation

Planning as Recommended by BLM Policy and

in Support of Greater Sage-Grouse
38 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

throughout the planning area or seasonally, are beyond the purpose and need of the EIS and would

unreasonably limit multiple-use management.

During travel management implementation, impacts to greater sage-grouse from travel

management will be evaluated on a site-specific basis (along with other considerations, such as

other wildlife values).

2.7.3. Modifications to Issued Authorizations

Comments on the Programmatic EIS to Incorporate Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation

Measures into Land Use Plans and Land Management Plans (described above) suggested adding

conservation measures to already-issued authorizations such as oil and gas leases and ROWs. The

BLM had very early in preparing the Draft RMP and EIS considered modifying leases and other

authorizations ex post facto and determined that doing so would not meet the purpose and need,

which is to support valid and existing rights.

Some of the conservation measures that were suggested be applied to existing authorizations will

be applied if the term of the authorization ends. If an oil and gas lease is not held by production or

suspended, it terminates at the end of 10 years. If the lease is offered again, it would be a new

lease, and subject to lease stipulations required by the RMP even though the earlier lease was

not subject to those stipulations. When a ROW term ends, if the BLM re-issues the grant, it is

a new authorization subject to the then-required protections.

The EIS identified opportunities to work with partners or to otherwise obtain funding to “buy

out” existing rights, such as claimed mineral estate. However, site-specific NEPA analysis would

be required to determine if that money usage provided the most benefits to greater sage-grouse

in comparison to other uses. For example, if an oil and gas company wished to utilize offsite

mitigation or compensatory mitigation, site-specific analysis would be required to determine the

most beneficial offset. If degraded riparian-wetland areas, for example, were identified as an

opportunity for offsite mitigation, that might be a more preferable approach than buying out an

existing right. This is in accord with the NTT report which states, “Prioritize implementation of

restoration projects based on environmental variables that improve chances for project success

in areas most likely to benefit sage-grouse.”

2.7.4. Historic Climax Plant Community

Several commenters suggested using different approaches to achieve vegetation objectives.

Historic Climax Plant Community or Potential Natural Condition and perhaps others have their

advantages and disadvantages as theoretical approaches. The Lander RMP manages according to

the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) NRCS Ecological Site Descriptions. The decision to

use this methodology or approach was based on a determination that Ecological Site Descriptions

were tied to local soil and precipitation and were the basis for conducting rangeland monitoring

and land health assessments. Further, Ecological Site Descriptions allow for management in

accordance with site potential. Cagney et al. (2010) observed that some plant communities

have transitioned to a state that cannot return to the reference Historic Climax Plant Community

without intervening management. Sites in this state could not return to the reference state simply

by a change or cessation of livestock grazing. The authors’ research identified that events such

as extensive vegetation treatments and reseeding or landscape fires followed by decades of rest

could be required to reverse transitions that had taken place over decades. Such interventionist

Chapter 2 Resource Management Alternatives

Modifications to Issued Authorizations February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 39

management is not recommended in greater sage-grouse habitat, particularly Core Area, as

demonstrated by many of the NTT recommendations. By managing in accordance with site

potential (via the Ecological Site Descriptions) the current potential of the rangeland sites could

be used to set greater sage-grouse parameters. The BLM made the decision to analyze vegetation

objectives in terms of what could be achieved rather than a theoretical analysis that could not

be achieved on the ground.

2.7.5. Invasive Nonnative Species Management and Greater

Sage-Grouse

The USFWS and others have not identified cheatgrass and other invasive plants as being a

primary threat to greater sage-grouse in the planning area. Habitat loss or degradation through

riparian-wetland areas not meeting PFC or through the encroachment of juniper are the greater

risk. Accordingly, treatment of invasive species was determined to be a less important use of

range improvement funds than other treatments.

Treatment is expensive and with uncertain success at best. It involves highly disruptive

management with potential for adverse impacts to greater sage-grouse. With limited budgets

available for pest treatments, the BLM chose to emphasize reducing the likelihood of spread

through management actions such as requiring livestock flushing, washing of vehicles, and

limited surface disturbance.

Identified conservation measures such as not driving through areas with infestation would have

the effect of precluding motor vehicle use, because by far the heaviest concentration of invasive

nonnative species are along the roadways, as can be seen on Map 46.

Alternative B uses all funds that are available for range improvement projects for

non-infrastructure uses such as vegetation treatments and habitat improvement. While current

research suggests that vegetation treatments need to be undertaken only after careful analysis

of the potentially adverse impacts to greater sage-grouse, the use of prescribed fire is limited as

well. Approximately 76 percent of Core Area has less than 12 inches of annual precipitation, so

prescribed fire, a type of vegetation treatment, has only marginal benefits to Core Area.

Alternatively, these funds could have been allocated for invasive species treatment. However,

there are management opportunities for greater sage-grouse habitat improvements such as treating

juniper encroachment or improving riparian-wetland function that the BLM determined would

have a greater beneficial impact on greater sage-grouse than treatments to control invasive

nonnative species.

2.7.6. Conservation Measures Requiring Site-Specific Analysis

Some of the NTT report conservation measures have the potential for considerable adverse

impacts to resource uses if universally required in all parts of priority habitat, such as the

large and generally contiguous type of priority habitat present in the planning area. Excluding

activities from priority habitat limits those activities to less than 29 percent of the planning

area. Adverse impacts associated with the conservation measures that require that facilities

that support Core Area activities be located out of priority habitat could present such technical

challenges that activities authorized in Core Area (oil and gas development below the surface

caps) could be precluded because they are located too far from non-priority habitat for remote

February 2013

Chapter 2 Resource Management Alternatives

Invasive Nonnative Species Management and

Greater Sage-Grouse
40 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

location of facilities. For example, a requirement that all or certain types of oil and gas

development infrastructure such as liquid gathering facilities be sited out of Core Area could

make development of existing leases technically infeasible if engineering considerations could

not be met at a distance (see item 137 on the NTT Conformance Table on the Lander RMP

website [http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/programs/Planning/rmps/lander.html]). Broad statements

of required conservation management may not be justified in all cases given the habitat variation

and the size of the Core Area in the Lander Field Office.

Similarly, recommendations such as “no exceptions” to greater sage-grouse Core Area timing

limitations, when applied to 70 percent or more of the planning area is unreasonable when

applied to such a large area. The alternatives contain waiver and exception criteria and a

process to prevent exceptions being improperly granted. But if protections are followed and no

adverse impacts to wildlife would result, there is no rational or scientific reason to refuse to

exclude all ROWs. The exception criteria emphasizes the care with which greater sage-grouse

timing limitations should be waived. In fact, the BLM regularly denies requests for exceptions,

particularly for greater sage-grouse protection. However, there are circumstances when an

exception might be granted even if the immediate consequence might be adverse to greater

sage-grouse if the alternative would be far more adverse. An example would be if drilling

had not been completed by the time seasonal restrictions were in place. An evaluation of the

consequences of stopping the drilling program, plugging the well, and removing the equipment,

only to repeat the process the following summer might be more adverse than a 1 week exception

that allowed the work to be completed without further disruption.

Other examples of well-supported conservation recommendations that need site-specific

evaluation are reclamation techniques, the use of Master Development Plans (Recommendation

59 in the NTT Conformance Table on the Lander RMP website) rather than Plans of Development

with approval at the Application for Permit to Drill stage, location of facilities that have inherent

engineering requirements outside of Core Area. These and many other recommended practices

are not reasonable because they would place restrictions on a very large area of land without

consideration for particular site-specific features. The EIS analyzed extensive Required Design

Features, surface-disturbance caps, avoidance areas, and limitations on surface occupancy.

Alternative D would require the BLM to evaluate as potential COAs, on a site-specific basis, these

and others that will be developed over time based on an increasing research base and scientific

understanding.

2.8. Management Actions Common to All Alternatives

Laws, regulations, and other guidance mandate a variety of management actions under all

alternatives. For example, all alternatives must comply with the Clean Water Act (CWA) and

the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) smoke management rules for air

quality. The BLM is required by law to follow these regulations and as such these management

actions do not vary by alternative. Planning criteria ensure that all alternatives comply with

these nondiscretionary laws and regulations (refer to Chapter 1, Planning Criteria). These

management actions are referred to as “common to all alternatives,” because they apply regardless

of the alternative. A listing of the laws and regulations that provide some of these mandates are

identified in Appendix A (p. 1427).

Some management actions common to all alternatives specify areas that are off-limits to mineral

development and other activities because they are incompatible with the area’s resource values

and would not be allowed under any alternative. Many resource programs require the use of

Chapter 2 Resource Management Alternatives

Management Actions Common to All Alternatives February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 41

BMPs to reduce impacts on resource values or management objectives such as to reduce point

and nonpoint source pollution to protect water quality. Collaboration with stakeholders and the

development of resource specific plans are also a common requirement across resource programs

under all alternatives. For example, cultural resources management requires cooperating with

local government and stakeholders in consideration of the economic and social impacts of

protecting cultural resources. For fish and wildlife resources, the BLM must cooperate with

stakeholders and local governments to develop management strategies to prevent the introduction

and spread of aquatic invasive species.

All alternatives consider some limitation on resource uses — these limits are a result of

management actions for the protection of other values. In the management actions under all

alternatives, the effects of these limits are stated in the respective resource use, such as acres

closed to oil and gas leasing. For example, management actions for the protection of bighorn

sheep in Dubois are identified in the Whiskey Mountain ACEC section of Chapter 2 but the

impacts (such as closure to oil and gas leasing) contribute to the acres closed to oil and gas leasing

identified in the minerals section. The same is true for livestock grazing, travel management and

other resource uses.

The alternatives all analyze withdrawing land from locatable mineral activities. Section 103

of FLPMA defines the term “withdrawal” to mean “withholding an area of Federal land from

settlement, sale, location, or entry, under some or all of the general land laws, for the purpose

of limiting activities under those laws in order to maintain other public values in the area or

reserving the area for a particular public purpose or program.”

Section 204 of FLPMA identifies the process for a land use plan to withdraw areas from locatable

mineral entry. The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to withdraw lands from mining laws

following certain procedures. These vary depending on whether the proposed withdrawal is less

than 5,000 acres or greater than 5,000 acres. Alternatives A, B, and D propose withdrawing

23,114, 1,632,605, and 449,068 acres, respectively, from the locatable mining laws. These

proposed withdrawals include some that are less than 5,000 acres and some that are greater than

5,000 acres. The primary difference between the two processes is that a withdrawal greater than

5,000 acres requires the preparation of an extensive report to support the withdrawal, including a

specialist’s analysis of the area’s mineral potential, and notification to Congress of the proposed

withdrawal. Congress may then choose to terminate the withdrawal by concurrent resolution.

Withdrawals created after FLPMA’s enactment in 1976 cannot be for a period longer than

20 years and must be completed within 2 years following the land use plan decision to pursue

the withdrawal.

The process of requesting or applying for the Secretary of the Interior to withdraw the lands is

started by the identification of lands in the RMP for which to pursue a withdrawal. Following

this RMP decision, a mineral potential report must be prepared to include all of the information

required by FLPMA, 43 CFR 2310, and BLM Manual 3060. The withdrawal request, including

the mineral potential report, is submitted to the Secretary, who then determines if it should be

sent to Congress or denied.

As indicated in several places in this EIS, the RMP is not the decision that withdraws the lands

from the mining laws, merely the first step in a lengthy process. It is entirely possible that

withdrawals identified in the ROD will not be withdrawn or perhaps not even reach the next step

in the process if the Lander Field Office does not complete the supporting report. Therefore, the

use of the term “withdrawn” in connection with locatable minerals is a misnomer to the extent it

February 2013

Chapter 2 Resource Management Alternatives

Management Actions Common to All Alternatives
42 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

implies that withdrawal is an RMP decision. The RMP decision is to identify lands for which a

locatable mineral withdrawal will be pursued. For the sake of readability, however, these lands

are identified as “withdrawn” and the different process for a withdrawal of less than 5,000 acres

is not separately discussed.

To have a method of comparing alternatives and their impacts, it is assumed that areas identified

to pursue withdrawal will actually result in withdrawal occurring. In addition, unless a withdrawal

of public domain land specifically provides otherwise, the land withdrawn is presumed to be

available for oil and gas leasing on a discretionary basis as specified in the Mineral Leasing Act of

1920 (as amended), and any other applicable land use decisions.

Tables 2.7 through 2.52 provide a complete list of management actions common to all alternatives

for each resource.

2.9. Summaries of Alternatives

This section summarizes the four alternatives (A through D) considered in detail in this RMP

and EIS. Due to the breadth of management prescriptions in the alternatives, this section

describes only the key elements of alternatives. The summary descriptions provide a general

overview of each alternative, the management emphasis associated with each alternative, and key

management actions for each alternative. Tables 2.7 through 2.52 provide detailed descriptions

of the alternatives. The maps in Appendix B (p. 1445) further illustrate differences in acreage

allocations and management prescriptions by alternative.

Alternatives B and C were developed to provide a range of management for analysis. Broadly

put, over the course of alternative development, Alternative B and Alternative C gradually

evolved into two different approaches to managing public lands. The BLM must meet certain

mandates such as the Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands, restoring riparian-wetlands

that are not meeting PFC, and protecting special status species. Similarly, BLM is mandated to

provide for resource uses such as making energy resources available and supporting economic

benefits from the public lands.

Since these mandates apply across all alternatives, the range of management actions required by

NEPA is found in the method by which the BLM will meet the mandates. The BLM developed

two different methods: one that is a lower level of intervention, using natural processes and

avoiding new rangeland infrastructure to reach mandated goals (Alternative B), and one that

utilizes a high level of human intervention and resource use (Alternative C). Management under

alternatives A and D generally falls in between this range of management.

Alternative A represents continuation of current management and provides a baseline from which

to identify potential environmental consequences when compared to the action alternatives.

Alternative A describes current resource and land management direction in the planning

area under the existing plan. Alternative A establishes rangeland improvement projects on a

case-by-case basis and establishes allotment stocking rates to maximize utilization of forage

in areas preferred by livestock, while achieving standards for healthy rangeland. Current

management identifies constraints on mineral leasing in the planning area to protect resource

values that are incompatible with mineral resources activity. The BLM would continue to manage

vegetative communities to meet vegetative attributes as identified in the Natural Resource

Conservation Service’s Ecological Site Guides and utilize vegetation treatments to increase forage

production while meeting the Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands. Current management

Chapter 2 Resource Management Alternatives

Summaries of Alternatives February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 43

includes nine ACECs and nine WSR eligible waterways. Constraints on resource uses specifically

to protect fish and wildlife resources are only used in a few cases under Alternative A, including

seasonal limitations on surface-disturbing activities in important habitat and buffers to restrict

surface-disturbing activities around greater sage-grouse leks.

Alternative B emphasizes resource protection over resource use. Greater sage-grouse nesting

habitat is closed to oil and gas leasing and all of the proposed ACECs are closed to almost all

mineral activities. With areas that have potential resource conflicts closed to oil and gas leasing,

MLPs would not be used as a tool to provide more site-specific resource protections. Alternative

B uses a low infrastructure approach for resource management. In making progress towards

Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands including riparian-wetland health, Alternative B

avoids infrastructure, such as fencing, and focuses on livestock grazing management through

such systems as seasons of use and lower forage utilization. Because infrastructure will only

rarely be built, range improvement projects will emphasize vegetation treatments. Over time,

livestock grazing AUMs are expected to decrease or seasons of use shortened in order to

continue to make progress towards meeting the Standards. Timber cutting is allowed where

natural processes are not able to improve forest health but clear-cuts are prohibited unless they

are determined to be warranted in order to mimic natural processes. Alternative B establishes

several Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMAs), most in areas of high recreational

value, such as Congressionally Designated Trails. The recreational setting of these SRMAs is

managed to facilitate specific recreation opportunities, which may limit other types of uses,

such as energy development.

Alternative B is more protective of resources such as wildlife and viewshed, utilizing more

restrictions on resource uses. These are discussed in more detail below. Alternative B continues

(and in some cases expands) existing ACECs and proposes new ACECs and more extensive

protections of the Congressionally Designated Trails. Alternative B affords the greatest

protections of greater sage-grouse and provides the most limits on ROWs including wind-energy

development projects. Alternative B emphasizes protections of the Congressionally Designated

Trails with a broad buffer to limit development that would intrude on the setting and recreational

use.

Alternative C has fewer protections of resources and focuses on a more intensive human presence

on the land to achieve mandated goals. In Alternative C, if rangelands are not meeting Wyoming

Standards for Healthy Rangelands, infrastructure including fences and water development

projects are utilized along with livestock grazing management to improve conditions. Over time,

extensive additional infrastructure will be used to make progress towards meeting the Standards.

As a consequence of this emphasis, there will be fewer rangeland improvement projects in

the form of vegetation treatment. Timber commodity availability is protected with full fire

suppression. Extractive and other industrial uses are maximized, resulting in fewer protections

of resources. Alternative C manages the values protected by the existing and proposed ACECs

with standard management rather than ACEC designation and the Congressionally Designated

Trails with a 1⁄4-mile buffer. Far fewer limitations on ROWs, including wind-energy development

projects, are proposed in Alternative C and protections for greater sage-grouse are afforded on

a case-by-case basis. Alternative C does not guarantee recreational use; if a conflict arises, the

recreational use would shift.

Alternative D balances the use and conservation of planning area resources. The use of range

improvement projects is authorized pursuant only to a Comprehensive Grazing Strategy that

would help to meet Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands. Alternative D designates the

February 2013

Chapter 2 Resource Management Alternatives

Summaries of Alternatives
44 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

second largest land area as ACECs and emphasizes moderate constraints on resource uses

(e.g., mineral development) to reduce adverse impacts to resource values. Fish and wildlife

resources under Alternative D, in general, receive more protection compared to Alternative

A, especially within important habitat areas. Under Alternative D, the Wyoming Governor’s

Greater Sage-grouse Core Area strategy is incorporated into management actions. In areas of

high mineral potential, Designated Development Areas (DDA) are established which emphasize

mineral use. In Dubois, mineral activities are limited and the area is closed to oil and gas leasing

for the protection of special status species and to support destination recreation associated with

bighorn sheep. Congressionally Designated Trails are managed within the NTMC, which applies

specific prescriptions to protect the trails and their resources, qualities, values, and associated

settings, and the primary use or uses. Alternative D closes some areas to mineral development

including locatable mineral entry. The Beaver Rim area is identified for an MLP to protect

important resources.

Table 2.4, “Comparative Summary of Proposed Land Use Decisions in the Lander Planning

Area” (p. 45) lists acreage allocations for resources and resource uses by alternative. In

general, avoidance or exclusion of surface-disturbing activities or a particular resource use

(e.g., ROW avoidance or exclusion) limits or restricts development activities in these areas

to preserve resource characteristics or meet management objectives of a resource program

(e.g., prohibiting surface-disturbing activities on slopes greater than 25 percent to decrease soil

erosion). Acreage allocations under each alternative reflect the general theme of each alternative

(e.g., area open to mineral development is the least under Alternative B to limit adverse impacts

to certain physical and biological resources). Acreage figures in Table 2.4, “Comparative

Summary of Proposed Land Use Decisions in the Lander Planning Area” (p. 45) are reported

for BLM-administered surface, BLM-administered mineral estate, and total surface area in

the planning area. Acres of BLM-administered surface include all surface lands managed by

the BLM (Map 1). BLM-administered mineral estate includes the sub-surface mineral estate

administered by the BLM, including federal mineral estate underlying BLM-administered surface

and underlying non-federal land, or split-estate (Map 2). Total surface in the planning area

includes all BLM-administered surface as well as private ownership, tribal lands, state lands, and

lands managed by other federal agencies (Map 1). The acreage of BLM-administered surface and

BLM-administered mineral estate in the planning area is displayed below in Table 2.3, “Acreage

of Surface Land and Mineral Estate in the Planning Area” (p. 44) for reference when viewing

the summary tables below.

Table 2.3. Acreage of Surface Land and Mineral Estate in the Planning Area

BLM-Administered Surface BLM-Administered Mineral Estate

2,394,210 2,809,101

Source: BLM 2012a

BLM Bureau of Land Management

Table 2.5, “Comparative Summary of Areas of Critical Environmental Concern by

Alternative” (p. 50) lists acreage allocations and the emphasis for management in proposed

ACECs. ACECs are managed to protect and prevent irreparable damage to important historic,

cultural, scenic, and biological values, and other natural systems or processes. ACECs are also

designated to protect life and ensure safety from natural hazards. In general, management in

ACECs limit development and surface-disturbing activities that may affect these important values.

For a more detailed discussion of recreation management areas see Appendix C (p. 1453).

Chapter 2 Resource Management Alternatives

Summaries of Alternatives February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 45

All of the tables below provide a comparative summary of acreage allocations under the four

alternatives.

Table 2.4. Comparative Summary of Proposed Land Use Decisions in the Lander Planning

Area

Topic Acreage Type

Alternative A

(Acres)

Alternative B

(Acres)

Alternative C

(Acres)

Alternative D

(Acres)

Physical, Biological, and Heritage and Visual Resources

Slopes Greater than 25

Percent (Surface-disturbing

Activities Prohibited)

BLMAdministered

Surface

182,345 - 182,345 182,345

Slopes Greater than 15

Percent (Surface-disturbing

Activities Avoided for

Category 3-5 restrictions)

BLMAdministered

Surface

- 413,670 - -

Total Surface in

the Planning Area

20,140 112,218 20,140 145,5851

BLMAdministered

Surface

16,283 93,411 16,283 122,8901

Greater Sage-grouse

Occupied Leks Protective

Buffer (Surface-disturbing

Activities Prohibited)

BLMAdministered

Mineral Estate

18,025 101,315 18,025 131,7061

Total Surface in

the Planning Area

966,736 1,680,580 966,736 2,354,8252

BLMAdministered

Surface

794,452 1,339,609 794,452 1,806,5472

Greater Sage-grouse Nesting

Habitat Protective Buffer

(Surface-disturbing and

Disruptive Activities

Subject to Seasonal

Limitations) BLMAdministered

Mineral Estate

861,519 1,483,088 861,519 2,024,4022

BLMAdministered

Surface

301,237 781,643 158,199 380,115

Raptor Nest Protective

Buffer (Surface-disturbing

and Disruptive Activities

Subject to Seasonal

Limitations)

BLMAdministered

Mineral Estate

337,588 873,378 177,391 421,105

Total Surface in

the Planning Area

354,963 354,963 0 373,987

BLMAdministered

Surface

166,525 166,525 0 235,217

Elk Winter Range

(Surface-disturbing and

Disruptive Activities

Subject to Seasonal

Limitations)3

BLMAdministered

Mineral Estate

221,232 221,232 0 294,865

Total Surface in

the Planning Area

1,055,702 1,055,702 1,055,702 1,138,471

BLMAdministered

Surface

605,898 605,898 605,898 647,231

Big Game Crucial Winter

Range (Surface-disturbing

and Disruptive Activities

Subject to Seasonal

Limitations)3

BLMAdministered

Mineral Estate

809,393 809,393 809,393 871,020

Wild Horse Herd

Management Areas

BLMAdministered

Surface4

642,081 642,081 642,081 642,081

February 2013

Chapter 2 Resource Management Alternatives

Summaries of Alternatives
46 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Topic Acreage Type

Alternative A

(Acres)

Alternative B

(Acres)

Alternative C

(Acres)

Alternative D

(Acres)

Warm Springs Canyon

Flume – Management to

protect the site as a National

Register-eligible property

BLMAdministered

Surface

557 834 557 557

BLMAdministered

Surface

57,443 59,317 55,360 60,115

Visual Resource

Management – Class I

BLMAdministered

Mineral Estate

58,316 60,548 54,994 61,089

BLMAdministered

Surface

202,785 1,284,122 25,730 780,810

Visual Resource

Management – Class II

BLMAdministered

Mineral Estate

272,523 1,524,787 34,689 996,574

BLMAdministered

Surface

222,121 292,890 722,356 857,979

Visual Resource

Management – Class III

BLMAdministered

Mineral Estate

302,766 348,132 855,614 951,079

BLMAdministered

Surface

1,853,862 756,813 1,590,758 694,759

Visual Resource

Management – Class IV

BLMAdministered

Mineral Estate

2,109,234 873,572 1,863,789 799,571

BLMAdministered

Surface

57,995 - - -

Visual Resource

Management – Class V5

BLMAdministered

Mineral Estate

66,258 - - -

Non-WSA Lands with

Wilderness Characteristics

Managed to Protect

Wilderness Values

BLMAdministered

Surface

- 5,490 - 4,954

Resource Uses and Support

Mineral Resources

Available for Locatable

Mineral Entry

BLMAdministered

Mineral Estate

2,777,334 1,167,862 2,800,467 2,351,399

Pursued for Withdrawal

from Locatable Mineral

Entry

BLMAdministered

Mineral Estate

23,114 1,632,605 0 449,068

Existing pre-FLPMA

Withdrawals

BLMAdministered

Mineral Estate

8,634 8,634 8,634 8,634

Open to Geothermal Leasing

Subject to Standard Lease

Stipulations

BLMAdministered

Mineral Estate

728,277 6,287 797,174 53,898

Open to Geothermal Leasing

with Moderate Constraints

BLMAdministered

Mineral Estate

1,703,913 322,717 1,738,283 1,198,821

Chapter 2 Resource Management Alternatives

Summaries of Alternatives February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 47

Topic Acreage Type

Alternative A

(Acres)

Alternative B

(Acres)

Alternative C

(Acres)

Alternative D

(Acres)

Open to Geothermal Leasing

with Major Constraints

BLMAdministered

Mineral Estate

242,226 175,369 165,747 859,566

Closed to Geothermal

Leasing

BLMAdministered

Mineral Estate

134,686 2,304,728 107,897 696,816

Open to Oil and Gas Leasing

Subject to Standard Lease

Stipulations

BLMAdministered

Mineral Estate

731,144 32,952 804,794 44,945

Open to Oil and Gas

Leasing Subject to Moderate

Constraints

BLMAdministered

Mineral Estate

1,715,341 309,100 1,755,628 1,260,715

Open to Oil and Gas Leasing

Subject to Major Constraints

BLMAdministered

Mineral Estate

337,481 187,524 248,601 1,336,867

Closed to Oil and Gas

Leasing

BLMAdministered

Mineral Estate

25,136 2,279,525 78 166,574

Open to Phosphate Leasing

Subject to Standard Lease

Stipulations

BLMAdministered

Mineral Estate

2,590,482 551,440 2,642,047 1,539,655

Closed to Phosphate Leasing BLMAdministered

Mineral Estate

218,619 2,257,661 167,054 1,269,446

Open to Disposal of Mineral

Materials

BLMAdministered

Mineral Estate

2,493,980 209,842 2,620,997 1,853,090

Closed to Disposal of

Mineral Materials

BLMAdministered

Mineral Estate

315,121 2,599,259 188,104 956,011

Lands and Realty

Surface Ownership Retained BLMAdministered

Surface

2,385,637 2,388,774 2,388,774 2,386,137

Land Available for Disposal

by Sale, Exchange, or Other

Means

BLMAdministered

Surface

8,573 5,436 5,436 8,073

Land Available for Disposal

with Restrictions on Use

BLMAdministered

Surface

1,475 1,435 1,435 6,665

Renewable Energy

Acres Open to Wind-Energy

Development

BLMAdministered

Surface

2,113,512 41,372 2,284,235 224,289

Wind-Energy Avoidance

Areas

BLMAdministered

Surface

64,816 23,887 15,818 1,215,599

Wind-Energy Exclusion

Areas

BLMAdministered

Surface

215,882 2,328,951 94,157 954,322

Rights-of-Way

ROW/Utility Corridor Areas BLMAdministered

Surface

4,892 15,364 660,908 103,646

February 2013

Chapter 2 Resource Management Alternatives

Summaries of Alternatives
48 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Topic Acreage Type

Alternative A

(Acres)

Alternative B

(Acres)

Alternative C

(Acres)

Alternative D

(Acres)

ROW Avoidance Areas BLMAdministered

Surface

66,099 315,219 11,714 1,369,300

ROW Exclusion Areas BLMAdministered

Surface

205,916 1,919,029 147,053 417,426

Motorized Travel

Acres Closed to Motorized

Travel

BLMAdministered

Surface

5,923 71,761 5,472 26,357

Acres Seasonally Closed to

Motorized Travel

BLMAdministered

Surface

111,002 116,805 - 110,530

Acres Limited to Designated

Roads and Trails for

Motorized Travel

BLMAdministered

Surface

163,075 193,704 50,776 154,772

Acres Limited to Existing

Roads and Trails for

Motorized Travel

BLMAdministered

Surface

2,226,504 2,128,741 2,337,958 2,213,081

Acres Closed to Over-snow

Vehicle Use

BLMAdministered

Surface

14,729 181,173 - 70,425

Recreation Management Areas

Total Acreage of SRMAs BLMAdministered

Surface

406,457 307,183 608 293,774

Total Acreage of ERMAs BLMAdministered

Surface

163,1876 799,5046 901,2506 232,275

Livestock Grazing

Acres Available for

Livestock Grazing

BLMAdministered

Surface

2,324,934 2,312,095 2,324,934 2,317,368

Acres Not Available for

Livestock Grazing7

BLMAdministered

Surface

69,276 69,276 69,276 69,276

Acres Closed to Livestock

Grazing

BLMAdministered

Surface

- 12,839 - 7,566

Special Designations

National Landscape

Conservation System

BLMAdministered

Surface

101,100 101,100 101,100 101,100

Wild and Scenic Rivers

(Eligible Waterways

Managed as Suitable for

Inclusion in the NWSRS)8

BLMAdministered

Surface

9,9199 9,919 - 6,153

Wilderness Study Areas BLMAdministered

Surface

55,338 55,338 55,338 55,338

Chapter 2 Resource Management Alternatives

Summaries of Alternatives February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 49

Topic Acreage Type

Alternative A

(Acres)

Alternative B

(Acres)

Alternative C

(Acres)

Alternative D

(Acres)

Number of Areas of

Critical Environmental

Concern (See Table 2.5,

“Comparative Summary

of Areas of Critical

Environmental Concern

by Alternative” (p. 50))

Total number 9 15 - 8

Source: BLM 2012a

1Buffer acres were calculated around newly available greater sage-grouse lek perimeters for Alternative

D versus around lek points in alternatives A, B, and C.

2The increase in acreage results from all suitable nesting habitat and early brood-rearing habitat within greater sagegrouse Core Area being subject to seasonal protection versus the lek buffer approach used in alternatives A, B, and C.

3Acreage reported for Alternative D reflects best available data at time of publication. Except

for elk winter range management under Alternative C, management does not vary by alternative.

4Acreage includes portions of Wild Horse Herd Management Areas outside of the planning area.

5VRM 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.

6Excludes the general Lander ERMA which includes all lands not managed as separate SRMAs or ERMAs.

738,058 acres have been determined to be OSA (Outside Service Area) and unsuitable for grazing. 31,218

acres include a small number of areas such as wildlife areas closed to grazing in 1987 for wildlife values

and some additional lands that should be OSA or identified as grazed but managed by other field offices.

8Acreage derived using a 1⁄4-mile buffer around each waterway.

9All eligible waterways under Alternative A are managed to protect the free-flowing outstandingly remarkable

values and tentative classification.

BLM Bureau of Land Management

ERMA ExtensiveRecreation Management Area

FLPMA Federal Land Policy and Management

Act

OSA Outside Service Area

NWSRS National Wild and ScenicRiver System

ROW right-of-way

SRMA Special Recreation Management Area

VRM Visual Resource Management

WSA Wilderness Study Area

WSR Wild and Scenic River

February 2013

Chapter 2 Resource Management Alternatives

Summaries of Alternatives
50 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table 2.5. Comparative Summary of Areas of Critical Environmental Concern by Alternative

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

ACEC Name

Value(s) of

Concern

Existing

Designation

BLM Surface

(Acres)

Proposed

Designation

BLM

Surface

(Acres)1

Proposed

Designation

BLM

Surface

(Acres)

Proposed

Designation

BLM

Surface

(Acres)

Lander Slope

Fish and

wildlife,

scenic values,

natural

processes

ACEC 25,065 ACEC 25,065 No ACEC - ACEC 25,065

Red Canyon

Wildlife,

special status

species,

scenic values,

geologic

features

ACEC 15,109 ACEC 15,109 No ACEC - ACEC 15,109

Dubois Badlands

Wildlife,

soils, scenic

values

ACEC 4,903 ACEC 4,903 No ACEC - No ACEC -

Whiskey Mountain Wildlife,

scenic values

ACEC 8,776 ACEC 8,776 No ACEC - ACEC 8,776

East Fork Wildlife

ACEC 4,431

ACEC

Expansion

7,744 No ACEC - ACEC

Expansion

7,745

Beaver Rim

Fish and

wildlife, plant

communities,

scenic values, geologic

features, paleontological

ACEC 6,421

ACEC

Expansion

20,532 No ACEC - ACEC 6,421

Green Mountain

Wildlife,

plant

communities

ACEC 14,612

ACEC

Expansion

24,860 No ACEC - ACEC

Expansion

21,389

South Pass Historic Mining

Area

Hazards,

cultural

ACEC 12,576

ACEC

Expansion

23,439 No ACEC - No ACEC -

South Pass Historical

Landscape2

Hazards,

cultural

No ACEC - No ACEC - No ACEC - ACEC 124,229

National Historic Trails

Scenic values,

cultural

ACEC 27,728

ACEC

Expansion

468,183 No ACEC - No ACEC -

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Summaries of Alternatives February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 51

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

ACEC Name

Value(s) of

Concern

Existing

Designation

BLM Surface

(Acres)

Proposed

Designation

BLM

Surface

(Acres)1

Proposed

Designation

BLM

Surface

(Acres)

Proposed

Designation

BLM

Surface

(Acres)

Continental Divide National

Scenic Trail

Scenic values

No ACEC -

Proposed

ACEC

259,380 No ACEC - No ACEC -

Cedar Ridge

Cultural

No ACEC -

Proposed

ACEC

7,039 No ACEC - No ACEC -

Castle Gardens

Cultural

No ACEC -

Proposed

ACEC

8,469 No ACEC - No ACEC -

Sweetwater Rocks

Scenic values,

geologic

features,

cultural

No ACEC -

Proposed

ACEC

152,347 No ACEC - No ACEC -

Regional Historic Trails and

Early Highways

Cultural

No ACEC -

Proposed

ACEC

89,016 No ACEC - No ACEC -

Government Draw/Upper

Sweetwater Sage-Grouse

Wildlife

No ACEC -

Proposed

ACEC

1,246,791 No ACEC - No ACEC -

Twin Creek3 Wildlife

No ACEC - No ACEC - No ACEC -

Proposed

ACEC

35,102

Source: BLM 2012a

1 Acreage of ACEC Expansion includes the existing plus the proposed expansion acreage.

2 The existing South Pass Historic Mining Area ACEC is contained within the area proposed as the South Pass Historical Landscape ACEC under Alternative D.

3 The proposed Twin Creek ACEC designated under Alternative D is contained within the area proposed as the Government Draw/Upper Sweetwater Sage-Grouse

ACEC under Alternative B.

ACEC Area of Critical Environmental Concern

BLM Bureau of Land Management

February 2013

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Summaries of Alternatives
52 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Restrictions on resource uses (e.g., closed to mineral leasing) apply throughout the life of the

RMP, unless changed through a RMP amendment. Category restrictions, which are referred

to throughout the remainder of this chapter, define the restrictions applied to mineral and

realty actions such as oil and gas leasing, locatable mineral entry, and wind energy or ROW

authorizations. The six categories represent a range of restrictions associated with mineral and

realty actions, with Category 1 being the least restrictive and Category 6 the most restrictive. An

area managed with a Category 1 restriction is open to all mineral and realty actions subject to

standard stipulations, while an area managed with a Category 6 restriction is closed or excluded

to all mineral and realty actions. The intermediate categories (categories 2 through 5) apply

varying levels of restrictions such as avoidance for wind energy and ROW authorizations and

seasonal and/or CSU restrictions for mineral leasing. Many management actions include a

Category restriction to indicate the types of actions allowed in a certain area. Table 2.6, “Category

Restrictions Key” (p. 73) provides a description of each Category restriction.

Management actions developed under all alternatives are subject to valid existing rights. In

addition, management actions may only be implemented when consistent with applicable laws,

regulations, and policies. Changes in resource use restrictions and a resulting RMP amendment

can result due to public demand, statewide or national policy and guidance, or other factors.

The timing and degree of implementation of management prescriptions in this RMP and EIS

depend on available budget, staffing, and agency priorities. Actions the BLM takes or authorizes

during RMP implementation would comply with standard practices, BMPs, guidelines for

surface-disturbing activities, and other BLM guidance and policy. Therefore, the BLM considers

these practices and guidelines as part of each alternative. Implementation of new BLM policy

and guidance during the life of this RMP will be incorporated into the land use planning process

and implementation level decisions.

The lack of detailed, implementation level decisions in the land use planning process prohibits the

development of specific, detailed mitigation measures. As appropriate, the BLM will perform

additional environmental analyses during the implementation stage for site-specific actions and

will determine on a case-by-case basis what, if any, mitigation is required.

2.9.1. Alternative A (Current Management)

2.9.1.1. Overview of the Alternative

Alternative A represents the current management of resources on BLM-administered surface and

mineral estate within the planning area under the existing plan.

2.9.1.2. Physical Resources

Under Alternative A, the BLM manages physical resources to conserve air, water, and soil

resources and to support resources and resource uses. Alternative A places limitations on

surface-disturbing activities to protect soil resources by prohibiting surface disturbance on slopes

greater than 25 percent, but allows soil-disturbing activities in areas with limited reclamation

potential (LRP). Soil reclamation management under Alternative A requires soil stabilization and

sediment control in compliance with Wyoming Stormwater Discharge requirements and, on a

case-by-case basis, requires seeding of a cover crop to protect topsoil. To conserve water resources

within the planning area, the BLM prohibits or avoids surface-disturbing activities in groundwater

recharge areas on a case-by-case basis; limits restrictions on pesticide use in aquifer recharge

Chapter 2 Resource Management Alternatives

Alternative A (Current Management) February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 53

areas to label instructions; and, in cooperation with stakeholders, implements management actions

to prevent degradation of groundwater and surface water quality. Alternative A does not identify

special management prescriptions for any lands with wilderness characteristics.

2.9.1.3. Mineral Resources

The BLM manages mineral resource uses by identifying BLM-administered lands and federal

mineral estate within the planning area suitable for exploration and development of leasable,

locatable, and salable minerals. Management actions also seek to protect other resource values

that are incompatible with mineral resources activity. Approximately 23,114 acres are withdrawn

from locatable mineral entry in the planning area and 2,777,334 acres are open to locatable

mineral entry.

Alternative A closes approximately 25,136 acres of federal mineral estate in the planning area to

oil and gas leasing and opens the remaining federal mineral estate in the planning area for oil

and gas leasing, subject to the following constraints: 731,144 acres are subject to standard lease

stipulations, 1,715,341 acres are subject to moderate constraints, and 337,481 acres are subject

to major constraints. No lands are identified for leasing under an MLP. The BLM identifies

constraints on mineral leasing in the planning area to protect resource values. Major constraints

include more stringent restrictions on oil and gas development, such as NSO restrictions or

overlapping timing limitation stipulation (TLS) restrictions, and usually occur in areas with more

sensitive resource values. Moderate constraints apply less restriction on development and usually

limit the time of construction and operation activities or require specific mitigation or lease

stipulations. Standard stipulations subject oil and gas leasing to the terms and conditions of the

standard lease form only.

Table 2.4, “Comparative Summary of Proposed Land Use Decisions in the Lander Planning

Area” (p. 45) displays the acres of mineral estate available for geothermal and other leasable

minerals development.

Disposal of mineral materials under Alternative A is available on a demand basis in areas with

Category 1 or 2 restrictions.

2.9.1.4. Fire and Fuels Management

Under Alternative A for fire and fuels management, full suppression is the most likely fire

suppression strategy, with other suppression strategies used on a case-by-case basis. The aerial

application of fire retardants is prohibited within 300 feet of any waterbody. The appropriate

response to wildland fire is based on the circumstances under which a fire occurs and the likely

consequences on firefighter and public safety and welfare, natural and cultural resources, and

other values to be protected.

Approximately 6,000 acres of fuels reduction and vegetation treatments over 20 years are

expected to occur under Alternatives A. Reactive fire management (fire suppression and

rehabilitation) is typically more expensive, time consuming, and damaging than proactive fire,

fuels, and vegetation management (prescribed burns, mechanical thinning, chemical treatment,

and subsequent restoration). The projected fire suppression cost would be along historical trends.

February 2013

Chapter 2 Resource Management Alternatives

Alternative A (Current Management)
54 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

2.9.1.5. Biological Resources

The BLM manages biological resources under Alternative A to provide habitat for fish and

wildlife, meet public demand for forest products, protect natural functions in riparian-wetland

areas, and control the spread of invasive species. Although the 1987 RMP originally analyzed

vegetative resources as a subpart of livestock grazing, the adoption of the Wyoming Standards

for Healthy Rangelands in 1997 made vegetative health a consideration in every activity and

allows resource use only that supports Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands. Vegetative

treatments would be utilized to manage vegetative communities to increase forage production

while maintaining healthy rangeland ecosystems. Management of forests and woodlands would

continue to emphasize forest health, wildlife habitat, and demand for forest products, allowing

clear-cuts of 25 acres or smaller. Various site-specific management actions would be utilized to

make progress towards meeting PFC including fencing, resting, deferment, and road closures of

riparian-wetland areas within the planning area. Surface-disturbing activities within 500 feet of

surface water would be prohibited. For invasive species and pest management, Alternative A

manages activities that contribute to the spread of invasive plant species on a case-by-case basis.

The BLM primarily manages potential impacts to fish and wildlife species and their habitats on

a case‐by‐case basis, such as avoiding road construction in big game crucial winter range or

reducing the footprint of surface-disturbing activities and facilities. Constraints on resource

uses specifically protect fish and wildlife resources in only a few cases under Alternative A.

Specific constraints are primarily seasonal limitations on surface-disturbing activities to protect

wildlife during important times of the year, such as winter and birthing periods. For example,

surface-disturbing activities are prohibited within 3⁄4 mile of active raptor nests from February 1 to

July 31 and within elk winter range from November 15 to April 30.

The BLM manages impacts to special status species and their habitats in compliance with the

ESA and BLM policy for special status species, including BLM sensitive species. Alternative A

has specific protections for greater sage‐grouse, such as prohibiting surface-disturbing activities

within 1⁄4 mile of occupied greater sage‐grouse leks and avoiding surface disturbance in greater

sage‐grouse nesting habitat within 2 miles of occupied leks from February 1 to July 31, but

does not adopt the Wyoming Governor's Core Area strategy. For the majority of special status

species, management is directed at avoiding or minimizing impacts from surface disturbance

and disruptive activities on a case‐by‐case basis. For example, Alternative A requires, on a

case‐by‐case basis, anti-perching devices on overhead powerlines and limitations on activities that

contribute sediment to waterbodies supporting Yellowstone cutthroat trout, burbot, and sauger.

Management actions for wild horses include considering the impacts on herd health when making

management decisions regarding fencing. The BLM does not establish scenic loops for wild

horse viewing under Alternative A.

2.9.1.6. Heritage and Visual Resources

Alternative A partially balances the protection of cultural resources with impacts to them,

and the BLM attempts to limit effects to cultural resources on a case-by-case basis. For

development-related effects, Alternative A has mostly standard measures to protect significant

prehistoric, historic, and sacred, spiritual, and/or traditional cultural properties. However, standard

protection measures mostly do not address management of historic settings along historic trails

and certain historic sites, so protection has been sporadic. The same is true for sacred, spiritual,

and/or traditional cultural properties. For natural deterioration and looting/vandalism types of

Chapter 2 Resource Management Alternatives

Alternative A (Current Management) February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 55

effects upon cultural resources, Alternative A addresses effects to some specific cultural resource

properties, but does not cover effects to unnamed cultural resources. As a result, protection from

deterioration and looting/vandalism has been only occasional. For location-specific cultural

resource management actions, Alternative A protects 557 acres of the Warm Springs Canyon

Flume site. Alternative A has minimal protections for other location-specific resources, such as

sacred, spiritual, and/or traditional cultural properties, due to a lack of management direction.

For paleontological resources, Alternative A also partially balances protection with impacts

and strives to limit effects on a case-by-case basis. For development-related effects, new

paleontological laws and regulations have strengthened the protection of fossil resources,

especially in areas of “very high” and “high” potential. However, Alternative A does not

address impacts to paleontological resources from natural deterioration and looting/vandalism.

For location-specific paleontological resource management actions, Alternative A restricts

resource uses to protect the Beaver Rim proposed National Natural Landmark (NNL). For other

location-specific resources such as the Bison Basin proposed NNL, and the Bonneville to Lost

Cabin, Lander Slope, and Gas Hills high potential paleontological areas, Alternative A has

minimal protections.

Under the existing plan, the BLM categorized the management of visual resources in accordance

with five VRM classes, each of which provide different levels of management and protection

for visual resources. VRM Class V visual resources no longer exist as a class objective and

are therefore managed as Class IV under Alternative A. The majority of BLM-administered

land under Alternative A is managed as VRM Class IV (1,853,862 acres), which provides for

management activities that allow major modification to the existing character of the landscape.

The level of change to the characteristic landscape in VRM Class IV areas can be high. The

remainder of BLM-administered surface in the planning area is managed as Class I, II, and III,

which retain more of the existing character of the landscape.

2.9.1.7. Land Resources

Land resource program actions under Alternative A identify approximately 2,385,637 acres for

retention within the planning area and approximately 8,573 acres as available for disposal. Some

of these lands would not meet current guidance for disposal and have been removed from the

acreage in the other alternatives. Lands identified for disposal are generally small areas (less than

40 acres) and are usually isolated tracts, making them difficult for the BLM to manage. The

BLM opens a total of 2,113,512 acres to wind-energy development and manages 64,816 acres as

avoidance areas and 215,882 acres as exclusion areas for wind-energy development. This acreage

is based upon a 1⁄4-mile buffer around the Congressionally Designated Trails. Under Alternative

A, no corridors have been designated for ROWs; therefore, major ROWs are concentrated

in existing utility corridors as much as possible. Communication facilities are authorized on

a case-by-case basis.

Trails and travel management under Alternative A balances resource protection with access and

recreational values. For example, the BLM closes the Lander Slope, Red Canyon, Whiskey

Mountain, and portions of Green Mountain areas to motorized travel from December 1 to June

15 to protect sensitive resources. The Dubois Badlands ACEC and Castle Gardens area are

closed to motorized travel year-round. Unless otherwise specified, the BLM limits motorized

vehicle use to existing roads and trails within the planning area (2,226,504 acres), which prohibits

cross-country motorized travel but is less restrictive than limiting travel to designated roads

February 2013

Chapter 2 Resource Management Alternatives

Alternative A (Current Management)
56 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

and trails. Over-snow vehicle travel is prohibited only in the Red Canyon area and is open in

the remainder of the planning area.

Alternative A permits livestock grazing on 2,324,934 acres in the planning area. The alternative

opens acquired lands for livestock grazing on a case-by-case basis and prohibits the placement

of salt and mineral supplements within 1⁄4 mile of water and riparian-wetland areas. The BLM

establishes forage utilization levels for livestock and allows new infrastructure types of range

improvements on a case-by-case basis. Fences and cattleguards may be removed or modified on a

case-by-case basis to allow movement of wildlife, wild horses, and livestock.

Recreation management under Alternative A provides restrictions to protect recreation resources

primarily at the developed site level while few restrictions exist to protect other important

recreation areas. Under Alternative A, the BLM manages three SRMAs to protect the recreation

setting and provide for specific recreation opportunities such as hiking or biking. Alternative A

also designates 12 ERMAs which provide less structured recreation opportunities than SRMAs

but are used to specifically address local recreation issues. Those lands not included in separate

ERMAs or SRMAs are managed as part of the Lander ERMA (1,824,406 acres). See Appendix

C (p. 1453) for a detailed discussion of recreation management areas by alternative.

2.9.1.8. Special Designations

Currently, the BLM manages nine ACECs: Lander Slope, Red Canyon, Dubois Badlands,

Whiskey Mountains, East Fork, Beaver Rim, Green Mountain, NHTs, and South Pass Historic

Mining District. Table 2.5, “Comparative Summary of Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

by Alternative” (p. 50) summarizes acreage and management emphasis in each of these ACECs.

In addition to the provisions of BLM Manual 6330, Management of Wilderness Study Areas,

which in 2012 replaced the Interim Management Policy and Guidelines for Lands Under

Wilderness Review (BLM 1995), Alternative A places strict limitations on motorized travel

within WSAs by limiting motorized travel in seven of the eight WSAs in the planning area to

designated roads and trails that existed and were identified before or during the inventory phase of

the Wilderness review. The remaining WSA, the Dubois Badlands, is closed to motorized travel.

The BLM manages all WSAs as separate ERMAs to address local recreation issues.

The BLM also manages nine waterway segments that are eligible for inclusion in the National

Wild and Scenic River System (NWSRS) for outstanding remarkable values (ORVs) and tentative

classification: Baldwin Creek Unit (8.1 miles), Sweetwater River Unit (12.9 miles), Ice Slough

(1.6 miles), Little Popo Agie River (1.5 miles), North Popo Agie River (0.7 miles), Rock Creek

(4.0 miles), Warm Springs Creek (1.3 miles), Willow Creek (1.3 miles), and Wind River (0.5

miles).

Under Alternative A, the BLM manages two Congressionally Designated Trails. The entire

Continental Divide National Scenic Trail (CDNST) is included in a SRMA, but no allowable

use decisions exist for the area. For NHTs, the BLM manages mineral and realty actions with

Category 4 restrictions within 1⁄4 mile of each side of the trails but also applies specific Category

restrictions to certain trail sections. The BLM manages NHTs as VRM Classes I and II, only

authorizing highly visible projects on a case-by-case basis in order to protect the NHTs from

visual intrusions. As noted above, the BLM manages the Oregon, Mormon Pioneer, California,

and Pony Express NHTs as an ACEC under Alternative A, the areal extent of which is defined as

the area within 1⁄4 mile of each side of the NHTs.

Chapter 2 Resource Management Alternatives

Alternative A (Current Management) February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 57

2.9.1.9. Socioeconomic Resources

The BLM’s management includes analyzing impacts on socioeconomic resources from the

implementation of projects through the NEPA process.

2.9.2. Alternative B

2.9.2.1. Overview of the Alternative

Alternative B emphasizes conservation of physical, biological, heritage and visual resources when

managing the public lands for multiple use. Land uses would still be authorized, but greater

restrictions would be placed on where and how they occur. Alternative B utilizes a low impact

approach to resource management, utilizing natural systems to achieve goals and objectives,

particularly achieving Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands, PFC, and forest health, and

employing the least infrastructure and human presence as possible. There would be little to no

infrastructure range improvements and a correspondingly higher amount of vegetation treatments.

In order to avoid potential lasting impacts from more intense management actions, making

improvements to resource condition may take longer to achieve than a more development-oriented

approach. Compared to other alternatives, Alternative B would preserve the most land area for

physical, biological, and heritage resources; would designate the highest number of ACECs; and

would be the most restrictive to motorized travel and mineral development. Alternative B adheres

to all BLM policies related to greater sage-grouse, incorporates conservation measures from

the NTT report, and manages greater sage-grouse breeding, nesting, and brooding areas either

consistent with or more restrictive than the Wyoming Governor's Core Area strategy.

2.9.2.2. Physical Resources

Under Alternative B, the BLM manages physical resources with an emphasis on conserving these

resources. This alternative is less focused on supporting resource uses than the other alternatives.

Alternative B places more limitations on surface-disturbing activities to protect soil resources than

the other alternatives. For example, Alternative B avoids surface disturbance on slopes greater

than 15 percent and prohibits soil disturbance in areas with LRP. Reclamation standards are

also more stringent than the other alternatives. Management under Alternative B includes more

proactive management protections for surface and groundwater resources including avoiding

surface disturbance and prohibiting pesticide use in known or inferred aquifer recharge areas.

Unlike alternatives A and C, Alternative B identifies special management prescriptions for certain

lands with wilderness characteristics, including the Little Red Creek Complex.

2.9.2.3. Mineral Resources

Mineral resource uses are subject to additional constraints under Alternative B compared to other

alternatives (see Table 2.4, “Comparative Summary of Proposed Land Use Decisions in the Lander

Planning Area” (p. 45)). Within the planning area, 1,167,862 acres are available for locatable

mineral entry, while 1,632,605 acres are recommended for withdrawal from mineral entry.

Alternative B closes approximately 2,279,525 acres of federal mineral estate to oil and gas leasing

and opens the remaining federal mineral estate to oil and gas leasing subject to the following

February 2013

Chapter 2 Resource Management Alternatives

Alternative B
58 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

constraints: 32,952 acres are subject to standard lease stipulations, 309,100 acres are subject to

moderate constraints, and 187,524 acres are subject to major constraints. Although lands were

identified by external nominations as appropriate for leasing subject to an MLP analysis, all were

located in the 2,279,525 acres that are closed to leasing entirely. While it is possible that more

refined or focused approaches under an MLP analysis could have reduced the acreage that would

be closed under Alternative B because of resource conflicts, analyzing the more severe constraint

was reasonable and provided a complete range of alternatives.

Table 2.4, “Comparative Summary of Proposed Land Use Decisions in the Lander Planning

Area” (p. 45) displays the acres of mineral estate available for geothermal and other leasable

minerals.

For salable minerals, approximately 209,842 acres are open to disposal with Category 1 or 2

restrictions, while 2,599,259 acres with Category 3 to 6 restrictions are closed to mineral material

disposal.

2.9.2.4. Fire and Fuels Management

Fire and fuels management actions under Alternative B include using full suppression of wildland

fire within the wildland-urban interface (WUI) and where necessary to minimize critical resource

damage. The aerial application of fire retardant is prohibited within 1⁄4 mile of waterbodies that

support certain special status fish species. Full suppression will be applied if needed to protect

greater sage-grouse habitat including the approximately 70 percent of the BLM-administered

surface that is located in the Wyoming Governor's Core Area. As with Alternative A, the

appropriate response to wildland fire would be based on the circumstances under which a fire

occurs and the likely consequences on firefighter and public safety and welfare, natural and

cultural resources, and other values to be protected.

Alternative B assumes 20,000 acres of fuels treatment over 20 years, or more than triple the acres

projected for Alternative A. More acres of strategic fuels treatment will lead to reduced fire

suppression costs in areas adjacent to WUI or public infrastructure in comparison to alternatives

A and C. Some moderation of the suppression costs would be achieved with this alternative due

to the emphasis on the management of natural ignitions for resources benefits, but that benefit

would be limited to those areas outside of Core Area or where Core Area annual precipitation

exceeds 12 inches.

2.9.2.5. Biological Resources

Biological resources management under Alternative B places more emphasis on conservation

of habitat for fish and wildlife, ecosystem management, protection of natural functions in

riparian-wetland areas, and control of invasive species compared to Alternative A. Vegetative

communities under Alternative B would be managed to benefit biological diversity of wildlife,

fish and special status species. Treatments would be done to restore diversity of ecological sites

and their transitional states within these sites. Management of forests and woodlands would

emphasize the improvement of vegetative health and would prohibit clear-cuts and harvest

methods that create clear-cuts. The BLM would use the natural healing capacity of the land

to make progress towards meeting PFC, using management actions such as road closures and

livestock grazing management. Surface-disturbing activities would be prohibited within 1,320

feet of surface water and riparian-wetland areas. Invasive species and pest management would be

similar to Alternative A but with extra precautions designed to minimize the spread of invasive

Chapter 2 Resource Management Alternatives

Alternative B February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 59

species. An Authorized Officer may adjust the terms of an authorized activity if it is determined

the activity is contributing to the spread of noxious or invasive species.

Alternative B places a greater emphasis on the conservation of habitat for fish and wildlife and

places more constraints on resource uses that affect biological resources compared to Alternative

A. For example, Alternative B prohibits surface-disturbing activities within 11⁄2 miles of active

raptor nests during species specific nesting periods and, in all cases, requires minimizing the

footprint of surface-disturbing activities to the smallest practical to protect wildlife and their

habitats. Similar to Alternative A, Alternative B prohibits surface-disturbing activities within

identified elk winter range from November 15 to April 30.

Special status species receive increased protection under Alternative B through larger protective

buffers, timing stipulations, and other constraints on resource uses. Alternative B extends the

protective buffer around greater sage-grouse leks from 1⁄4 mile under Alternative A to 0.6 mile,

and limits surface disturbance in greater sage-grouse nesting habitat within 3 miles of occupied

leks from February 1 to July 31. Wind-energy development and oil and gas leasing are closed in

the Wyoming Governor's Core Area and surface disturbance is cap at 2.5 percent and 1 energy

development in 640 acres. Livestock water developments are not allowed in greater sage-grouse

nesting areas. To protect special status plants, Alternative B does not allow chemical vegetation

treatments within 1⁄4 mile of habitat for BLM sensitive plant species and closes areas with special

status plant populations to motorized and mechanized travel. Alternative B preserves traditional

migration and travel corridors for all special status species, and, to protect special status fish

populations, does not authorize activities that could contribute sediment to waterbodies that

support Yellowstone cutthroat trout, burbot, and sauger.

Management of wild horses under Alternative B allows more opportunity for wild horse viewing

by the public compared to Alternative A through the establishment of scenic loops. Alternative

B also calls for the removal or modification of existing fences to allow free movement among

herd populations.

2.9.2.6. Heritage and Visual Resources

Alternative B provides increased protection for heritage resources through constraints on resource

uses and proactive management to identify important cultural or paleontological sites. Under

Alternative B, the BLM conducts assessments in areas where cultural and paleontological

resources are threatened by development and prioritizes endangered sites for additional

protections. The BLM also manages a larger area, compared to Alternative A, around the

Warm Springs Canyon Flume site (834 acres) to protect the area as a National Register of

Historic Places (NRHP)-eligible property. Alternative B manages the Beaver Rim NNL and

proposed Bison Basin NNL with greater protection; mineral and realty actions within these

areas are managed with restrictions on all mineral and realty actions except locatable minerals.

Additionally, Alternative B increases the protection for the sacred, spiritual, and/or traditional

cultural properties by managing these areas with surface restrictions and avoidance within 3 miles.

As under Alternative A, the BLM conducts inventories for paleontological resources in areas

having a “very high” or “high” Potential Fossil Yield Classification prior to all surface-disturbing

activities, but also pursues more detailed analysis of the planning area to further identify areas of

high potential for significant paleontological resources.

Under Alternative B, the BLM places a greater emphasis on protecting visual resources and

preserving the character of the landscape. Over 50 percent of BLM-administered land in the

February 2013

Chapter 2 Resource Management Alternatives

Alternative B
60 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

planning area is managed as VRM Class II (1,284,122 acres) which seeks to retain the existing

character of the landscape by limiting surface disturbance. Alternative B allows fewer visual

intrusions than Alternative A by limiting VRM Class IV visual resources (756,813 acres) to

existing oil and gas fields and around large open pit mines.

2.9.2.7. Land Resources

Land resource program actions under Alternative B identify approximately 2,388,774 acres for

retention within the planning area, slightly more than under Alternative A, and approximately

5,436 acres as available for disposal. The BLM opens a total of 41,372 acres to wind-energy

development and manages 23,887 acres as avoidance areas and 2,328,951 acres as exclusion areas

for wind-energy development. Alternative B establishes ROW corridors which would allow major

ROWs to remain in areas of existing disturbance to the greatest extent possible. Communication

facilities would be required to be co-located with existing sites. At their expiration, existing ROW

grants would be reviewed with appropriate NEPA analysis.

Trails and travel management under Alternative B places a greater emphasis on the protection of

other resource values and, therefore, places more limitations on motorized and mechanized travel.

For example, the BLM limits motorized and mechanized travel in the Lander Slope, Red Canyon,

Whiskey Mountain, and Green Mountain areas to designated roads and trails to protect sensitive

resources. Alternative B also closes more acres to motorized and mechanized travel within the

planning area and limits motorized travel to existing roads and trails on fewer acres (2,128,741

acres) than Alternative A. Alternative B closes more acres to over-snow travel than Alternative A

but still allows over-snow vehicle travel on 2,213,037 acres within the planning area.

Alternative B places more restrictions on livestock grazing compared to Alternative A, opening

a total of 2,312,095 acres to livestock grazing and closing 12,839 acres to grazing. Progress

towards rangeland health will be achieved by reducing livestock AUMs as monitoring shows

that resource conflicts exist. Over time, livestock grazing is likely to be reduced by as much

as 60 percent or more, depending upon resource conflicts. Alternative B approaches making

progress towards meeting Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands without the use of

infrastructure development such as fencing and water developments. Instead, as monitoring

conditions reflect a need for change, other livestock grazing management tools will be used

to achieve Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands such as reduction in use or change of

season of use. Acquired lands under Alternative B are not available to livestock grazing and

Alternative B prohibits the placement of salt and mineral supplements within 1⁄2 mile of water,

within 0.6 mile of greater sage-grouse leks, on areas being reclaimed, and within 3 miles of

NHTs. On an allotment-by-allotment basis, the BLM establishes livestock use that would not

exceed light utilization in areas preferred by livestock in order to leave sufficient forage and

hiding cover for wildlife.

Alternative B places a priority on natural landscapes and the use of livestock grazing as the

primary tool to meet natural resource objectives, related to vegetation, wildlife and aesthetics.

Range improvement projects would only be employed when they offer no conflict with any

other values. Range betterment funds would go primarily to weed abatement and other types of

vegetation treatment. Harvest efficiency of vegetation would be no more than 25 percent of the

total production (pounds per acre) produced, and distance from water and slope (suitability)

would be applied to assure that forage resources are carefully managed to achieve rangeland

health standards. When and where opportunities exist, fences and cattleguards would be removed

and/or modified to accommodate other resource values. This alternative further allows for the

Chapter 2 Resource Management Alternatives

Alternative B February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 61

establishment and management of future common forage reserve allotments. The opportunities

would be solely voluntary within the planning area or considered on acquired lands.

Under Alternative B, recreation management emphasizes protection of resources and recreational

experiences, and includes more restrictions on resource uses than the other alternatives. The

recreational experience is directed at a natural setting and low infrastructure development in a

way that is compatible with visual, historic, and wildlife resources. This alternative emphasizes

nonmotorized recreation and utilizes allowable use decisions to protect important recreation areas

as well as existing and new facilities. For example, Alternative B manages mineral and realty

actions within developed recreation sites with the most stringent category restrictions (Category

6), making these areas off limits to mineral entry, leasing, and other realty actions. Alternative

B also supports and provides seasonal use stipulations as well as other allowable use decisions

to protect several WGFD hunt units managed under special management criteria. Alternative

B maintains seven SRMAs and 13 ERMAs. The Lander Slope SRMA is managed in three

recreation management zones (RMZs), which are managed for distinctly different recreation

products. Each RMZ has certain defining characteristics such as a recreation niche and setting

character designed to meet the strategically targeted primary recreation market demand. For

example, the Sinks Canyon Climbing RMZ is designed to support muscle-powered recreationists

to engage in climbing and hiking. Similarly, Alternative B manages two RMZs within each the

CDNST and NHT Destination SRMAs. The BLM manages those lands not included in separate

ERMAs or SRMAs as part of the Lander ERMA (1,287,636 acres). See Appendix C (p. 1453) for

a detailed discussion of recreation management areas by alternative.

2.9.2.8. Special Designations

Alternative B designates the most land area for special designations and applies the most stringent

restrictions on other resource uses in the areas. Alternative B includes 15 ACECs – the nine

existing areas (five of which the BLM proposes for expansion), and six new ACECs. The five

existing ACECs the BLM proposes to expand are East Fork, Beaver Rim, Green Mountain,

NHTs, and South Pass Historic Mining Area. The six new proposed ACECs are Castle Gardens,

Cedar Ridge, Government Draw/Upper Sweetwater Sage-Grouse, Sweetwater Rocks, CDNST,

and Regional Historic Trails and Early Highways. Table 2.5, “Comparative Summary of Areas of

Critical Environmental Concern by Alternative” (p. 50) summarizes acreage and management

emphasis in each of these ACECs.

Alternative B places stricter limitations on activities within WSAs to protect wilderness

characteristics, including closing all eight WSAs to motorized and mechanized travel.

Management of WSR eligible waterways is similar to Alternative A except that all nine waterways

are recommended as suitable for inclusion in the NWSRS and are managed to maintain and

enhance ORVs.

Under Alternative B, the BLM manages 82,778 acres of the CDNST as an SRMA and 4,589 acres

as a separate ERMA to specifically address local recreation issues. A portion of the CDNST is also

managed as a 259,380-acre ACEC with Category 4 restrictions. Alternative B manages mineral

and realty actions within 5 miles of each side of NHTs with Category 6 restrictions. To protect the

scenic character of the NHTs and associated landscape, Alternative B manages the NHTs as VRM

Class II within 15 miles of the trails and as VRM Class III at all designated NHT crossings.

February 2013

Chapter 2 Resource Management Alternatives

Alternative B
62 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

2.9.2.9. Socioeconomic Resources

Under Alternative B, the BLM seeks to actively minimize adverse socioeconomic impacts

associated with permitted actions. The BLM’s approach to socioeconomic resources is more

proactive than the other alternatives and considers paced development options for mineral

development to avoid adverse impacts on socioeconomic conditions.

2.9.3. Alternative C

2.9.3.1. Overview of the Alternative

Alternative C emphasizes resource uses and reduces constraints placed on resource uses to protect

physical, biological, heritage, and visual resources. Alternative C gives priority to land uses such

as oil and gas development, mining, ROWs, and livestock grazing when managing the public

lands for multiple use. Fewer restrictions protecting biological, physical, heritage and visual

resources would be placed on surface-disturbing and disruptive activities to facilitate land uses

and development. Compared to other alternatives, Alternative C would preserve the least land

area for physical, biological, and heritage resources and is the least restrictive to motorized

vehicle use and mineral development. Alternative C uses all management actions to achieve

maximum resource utilization even if a heavier human presence results.

2.9.3.2. Physical Resources

Under Alternative C, the BLM generally manages physical resources similar to Alternative

A, but with instances of less stringent management restrictions. Reclamation management is

focused primarily on stabilizing soils and establishing ground cover sufficient to reduce and/or

prevent accelerated soil erosion and invasive plant species infestation. While Alternative C does

not prohibit surface-disturbing activities in known or inferred groundwater recharge areas, it

requires the implementation of BMPs to prevent contamination. Alternative C does not separately

manage any lands with wilderness characteristics for naturalness and outstanding opportunities

for solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation.

2.9.3.3. Mineral Resources

Mineral resource uses are subject to the fewest constraints under Alternative C compared to

other alternatives (see Table 2.4, “Comparative Summary of Proposed Land Use Decisions in

the Lander Planning Area” (p. 45)). Under Alternative C, 2,800,467 acres are available for

locatable mineral entry. No new withdrawals from locatable mineral entry are recommended and

existing withdrawals would be allowed to expire.

Alternative C closes approximately 78 acres of federal mineral estate to oil and gas leasing in

the planning area and opens the remaining federal mineral estate to oil and gas leasing subject

to the following constraints: A total of 804,794 acres are subject to standard lease stipulations,

1,755,628 acres are subject to moderate constraints, and 248,601 acres are subject to major

constraints. None of the lands identified in internal and external evaluations would be leased

subject to an MLP under Alternative C.

Chapter 2 Resource Management Alternatives

Alternative C February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 63

Table 2.4, “Comparative Summary of Proposed Land Use Decisions in the Lander Planning

Area” (p. 45) displays the acres of mineral estate available for geothermal and other leasable

minerals development.

Additionally, 2,620,997 acres are open to mineral material disposal with Category 1 or 2

restrictions, while 188,104 acres with Category 3 to 6 restrictions are closed to mineral material

disposal.

2.9.3.4. Fire and Fuels Management

Fire and fuels management under Alternative C places fewer restrictions on suppression tactics

than the other alternatives, allowing the full range of management options across the planning

area. As with alternatives A and B, the appropriate response to wildland fire would be based on

the circumstances under which a fire occurs and the likely consequences on firefighter and public

safety and welfare, natural and cultural resources, and other values to be protected.

Alternative C projects the same 6,000 acres of fuels and vegetation treatment as Alternative A

and would therefore have the same effect on reducing the costs of suppression, which is less

than one-third that of Alternative B.

2.9.3.5. Biological Resources

The BLM manages biological resources under Alternative C similarly to Alternative A, but with

fewer constraints on resource uses and a greater emphasis on human intervention to achieve

management objectives than natural processes. Vegetative communities would be managed to

maximize forage production of a given ecological site. The use of soil and vegetative treatments

would be implemented to increase forage production when consistent with healthy rangeland

ecosystems. Management of forest and woodlands would emphasize using all available treatment

methods to maintain and improve forest health and provide forest products. In riparian-wetland

areas all tools such as fences, travel management and road construction would be utilized to

make progress towards PFC. Surface-disturbing activities would be prohibited within 500 feet of

surface water and riparian-wetland areas, unless a lesser distance is shown to provide equivalent

protection. Invasive species and pest management under Alternative C is the same as under

Alternative A.

Fish and wildlife under Alternative C, in general, receive less protection compared to Alternative

A. For example, the BLM prohibits surface-disturbing activities within 1⁄2 mile of active raptor

nests, compared to 3⁄4 mile under Alternative A. Alternative C does not require the footprint of

surface-disturbing activities to be reduced to protect wildlife and their habitat. Surface-disturbing

and disruptive activities within identified elk winter range are not subject to seasonal limitations.

Wildlife in areas protected as ACECs in Alternative A are not similarly protected in Alternative

C since those areas are managed with standard management.

Management of special status species under Alternative C is similar to Alternative A, especially in

not adopting the Wyoming Governor's Core Area strategy; however, Alternative C provides fewer

protections for these species. For example, Alternative C allows chemical vegetation treatment

within identified habitat for BLM sensitive plant species unless treatment would result in direct

mortality of the plant population. Alternative C also allows surface-disturbing activities in areas

with special status plant populations unless the activity would result in the loss of the population.

Similar to Alternative A, Alternative C prohibits surface disturbance within 1⁄4 mile of greater

February 2013

Chapter 2 Resource Management Alternatives

Alternative C
64 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

sage-grouse leks and limits disruptive activities in greater sage-grouse nesting habitats within 2

miles of occupied leks from February 1 to July 31. The BLM allows authorized activities that

could contribute sediment to waterbodies that support Yellowstone cutthroat trout, burbot, and

sauger unless it is determined that additional sediment would result in species mortality.

Alternative C establishes scenic loops for viewing wild horses and, similar to Alternative A,

considers the impacts on herd health when making management decisions regarding fencing.

However, Alternative C allows greater adverse impacts to wild horses as a result of greater use of

fences to benefit livestock grazing.

2.9.3.6. Heritage and Visual Resources

Alternative C protects heritage resources similarly to Alternative A. Differences include:

Alternative C imposes the minimum restrictions required by regulation on activities that could

cause adverse effects to NRHP-eligible properties; manages mineral and realty actions in

the Warm Springs Canyon Flume site with Category 1 restrictions as opposed to Category 5

restrictions under Alternative A; and does not identify special management prescriptions for the

Beaver Rim and Bison Basin areas.

The BLM manages visual resources under Alternative C in similar fashion to Alternative

A, although less acreage is allocated as either VRM Class I or II under Alternative C. Over

95 percent of BLM-administered land in the planning area is managed as VRM Class IV

(1,590,758 acres) and Class III (722,356 acres), which allow for moderate to major changes to

the characteristic landscape.

2.9.3.7. Land Resources

Land resource program actions under Alternative C identify approximately 2,388,774 acres for

retention within the planning area, and approximately 5,436 acres as available for disposal as

does Alternative B. The BLM opens a total of 2,284,235 acres to wind-energy development and

manages 15,818 acres as avoidance areas and 94,157 acres as exclusion areas for wind-energy

development. This alternative establishes ROW corridors with a maximum width of 3 miles.

Similar to Alternative A, communication facilities are authorized on a case-by-case basis.

Trails and travel management under Alternative C is similar to Alternative A, but with less

restriction on travel. There are no seasonal travel stipulations under Alternative C and fewer acres

are closed to motorized travel within the planning area compared to Alternative A. Alternative C

limits more acreage to existing roads and trails (2,337,958 acres) than Alternative A and does not

close any area to over-snow vehicle travel.

Alternative C emphasizes infrastructure projects and grazing management strategies that

promote higher AUM usage as the preferred means to meet the Wyoming Standards for Healthy

Rangelands. The planning area is open to livestock grazing on the same acreage as Alternative A.

Acquired lands are available for livestock grazing and salt and mineral supplements are prohibited

within 1⁄4 mile of water and riparian-wetland areas. Similar to Alternative A, the BLM establishes

livestock use that would not exceed moderate utilization in areas preferred by livestock.

Alternative C emphasizes the implementation of a rigorous range improvement program at the

landscape level. Installing range improvement projects such as fences, water developments and

vegetative treatments would make almost the entire planning area usable by livestock. There are,

Chapter 2 Resource Management Alternatives

Alternative C February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 65

however, small areas that would not be suitable for additional water development because the

federal lands are too small size or with scattered parcels to develop water. Under Alternative C,

range improvement infrastructure and non-infrastructure projects would be installed in all areas

possible where mitigation to other resource values would be considered while achieving rangeland

health. Weed eradication and vegetation treatment be a minor part of range improvement projects.

A harvest efficiency of total vegetative production could be increased to 28 percent as grazing

management would be accomplished over most of the planning area. Further, fences and

cattleguards would be modified or removed to facilitate improved livestock management on

the landscape. Common forage reserve allotments would not be established and flexibility in

providing alternative pasture for permittees and lessees would not occur.

Alternative C focuses on dispersed recreation experience with little concern for setting and places

few constraints to preserve recreational experiences. Facilities and visitor services would be

removed and relocated to accommodate resource uses under this alternative. This alternative does

not establish allowable use stipulations on other resource uses to protect the recreation resource.

Within developed recreation sites, the BLM manages mineral and realty actions with only

standard stipulations. Overall, the BLM conducts little proactive management, primarily ensuring

that recreation does not conflict with other resource uses and protecting human health and safety.

This alternative recognizes one SRMA and manages 14 ERMAs to specifically address local

recreation issues. The BLM manages those lands not included in separate ERMAs or SRMAs as

part of the Lander ERMA (1,492,351 acres). See Appendix C (p. 1453) for a detailed discussion

of recreation management areas by alternative.

2.9.3.8. Special Designations

The BLM retains no existing ACECs and proposes no new ACECs under Alternative C.

Alternative C also does not recommend any of the nine eligible WSR segments as suitable for

inclusion in the NWSRS. Management of these areas would be in accordance with standard

management without special protections (Category 1). More mineral activities and realty actions

would be allowed.

Management of WSAs is the same as described under Alternative A.

The BLM manages the entire CDNST with a 1⁄4-mile buffer as an ERMA with Category 1

restrictions. Alternative C manages mineral and realty actions within 1⁄4 mile of Condition Class I

and II Historic Trail segments with Category 4 restrictions, and authorizes highly visible projects

only on a case-by-case basis in order to protect the NHTs from visual intrusions. The BLM

manages 1⁄4 mile on either side of the NHTs as VRM Class II.

2.9.3.9. Socioeconomic Resources

Similar to Alternative A, BLM’s management under Alternative C includes analyzing impacts

on socioeconomic resources from the implementation of projects through the NEPA process.

However, Alternative C would also minimize constraints on the pace of development for large

development projects.

February 2013

Chapter 2 Resource Management Alternatives

Alternative C
66 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

2.9.4. Alternative D (Proposed RMP)

2.9.4.1. Overview of the Alternative

Alternative D balances the use and conservation of planning area resources. This alternative

generally allows resource use if the activity can be conducted in a manner that conserves physical,

biological, heritage, and visual resources. Alternative D designates the second most land area

as SRMAs and ACECs and emphasizes moderate constraints on resource uses (e.g., mineral

development) to reduce impacts to resource values. In areas of high mineral potential, DDAs

are established which emphasize mineral use. In Dubois, mineral activities are limited and the

area is closed to oil and gas leasing for the protection of special status species and to support

destination recreation associated with bighorn sheep. The NTMC is designated to meet the

nature and purposes of the Congressionally Designated Trails in a manner that protects the values

for which the trails were designated, and recognizes the nationally significant scenic, historic,

cultural, recreation, natural, and other landscape values of the public land areas through which

the trails pass, and the primary trail use or uses. Protective management, including some areas

recommended for withdrawal from locatable mineral entry and oil and gas management with

NSO stipulations, is applied across the Lander Front, east to the Hudson area (omitting the Beaver

Creek DDA), and south to the Atlantic City area where it meets the NTMC, for the benefit of

overlapping wildlife, historic, viewshed, and other values. The Wyoming Governor's Core Area

strategy is incorporated into management actions. Protections of winter habitat as well as crucial

winter habitat are applied for the benefit of mule deer and elk. An MLP is applied to oil and gas

development in the Beaver Rim area.

2.9.4.2. Physical Resources

Under Alternative D, the BLM manages physical resources similar to Alternative A with some

increased management restrictions. For example, the BLM prohibits surface-disturbing activities

on slopes greater than 25 percent as in Alternative A, but also applies CSU restrictions for slopes

between 15 and 24 percent. The BLM would also prioritize areas with soil disturbance that

were not successfully reclaimed on a case-by-case basis. Water resources would receive similar

protection as under Alternative A, although the BLM places a greater emphasis on protecting

aquifers by avoiding surface-disturbing activities with potential to contaminate groundwater in

identified or inferred groundwater recharge areas. Alternative D applies more protections for

areas with the potential to have groundwater impacted by oil and gas development, although less

than under Alternative B, which closes more areas to oil and gas leasing. BMPs are evaluated to

be applied as COAs for the protection of groundwater.

Similar to Alternative B, the BLM manages certain lands to protect naturalness and outstanding

opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation. Alternative D would

manage 4,954 acres of the Little Red Creek Complex as non-WSA lands to protect wilderness

characteristics.

2.9.4.3. Mineral Resources

Alternative D places more constraints on mineral development than Alternative A. Approximately

2,351,399 acres are available for locatable mineral entry under this alternative. However,

Alternative D segregates the Lander Slope and Red Canyon ACECs, lands in the Hudson to

Chapter 2 Resource Management Alternatives

Alternative D (Proposed RMP) February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 67

Atlantic City area, greater sage-grouse leks, and the ruts and swales of the NHTs to recommend a

locatable mineral withdrawal.

Alternative D closes approximately 166,574 acres of federal mineral estate to oil and gas leasing in

the planning area (plus additional acreage associated with Boysen Reservoir that was not included

in the reasonable foreseeable development [RFD] scenario for oil and gas). The remaining federal

mineral estate is open to oil and gas leasing subject to the following constraints: 44,945 acres are

subject to standard lease stipulations, 1,260,715 acres are subject to moderate constraints, and

1,336,867 acres are subject to major constraints (plus additional acreage associated with an NSO

in the Green Mountain area that was not included in the RFD scenario for oil and gas).

As described above under Alternatives Considered but Not Carried Forward for Detailed

Analysis, Alternative D applies an MLP only to the Beaver Rim area (150,782 acres; see Map

135) to reduce resource conflicts. Approximately 29,527 acres within the MLP are open to oil

and gas leasing subject to an NSO stipulation and 121,255 acres are open to leasing subject to

CSU stipulations. Management within the MLP stipulates other requirements designed to protect

resource values where there may be a conflict with oil and gas development, such as requiring

watershed monitoring to ensure effectiveness of watershed protections. In the portion of the

Green Mountain area that would be part of the expanded ACEC under Alternative B, but not so

designated under Alternative D, an NSO stipulation would be applied. This management was not

included in the RFD as a major constraint because the management was not identified until after

the RFD was finalized, but the area may already be included as a major constraint because of

overlapping timing limitations that exceed 6 months.

Table 2.4, “Comparative Summary of Proposed Land Use Decisions in the Lander Planning

Area” (p. 45) displays the acres of mineral estate available for geothermal and other leasable

minerals. Lands in the Red Canyon and Lander Slope ACECs as well as other lands throughout

the planning area are closed to phosphate leasing to protect other resource values, including

wildlife and viewsheds.

Additionally, 1,853,090 acres are open to mineral material disposal with surface use restrictions,

while 956,011 acres are closed to mineral material disposal.

In contrast to the other alternatives, Alternative D also establishes DDAs to facilitate intensive

mineral exploration, development, and production. New fluid and solid mineral leases and mineral

material disposals within these areas would be subject to standard stipulations. Exceptions to these

stipulations would be authorized through an expedited approval process. Reclamation would be

required in accordance with reclamation standards in DDAs identified in Appendix D (p. 1477).

In non-DDAs, lease stipulations are extended to identified operations and maintenance actions.

2.9.4.4. Fire and Fuels Management

Fire and fuels management under Alternative D allows for full suppression of wildland fire within

the WUI and in areas of high resource values. As with alternatives A, B, and C, the appropriate

response to wildland fire would be based on the circumstances under which a fire occurs and the

likely consequences on firefighter and public safety and welfare, natural and cultural resources,

and values to be protected. Extensive wildlife BMPs are identified, with an emphasis on greater

sage-grouse as described in Appendix H (p. 1521).

Fuels and vegetation treatments are expected to be approximately 10,000 acres over 20 years,

which is greater than the 6,000 acres under alternatives A and C but half of that under Alternative

February 2013

Chapter 2 Resource Management Alternatives

Alternative D (Proposed RMP)
68 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

B. Therefore, fire suppression costs would be expected to decrease from alternatives A and C

but only half as much as under Alternative B.

2.9.4.5. Biological Resources

In some cases, the BLM manages biological resources under Alternative D similarly to Alternative

A. Vegetation management supports both resources and resource uses and often requires proactive

and case-by-case management to respond to conditions on the ground. For example, Alternative

D authorizes clear-cuts and determines their size and location on a combination of resource values

and silvicultural objectives. Forest harvesting BMPs are provided. Riparian-wetland management

emphasizes a more proactive approach to address watershed health by using a full range of

techniques to achieve PFC. Similar to Alternative A, Alternative D prohibits surface-disturbing

activities within 500 feet of riparian-wetland areas but would allow such activity in DDAs if a

lesser distance is shown to provide equal protection. Invasive species and pest management under

Alternative D is the same as under Alternative B.

Fish and wildlife under Alternative D, in general, receive more protection compared to Alternative

A, especially within important habitat areas. For example, the BLM prohibits surface-disturbing

activities within 1 mile of bald eagle nests and 3⁄4 mile of all active raptor nests but additionally

increases the buffer to 1 mile for ferruginous hawk nests. Management also emphasizes

minimizing the footprint of surface-disturbing activities to the extent practical to protect wildlife

and their habitats. Protections for mule deer are stronger than under Alternative A through

application of winter stipulations to winter range and migration areas. Some important mule deer

habitat is identified for withdrawal from locatable mineral entry and some mule deer habitat is

open to oil and gas leasing subject to NSO stipulations.

Similarly, Alternative D provides more protection for special status species than Alternative A,

such as increasing the size of protective buffers and limiting incompatible activities near the

habitats of these species. For example, Alternative D allows chemical vegetation treatments

within identified sensitive plant populations only if the treatment benefits the population. For

greater sage-grouse, constraints on resource uses are greater within Core Area than outside Core

Area and restrictions are placed on the amount of surface disturbance allowed inside Core Area.

Alternative D prohibits surface disturbance within 0.6 mile of greater sage-grouse leks in Core

Area and recommends the leks for withdrawal from locatable mineral entry. Lands within 1⁄4 mile

of leks outside Core Area are closed to surface disturbance. BMPs are identified for evaluation at

site-specific analysis to be incorporated as COAs for the protection of wildlife, with a special

emphasis on greater sage-grouse. The Dubois area is closed to oil and gas leasing to protect

special status species and bighorn sheep related tourism (Map 3).

Alternative D would also avoid activities that contribute sediment to waterbodies containing

certain special status fish unless activities will not harm species or adequate mitigations can

be applied.

Alternative D establishes scenic loops for viewing wild horses, but limits road improvements

to those necessary for public safety and encourages the establishment of remote viewing

opportunities. In consideration of herd health, Alternative D allows the removal or modification

of fences to allow free movements among herd populations.

Chapter 2 Resource Management Alternatives

Alternative D (Proposed RMP) February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 69

2.9.4.6. Heritage and Visual Resources

Alternative D generally increases the protection of cultural and paleontological resources

compared to Alternative A by placing more limitations on activities near known cultural and

paleontological sites. Alternative D protects the same area in the Warm Springs Canyon Flume

site as Alternative A but manages mineral and realty actions in the surrounding area with more

stringent Category restrictions. However, protection from development-related effects continues

to be managed on a case-by-case basis as under Alternative A. Alternative D’s identification of

lands for withdrawal from locatable mineral entry is more protective of the cultural resources in

those areas than Alternative A. Alternative D does increase proactive inventory efforts compared

to Alternative A in areas of significant resources such as in the Gas Hills High potential fossil

areas. Both the Beaver Rim and Bison Basin proposed NNL are managed the same as Alternative

A.

The BLM manages visual resources under Alternative D in similar fashion to Alternative A,

although more acreage is allocated as either VRM Class I or II under Alternative D. Over

66 percent of BLM-administered land in the planning area is managed as VRM Class III

(857,979 acres) and Class IV (694,759 acres), which allow for moderate to major changes to

the characteristic landscape.

2.9.4.7. Land Resources

Land resource program actions under Alternative D identify approximately 2,386,137 acres for

retention within the planning area, and approximately 8,073 acres as available for disposal (plus

6,665 additional acres available for disposal with restrictions on use). Alternative D increases

the lands identified for disposal based on recommendations by the public and by the BLM in

response to proposed land exchanges, as well as lands to be transferred to the Department of

Energy (DOE) for long-term legacy management of uranium mill sites. Alternative D places less

restriction on renewable energy development compared to Alternative B, opening 224,289 acres

to wind-energy development and managing 1,215,599 acres as avoidance areas and 954,322 acres

as exclusion areas for wind-energy development. Alternative D recognizes that until the impacts

of wind-energy development to greater sage-grouse are determined, Core Area will be closed to

wind energy (although identified on maps as an avoidance area, pending research). Avoidance

criteria have been identified and provided in Appendix E (p. 1483). In contrast, Alternative

D places more limitations on ROW and corridor management than Alternative A, including

managing much more area as ROW avoidance and exclusion areas in which ROW authorizations

are restricted. More routes are designated as ROW corridors, primarily for underground ROWs

such as CO2 or oil and gas transport, and to match corridor designations in other field offices.

Alternative D provides for a more comprehensive approach to travel planning, with a particular

emphasis on supporting biological resources by placing timing limitations on various modes

of travel. Therefore, management is more site-specific than Alternative A and includes travel

prescriptions for specific areas. For example, travel is limited to designated roads and trails in

portions of the Lander Slope, Red Canyon, Whiskey Mountain, and Green Mountain areas to

protect resource values. In areas not identified for site-specific management, however, travel is

limited to existing roads and trails, which under Alternative D applies to more area (2,213,081

acres) than Alternative A. This is an interim designation; travel management implementation will

identify routes as designated or closed to motorized travel. Alternative D closes more acres to

over-snow travel than Alternative A but still allows over-snow vehicle travel on 2,323,785 acres

February 2013

Chapter 2 Resource Management Alternatives

Alternative D (Proposed RMP)
70 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

within the planning area so long as sufficient snow is on the ground to protect on-the-ground

resources.

Alternative D increases restrictions on livestock grazing in certain areas for the protection of other

resource values compared to Alternative A but also increases proactive management approaches

to improve rangeland health. Alternative D opens less land to livestock grazing compared to

Alternative A and increases the areas where the placement of salt and mineral supplements is

prohibited. Acquired lands are available to livestock grazing on a case-by-case basis. Stocking

rates would be established that allow for utilization by livestock, while providing sufficient forage

to support wildlife and wild horse populations and to achieve the Wyoming Standards for Healthy

Rangelands. Range infrastructure projects would be employed to improve rangeland health but

only in consideration of other resource values and with a clear link to a Comprehensive Grazing

Strategy. Over time, the number of AUMs authorized would be reduced if needed to meet the

Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands based upon monitoring information and rangeland

health assessments. Vegetation treatments would rarely be utilized as range improvement projects.

Fence marking for the protection of greater sage-grouse would be required and there would be no

net gain in fencing in wildlife migration corridors.

Alternative D focuses more on protecting the setting and recreational experience compared to

Alternative A. The alternative also places a greater emphasis on nonmotorized recreation and

utilizes allowable use decisions to protect important recreation areas. Alternative D increases

many of the resource use limitations within certain recreation areas compared to Alternative A

to protect the values for which the area was designated. Alternative D maintains seven SRMAs

and six ERMAs. Similar to Alternative B, within the Lander Valley, NHT Destination, and

CDNST SRMAs, the BLM manages seven RMZs to meet specific recreation market demand. See

Appendix C (p. 1453) for a detailed discussion of recreation management areas by alternative.

Recreation use near the Congressionally Designated Trails would be managed to support the

nature and purpose of the Congressionally Designated Trails.

2.9.4.8. Special Designations

Alternative D designates the lands associated with the landscape, recreation, and setting of the

Congressionally Designated Trails as the NTMC with limitations on mineral development, ROWs,

realty actions, and other resource uses to protect the nature and purpose of the Congressionally

Designated Trails. This management includes the withdrawal of the ruts and swales of the NHTs;

ACEC management of the Congressionally Designated Trails as provided by Alternative A would

be applied if the withdrawal is not approved.

WSAs in the planning area are managed to improve access while protecting sensitive areas from

resource damage. To that end, three WSAs are closed to motorized vehicle use (Dubois Badlands,

Copper Mountain, and Whiskey Mountain) while the remaining WSAs are limited to designated

roads and trails. Within these limited open areas, travel systems and linear features found to be in

conflict with wilderness values may be modified, including closures, to protect these values.

Alternative D identifies three waterways, the Baldwin Creek Unit, Warm Springs Segment 1, and

the Sweetwater River Unit, as suitable for inclusion in the NWSRS. Management of these areas is

similar to Alternative A although more limitations are placed on activities that could degrade the

ORVs of these waterways, including livestock grazing and motorized vehicle use.

Chapter 2 Resource Management Alternatives

Alternative D (Proposed RMP) February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 71

The BLM manages eight ACECs, including six existing ACECs, two of which, East Fork and

Green Mountain, include expansion areas. Alternative D would also designate the South Pass

Historical Landscape ACEC and the Twin Creek ACEC, which is contained in an area identified

for withdrawal from locatable mineral entry to protect important wildlife values. Should the

withdrawal not be approved, the wildlife values would be protected through management

of the Twin Creek ACEC; the NHTs would also be designated as an ACEC as provided in

Alternative A.Table 2.5, “Comparative Summary of Areas of Critical Environmental Concern by

Alternative” (p. 50) summarizes acreage and management emphasis in each of these ACECs.

Under Alternative D, the BLM manages 82,778 acres of the CDNST as an SRMA and 4,589 acres

as a separate ERMA to specifically address local recreation issues. The BLM also designates

trails-related land subject to mining impacts as the South Pass Historical Landscape ACEC

and trails-related land outside this ACEC as the NTMC associated with the Congressionally

Designated Trails. The NTMC is managed as VRM Class II while the designated utility crossings

and the CDNST ERMA are VRM Class III. Highly visible projects outside of 5 miles of the

NTMC (except within the main Lost Creek utility corridor) are authorized only if the project

causes no more than a weak contrast.

Alternative D provides special management for those areas identified as having relevant and

important values but not designated as ACECs.

2.9.4.9. Socioeconomic Resources

BLM management under Alternative D emphasizes the continued analysis of impacts on

socioeconomic resources and addresses monitoring of economic and social impacts as part of

implementation. This alternative would also consider paced development options for mineral

development projects in the planning area to avoid adverse impacts to socioeconomic resources.

This alternative manages high potential mineral areas to facilitate mineral development and

emphasizes recreation as well as heritage and wildlife tourism. Alternative D applies protective

measures to important wildlife habitat areas, including those for mule deer, to proactively address

potential adverse impacts from mineral development, which, if not properly addressed, could lead

to the need for resource protections that could have far more substantial impacts on social and

economic interests.

Alternative D emphasizes protections for the areas on the Lander Front and in the Dubois area

that are important to the local economies for their visual, recreation, and wildlife values as well as

for their importance for recreation and tourism income. The NTMC is managed to support the

nature and purposes of the Congressionally Designated Trails and their recreational use. Trail

protections are limited to those areas needed for the nature and purpose of the Congressionally

Designated Trails and not applied to lands not so needed to avoid unnecessary use limitations.

The economic well-being of the planning area and adjoining communities has been addressed

through the designation of ROW corridors, particularly the pipelines necessary to support

enhanced oil and gas recovery and the transmission of product. Alternative D applies avoidance

management and avoidance criteria so that identified needs for additional ROWs can be

accommodated without the need for a plan amendment. A suite of BMPs are provided (with new

ones being developed over time) from which site-specific COAs can be applied, thus avoiding

overly broad regulations. Application of seasonal restrictions on oil and gas operations will be

routinely waived in DDAs to facilitate year-round development. While seasonal restrictions are

applied to operations and maintenance activities outside of DDAs, these do not apply in the case

February 2013

Chapter 2 Resource Management Alternatives

Alternative D (Proposed RMP)
72 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

of emergency needs or if a threat to health and human safety exist. These seasonal limitations

may be waived by the Authorized Officer based on identified waiver criteria.

2.10. Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource

Two components comprise this section. Table 2.6, “Category Restrictions Key” (p. 73) provides

a key to the numbered category restrictions used in the alternatives. To streamline language

associated with restrictions for mineral and realty actions (e.g., locatable mineral withdrawals,

NSO restrictions, areas closed to phosphate, ROW avoidance and exclusion areas), the alternatives

use a numbered category system to describe restrictions for a given area. The category restriction

for a given area applies to all mineral and realty actions described in the key.

Tables 2.7 through 2.52 identify goals and objectives, management actions common to all

alternatives, and management actions by alternative for each resource. Tables 2.7 through 2.52

are arranged according to the following eight resource topics:

Number Resource Topic

1000 Physical Resources (PR)

2000 Mineral Resources (MR)

3000 Fire and Fuels Management (FM)

4000 Biological Resources (BR)

5000 Heritage and Visual Resources (HR)

6000 Land Resources (LR)

7000 Special Designations (SD)

8000 Socioeconomic Resources (SR)

The numbering system and abbreviations for each of the eight resource topics appear as headings

and serve to organize Tables 2.7 through 2.52. Following the headings are the applicable goals

and objectives for each resource topic. The goals and objectives in Tables 2.7 through 2.52 apply

to all four alternatives under consideration for the entire planning area and would apply for

the life of the RMP.

Management actions are anticipated to achieve the goals and objectives identified for each

resource topic. Some management actions are constant across all alternatives and are listed

for each resource topic under the Management Actions Common to All Alternatives sections.

Other management actions vary by alternative and are identified in the Management Actions by

Alternative sections.

Actions apply for the life of the RMP, but can be changed by amending the RMP. For example,

areas identified as closed to mineral leasing refer to federal mineral estate closed from leasing for

the life of the RMP unless changed through an RMP amendment. Furthermore, where seasonal or

other restrictions or limitations apply to development, the Authorized Officer may issue written

exceptions, waivers, or modifications, including documented supporting analysis, to these

limitations (Appendix E (p. 1483)); this applies to all restrictions and limitations.

The maps provided with this document are for illustrative purposes only and may 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 Proposed RMP are in all cases

the decision and not modified by the manner in which the decision is displayed on the maps.

Chapter 2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 73

Table 2.6. Category Restrictions Key

Mineral Resources Actions Realty Actions

Restriction

Category

Oil and gas,

Geothermal,

and Other

Fluid Leasable

Minerals

Phosphate

Locatable

Minerals

Mineral

Materials

(Salables)

Wind Energy Major Utility

Systems

Miscellaneous

projects,

including minor

ROWs

Large

developments

(e.g., power

plants)

Category 1 Open with

standard lease

stipulations

Open with

standard

stipulations

Open subject to

CFR 3809

Open with

standard

stipulations

Open with

standard

stipulations

Open with

standard

stipulations

Open with

standard

stipulations

Open with

standard

stipulations

Category 2 Open with

seasonal and/or

CSU restrictions

Open with

seasonal and/or

CSU restrictions

Open subject to

CFR 3809

Open with

seasonal and/or

CSU restrictions

Open with

seasonal and/or

CSU restrictions

Open with

seasonal and/or

CSU restrictions

Open with

seasonal and/or

CSU restrictions

Open with

seasonal and/or

CSU restrictions

Category 3

Open with NSO Open Open subject to

CFR 3809

Closed Avoided Avoided Avoided Avoided

Category 4

Open with NSO Closed Open subject to

CFR 3809

Closed Excluded Excluded Excluded Excluded

Category 5

Open with NSO Closed

Pursue

withdrawal Closed Excluded Excluded Excluded Excluded

Category 6

Closed to leasing Closed

Pursue

withdrawal Closed Excluded Excluded Excluded Excluded

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CSU Controlled Surface Use

NSO No Surface Occupancy

ROW right-of-way

February 2013

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource
74 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table 2.7. Detailed Alternative Descriptions by Resource

MANAGEMENT GOALS COMMON TO ALL RESOURCES AND ALTERNATIVES

Record # Goal/Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

The BLM Lander Field Office will:

GOAL Common: 1 Manage the public lands within the requirements of all applicable federal and state laws, policy, and guidance. Manage to support valid

and existing rights.

GOAL Common: 2 Use cooperative consultation with all applicable state and local governments to aid in effective cross-jurisdictional management of land and

resources.

GOAL Common: 3 Manage public land resources and resource uses in consideration of all other resource values of the applicable lands.

GOAL Common: 4 Manage public land resources within the natural variations and capability of the applicable lands.

GOAL Common: 5 Require onsite mitigation and encourage voluntary offsite mitigation to offset the adverse impacts of projects or actions. Do not use offsite

mitigation to justify unnecessary or undue onsite degradation.

GOAL Common: 6 Manage vegetation, soil, landform, water quantity and quality, and air quality to maintain, meet, make substantial progress towards or exceed the

Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands.

GOAL Common: 7 Use an integrated management approach (mechanical, chemical, or biological treatments, prescribed fire, or grazing management techniques)

to achieve desired vegetative communities, to reduce fuel loading and to control invasive species. Implementing management actions consistent with Partners

Against Weeds and state and local weed management plans.

GOAL Common: 8 Co-locate ROWs whenever possible.

GOAL Common: 9 Conduct appropriate project level NEPA analysis and make consideration for levels of analyzed impacts.

GOAL Common: 10 Manage resources to contribute to the economic stability of local communities.

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 75

Table 2.8. 1000 Physical Resources (PR) – Air Quality

1000 PHYSICAL RESOURCES (PR) – AIR QUALITY

Record # Goal/Obj. Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

Goal PR: 1 Minimize the impact of management actions in the planning area on air quality by complying with all applicable air quality laws, rules, and regulations.

Objectives:

PR: 1.1 Maintain concentrations of criteria pollutants in compliance with applicable state and federal Ambient Air Quality Standards within the scope of

BLM’s authority.

PR: 1.2 Maintain concentrations of PSD pollutants associated with management actions in compliance with the applicable increment.

Goal PR: 2 Implement management actions in the planning area to improve air quality as practicable.

Objectives:

PR: 2.1 Reduce visibility-impairing pollutants in accordance with the reasonable progress goals and timeframes established within the State of Wyoming’s

Regional Haze State Implementation Plan.

PR: 2.2 Reduce atmospheric deposition pollutants to levels below generally accepted levels of concern and levels of acceptable change.

MANAGEMENT ACTIONS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

1001 PR: 1.1, 1.2 Work cooperatively with agencies and stakeholders to develop an Air Quality Assessment Protocol to estimate potential future air quality.

1002 PR: 1.1, 2.1 Define a criteria pollutant and AQRV monitoring strategy and work cooperatively to establish a monitoring network by creating a method

for siting air quality monitors in order to provide additional data for describing background concentrations.

1003 PR: 1.1,

1.2, 2.1, 2.2

Require Best Management Practices to meet air quality goals.

1004 PR: 2.1 Require dust abatement measures for all BLM-authorized activities. Mandate dust abatement control techniques in identified problem areas.

1005 PR: 1 In cooperation with the Wyoming DEQ AQD, ensure that the BLM’s prescribed fire actions comply with applicable smoke-management

regulations.

1006 PR: 2.1, 1.1 Utilize and enhance a cooperative process to share information on proposed emission sources and air quality issues with the public

and federal, state, and county agencies.

1007 PR: 1, 2 In all project-level EISs and EAs, on a case-by-base basis in accordance with the Lander Air Resources Management Plan (Appendix

F (p. 1491)), require quantitative air quality modeling of industrial activities in order to determine the potential impacts of proposed

emission sources and subsequent potential mitigation strategies.

February 2013

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource
76 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

1000 PHYSICAL RESOURCES (PR) – AIR QUALITY

Record # Goal/Obj. Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

MANAGEMENT ACTIONS BY ALTERNATIVE

1008 PR: 1, 1.1,

1.2

Require that all BLM-authorized

activities minimize adverse

impacts to air quality. Allow air

quality impacts up to applicable

standards and guidelines.

Same as Alternative A, plus

in cooperation with Wyoming

DEQ, implement prevention and

mitigation measures to reduce

emissions in the planning area

from current levels and to improve

air quality.

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A.

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 77

Table 2.9. 1000 Physical Resources (PR) – Soil

1000 PHYSICAL RESOURCES (PR) – SOIL

Record # Goal/Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

Goal PR: 3 Prevent impairment of soil productivity from accelerated loss, physical or chemical degradation of the soil resource, or surface disturbance.

Objectives:

PR: 3.1 Develop, test, and apply soil interpretations to guide the use and management of soils and related resources.

PR: 3.2 Collect and maintain soil resource information at a level of detail consistent with management needs and in accordance with the National Cooperative Soil

Survey program and the BLM Wyoming Strategic Soil Survey Plan, which details criteria that determine funding priority for areas needing soil survey information.

PR: 3.3 Manage to minimize degradation of soils. Consider prevention of soil degradation when authorizing activities.

PR: 3.4 Manage soil to achieve stability and to support the hydrologic cycle by providing for water capture, storage, and sustained release.

Goal PR: 4 Ensure that management actions are consistent with inherent soil resource capabilities.

Objective:

PR: 4.1 Require that management actions and BLM-authorized activities consider soil suitability and limitations for the proposed use in the planning and

design stages.

MANAGEMENT ACTIONS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

N/A N/A Note: Reclamation goals, objectives, and alternatives are found below under the Soil Reclamation section. Management actions for oil

and gas produced water are in the Leasable-Oil and Gas section. See Record 4011 for limits of slope related to timber harvest methods.

1009 PR: 3.1, 3.2 Pursue and support the completion of Order 3 soil surveys and identify areas with LRP.

1010 PR: 3.1, 4.1 Develop/adopt a soil interpretation for soil rehabilitation potential. Consider soil suitability for proposed use and soil rehabilitation at the

planning and design phase of all BLM-authorized activities.

1011 PR: 3.3 Prohibit surface-disturbing activities during periods when soil material is saturated or times when watershed damage is likely to occur.

Surface-disturbing activities during periods when soil is frozen will be evaluated on a site-specific project level. The proposed activities

will be analyzed to determine the impacts to the soil and plant resources and compare these impacts on frozen soil versus non-frozen soil.

1012 PR: 3.3 Require a very detailed site analysis and reclamation plan before development if soil in LRP areas (Map 11) will be disturbed.

MANAGEMENT ACTIONS BY ALTERNATIVE

February 2013

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource
78 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

1000 PHYSICAL RESOURCES (PR) – SOIL

Record # Goal/Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

1013 PR: 3.2, 3.3,

3.4, 4.1

Authorize soil-disturbing

activities in areas with LRP soils

(Map 11). Mineral and realty

actionsin these areas are managed

with Category 2 restrictions.

Prohibit soil-disturbing activities in

areas with LRP (Map 11). Mineral

and realty actions in these areas

are managed with Category 6

restrictions.

Same as Alternative A. Soil-disturbing activities will be

open with CSU restrictions in

areas with LRP soils. Avoidance

of LRP soils will be implemented

on site-specific locations

whenever possible, but is not a

requirement.

1014 PR: 3.3, 3.4,

4.1

Prohibit surface-disturbing

activities on slopes greater

than 25 percent (Map 10)

unless an exception, waiver, or

modification is granted by the

Authorized Officer.

Prohibit surface-disturbing

activities on slopes greater than

15 percent (Map 10) unless an

exception, waiver, or modification

is granted by the Authorized

Officer.

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A, plus

manage slopes between 15 and

24 percent with CSU restrictions.

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 79

Table 2.10. 1000 Physical Resources (PR) – Soil Reclamation

1000 PHYSICAL RESOURCES (PR) – SOIL RECLAMATION

Record # Goal/Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

Goal PR: 5 Require successful reclamation of surface-disturbing activities to restore healthy, functioning plant communities and watershed function.

Objectives:

PR: 5.1 Revegetate to stabilize surface soils, establish natural plant composition and self-perpetuating plant communities capable of supporting the post-disturbance

land use.

PR: 5.2 Develop interim, and final reclamation standards appropriate for resource and resource use enhancement on a project-specific basis.

MANAGEMENT ACTIONS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

1015 PR: 5.1, 5.2 Implement BLM National and Wyoming Reclamation Policies requiring reclamation plans be developed for all federal actions

authorized, conducted, or funded by the BLM that disturb vegetation and/or the mineral/soil resources.

For future actions, require a full reclamation bond specific to the site in accordance with 43 CFR 3104.2, 3104.3, and 3104.5. Ensure

bonds are sufficient for costs relative to reclamation (Connelly et al. 2000, Hagen et al. 2007) that would result in full restoration of the

lands to their condition before disturbance. Base the reclamation costs on the assumption that contractors for the BLM will perform

the work.

1016 PR: 5.1, 5.2 Require that surface-disturbing activities minimize the surface disturbance footprint to the maximum extent possible to limit the

areas requiring reclamation. Limit disturbance of desirable vegetative communities established during interim reclamation when

implementing final reclamation.

1017 PR: 5.1, 5.2 Require that all reclamation plans identify the desired plant community for final reclamation.

1018 PR: 5.1, 5.2 Consider wildlife habitat objectives in all final reclamation objectives. In Core Area, final reclamation objectives will be to restore

greater sage-grouse habitat. Include metrics to ensure that restoration goals are met.

1019 PR: 3.3, 3.4,

4.1

Require site stabilization and sediment control in compliance with Wyoming Stormwater Discharge requirements and BLM reclamation

policies.

MANAGEMENT ACTIONS BY ALTERNATIVE

February 2013

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource
80 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

1000 PHYSICAL RESOURCES (PR) – SOIL RECLAMATION

Record # Goal/Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

1020 PR: 5.1, 5.2 Soil management and reclamation

practices will be identified based

on site-specific characteristics

and implemented according to

BLM reclamation policies.

Same as Alternative A, plus

require that site-specific interim

and final reclamation practices

be developed in accordance with

reclamation policies that will

meet the non-DDA reclamation

standards as identified in Appendix

D (p. 1477).

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A, plus

require that site-specific interim

and final reclamation practices

be developed in accordance

with national and Wyoming

reclamation policies that will

meet the reclamation standards

as identified in Appendix

D (p. 1477). The type and

detail of the reclamation plan

will be commensurate with

the extent and duration of soil

disturbance. For extensive

disturbance such as a full-field

oil and gas development, a

detailed, multi-phase plan

such as the Continental Divide

Creston oil and gas project

(CDC) reclamation plan attached

as Appendix G (p. 1505) will

be required. (Note: The CDC

oil and gas reclamation plan is

offered as an example of the type

of detailed plan that would be

required. It is not considered

to be a final plan, but only an

example.)

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 81

1000 PHYSICAL RESOURCES (PR) – SOIL RECLAMATION

Record # Goal/Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

1021 PR: 5.2 Require that during and following

reclamation activities, the land

user is responsible for monitoring

to help ensure reclamation

success as defined in reclamation

policies. Require follow-up

seeding and/or other corrective

or remedial erosion-control

measures on areas of surface

disturbance, as appropriate.

During and following reclamation

activities the land user is

responsible for monitoring

and, if necessary, protecting

the reclaimed landscape until

reclamation standards have been

achieved.

Same as Alternative A, plus

monitoring and follow-up

reclamation practices will continue

on interim and final reclaimed areas

until the standards for non-DDA

areas as identified in Appendix

D (p. 1477) have been successfully

achieved.

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A, plus

monitoring and follow-up

reclamation practices will

continue on interim and

final reclaimed areas until

the standards identified in

Appendix D (p. 1477) have been

successfully achieved.

1022 PR: 5 Identify areas with soil

disturbance that have not

been successfully reclaimed in

accordance with reclamation

policies, as opportunities occur.

Inventory BLM-administered

lands to identify areas with

soil disturbance that have not

been successfully reclaimed.

Prioritize reclamation projects

in consideration of impacts to

water quality, wildlife habitat,

and visual resources. Utilize

inventory if offsite mitigation

is being considered. Require

reclamation in accordance with

reclamation policies and the

non-DDA reclamation standards as

identified in Appendix D (p. 1477).

Same as Alternative A. Identify areas with soil

disturbance that were not

successfully reclaimed. Priorities

are determined on a case-by-case

basis with an emphasis on

greater sage-grouse Core Area

and other important wildlife

habitat. Require reclamation

in accordance with reclamation

policies and reclamation

standards as identified in

Appendix D (p. 1477). Develop

partnerships and funding sources

to implement reclamation where

no responsible party has the

reclamation obligation.

February 2013

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource
82 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

1000 PHYSICAL RESOURCES (PR) – SOIL RECLAMATION

Record # Goal/Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

1023 PR: 5 Adapt reclamation methods

to specific requirements based

on plant communities within

potential ecological sites and

site-specific objectives.

Focus reclamation practices on

restoring surface-disturbing

activities to an ecological

condition equal to or better

than predisturbance composition

and production levels based

on habitat objectives. Require

reclaimed areas to meet non-DDA

reclamation standards identified in

Appendix D (p. 1477) or restore

to habitat objectives, whichever

requires a higher level of standards

to meet final reclamation success.

Focus reclamation on

stabilizing soils and establishing

ground cover sufficient

to reduce and/or prevent

accelerated soil erosion and

noxious weed infestation.

Same as Alternative A, plus

incorporate reclamation

objectives and require

reclamation plans, including

reclamation standards as

identified in Appendix

D (p. 1477) on a site-specific

basis.

1024 PR: 5 Utilize management practices to

achieve reclamation standards as

defined in BLM reclamation

policies and implement

project-specific reclamation

practices.

Utilize management practices that

achieve reclamation objectives

and standards for non-DDA, select

management practices based on

restoring the site potential, and

emphasize plant communities

that are habitat compatible (see

Appendix D (p. 1477)).

Utilize management practices

that achieve site-specific

reclamation objectives specific

to site stabilization. Select

management practices based on

the ability to establish ground

cover for erosion control

purposes.

Utilize management practices

including phased development

recognized in Appendix

H (p. 1521) and required

BLM reclamation policies to

achieve reclamation success.

Require Reclamation Objectives

and Standards as identified in

Appendix D (p. 1477) in all

reclamation plans.

1025 PR: 5 Reclamation management

practices will select native

plant species based on site

characteristics and ecological site

descriptions.

Reclamation management practices

will select and emphasize native

plant species conducive to the site

potential and habitat compatibility

and require reclaimed areas to meet

non-DDA reclamation standards

identified in Appendix D (p. 1477).

Reclamation management

practices would utilize native

and approved nonnative plant

species to achieve reclamation

objectives.

Same as Alternative A, plus

reclamation success will be

determined based on the criteria

and standards identified in

Appendix D (p. 1477).

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 83

Table 2.11. 1000 Physical Resources (PR) – Water

1000 PHYSICAL RESOURCES (PR) – WATER

Record # Goal/Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

Goal PR: 6 Maintain or improve surface water and groundwater quantity and quality consistent with applicable state and federal standards and regulations.

Objectives:

PR: 6.1 Take appropriate actions to protect all Wyoming surface water designated uses including but not limited to fisheries, aquatic life, drinking water supplies,

recreation, and agriculture, and to control all potential causes of impairment.

PR: 6.2 Maintain the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of surface waters in accordance with Standards 2 and 5 of the Wyoming Standards for Healthy

Rangelands.

PR: 6.3 Enhance the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of surface waters that are functioning below PFC.

PR: 6.4 Protect Class 1 waters (Outstanding Surface Waters) as determined by the State of Wyoming. (See Wild and Scenic Rivers section in Special Designations

for additional actions).

PR: 6.5 Restore, maintain, and enhance watershed, wetland, and riparian functions.

PR: 6.6 Protect and improve groundwater quality and quantity through appropriate measures (e.g., predictive modeling, monitoring, and protection of known water

recharge areas) during BLM activities and permitted actions over the life of the plan.

PR: 6.7 Coordinate with appropriate entities to rehabilitate or reclaim functionally compromised reservoirs on BLM-administered lands.

PR: 6.8 Minimize degradation of surface water and groundwater resources. Require the treatment of surface water and groundwater that has been impacted by spills

or other releases of chemicals, petroleum products, and produced water on BLM-administered lands. Require compliance with Wyoming DEQ requirements

for reporting and treating of spills and releases of chemicals, petroleum products, and produced water.

MANAGEMENT ACTIONS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

1026 PR: 6.6, 6.7,

6.8

Identify potential surface and groundwater quality impairments through inventories and routine monitoring activities and report potential

impairments to Wyoming DEQ.

1027 PR: 6.1, 6.2,

6.6

Require the use of Best Management Practices and mitigation applied as COAs to reduce point and nonpoint source pollution and

to limit groundwater contamination.

1028 PR: 6.1, 6.6,

6.7

Control nonpoint source pollution by improving riparian-wetland health and by controlling dust, accelerated erosion, and other surface

disturbances.

1029 PR: 6.1, 6.3,

6.5, 6.6, 6.7,

6.8

Participate in the development, implementation, and monitoring of watershed management plans and/or TMDLs with interested

stakeholders including the Wyoming DEQ to improve water quality.

February 2013

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource
84 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

1000 PHYSICAL RESOURCES (PR) – WATER

Record # Goal/Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

1030 PR: 6.1, 6.3,

6.5, 6.6, 6.7,

6.8

Incorporate requirements and methodology for achieving watershed improvement into activity plans, as the BLM deems appropriate,

on BLM-administered lands.

1031 PR: 6.1, 6.4 Control sources of pollution to Class 1 waters. Collaborate with the Wyoming DEQ to prevent water quality degradation of Class 1

waters (Map 6).

1032 PR: 6.3 Prioritize management to improve water quality of waters listed on the current CWA 303(d) list or which do not meet Standards 2 or 5 of

the Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands.

1033 PR: 6.1, 6.2,

6.6

Enter into agreements with state and local governments as they develop source water and wellhead protection plans that detail specific

provisions to protect drinking water sources and the quality of surface and groundwater. Consider impacts to domestic water supplies

in treating invasive species.

1034 PR: 6.2, 6.5 Avoid the authorization of activities likely to cause accelerated channel erosion and adverse adjustments in channel geometry (dimension,

pattern, or profile).

1035 PR: 6.3, 6.7,

6.8

Take actions to improve the biological, chemical, and geomorphic conditions of streams and riparian-wetland areas adversely impacted by

BLM-authorized activities or by activities upstream of BLM-administered lands.

1036 PR: 6.1, 6.2,

6.3, 6.4, 6.6,

6.8

Integrate soil, groundwater, and surface water management to maintain or improve groundwater and surface water quality. Evaluate the

need to require groundwater monitoring as part of site-specific NEPA analysis.

1037 PR: 6.1, 6.4 Manage BLM-administered lands to support in-stream flow designations.

1038 PR: 6.6 Develop and implement integrated pest management to control and eradicate invasive species in consideration of impacts to domestic

water supplies.

1039 PR: 6.1 Develop and implement watershed management plans as necessary and cooperate with existing and ongoing watershed management

initiatives started by other stakeholders.

1040 PR: 6.1 Partner with the Wyoming DEQ in protecting groundwater quality and quantity through monitoring plans and implementing these

with the support of project proponents.

1041 PR: 6.6 Inventory reservoirs and assess condition and suitability of design to limit mosquito breeding. Identify functionally compromised

reservoirs and partner with interested entities to rehabilitate or reclaim compromised reservoirs. Prioritize reservoirs in consideration of

potential for failure, impacts to water quality, and importance for wild horses, wildlife, and livestock grazing. Utilize prioritization when

identifying opportunities for offsite mitigations.

1042 PR: 6.1 Enforce measures to limit degradation of water quality such as avoiding disturbance of soils with high erosion potential, implementing

zero runoff programs on large-scale surface-disturbing activities, requiring bonding for site reclamation, and reclaiming abandoned

surface disturbances.

1043 PR: 6.2, 6.5,

6.6, 6.8

For all projects, require the testing of precipitated solids where the BLM has documented the possibility of contamination. Require the

removal of contaminated solids when identified.

MANAGEMENT ACTIONS BY ALTERNATIVE

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 85

1000 PHYSICAL RESOURCES (PR) – WATER

Record # Goal/Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

1044 PR: 6.1, 6.2,

6.3

On a case-by-case basis, prohibit

or avoid surface-disturbing

activities in groundwater recharge

areas to prevent contamination.

Mineral and realty actions in these

areas are managed with Category

1 restrictions.

Prioritize the identification

of Sole Source Aquifers,

Wyoming DEQ Water Zones

1-3 and groundwater recharge

areas. Avoid surface-disturbing

activities with potential to

contaminate groundwater in

identified or inferred groundwater

recharge areas. Mineral and realty

actions in areas underlain by an

identified Sole Source Aquifer

are managed with Category 3

restrictions.

Allow surface-disturbing

activities in known or

inferred groundwater recharge

areas, but implement Best

Management Practices to prevent

contamination.

Same as Alternative B, except

that Wyoming DEQ Water Zones

1-3 are managed with controlled

surface use.

1045 PR: 6.6 Restrictions on pesticide use in

aquifer recharge areas are limited

to label instructions.

Prohibit pesticide use in known

or inferred aquifer recharge areas

(as formally designated) and any

areas underlain by a Sole Source

Aquifer or Wellhead Protection

Area.

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative B.

1046 PR: 6.1, 6.2,

6.3, 6.8

In cooperation with stakeholders,

implement management actions

to prevent degradation of ground

and surface water quality on

a case-by-case basis, utilizing

existing watershed plans where

possible.

Implement management actions

on a watershed basis to prevent

degradation of ground and

surface water and to improve

water quality, utilizing existing

watershed plans where possible.

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A, plus

require project-level NEPA

analyses for oil and gas

development with project-specific

comprehensive groundwater

monitoring plans and programs to

track potential groundwater

impacts as drilling and

productions occur. The level

of monitoring will depend on the

size of the proposed project, the

groundwater vulnerability, the

target zone of operations, and

other site-specific factors.

1047 PR: 6.1, 6.2,

6.5, 6.8

Permanent facilities in floodplains

and riparian-wetland areas (Map

5) are managed with Category

4 restrictions, except to benefit

watershed health or vegetation.

Permanent facilities, including

road crossings, in floodplains

and riparian-wetland areas

are managed with Category 6

restrictions (Map 5).

Allow new permanent facilities in

floodplains and riparian-wetland

areas, provided there are

no practicable alternatives

and sufficient mitigation is

Do not authorize permanent

facilities including roads in

100-year floodplains (where

mapped) and riparian-wetland

areas (Map 5) except to benefit

February 2013

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource
86 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

1000 PHYSICAL RESOURCES (PR) – WATER

Record # Goal/Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

Linear watercourse crossings are

considered on a case-by-case

basis.

All linear underground facilities

crossing watercourses are bored

to avoid riparian-wetland area

disturbance.

undertaken so that the action

will meet the requirements of

Executive Orders 11988 and

11990, wetland protections

afforded under the CWA, and

federal and state water quality

actions.

Linear watercourse crossings are

considered on a case-by-case

basis.

watershed health or vegetation.

Linear watercourse crossings are

considered on a case-by-case

basis and authorized only with

mitigation such as crossing at

right angles or temporary bridges.

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 87

Table 2.12. 1000 Physical Resources (PR) – Cave and Karst Resources

1000 PHYSICAL RESOURCES (PR) – CAVE AND KARST RESOURCES

Record # Goal/Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

Goal PR: 7 Conserve significant cave and karst resources.

Objective:

PR: 7.1 Identify and inventory caves and karst resources and determine if they meet the significance criteria of 43 CFR 37.11(c).

MANAGEMENT ACTIONS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

1048 PR: 7.1 As cave or karst resources are identified, develop site-specific management prescriptions to protect significant cave and karst resources,

such as managing the resource as an SRMA.

MANAGEMENT ACTIONS BY ALTERNATIVE

N/A N/A There are no management actions by alternative identified for cave and karst resources.

February 2013

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource
88 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table 2.13. 1000 Physical Resources (PR) – Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

1000 PHYSICAL RESOURCES (PR) – LANDS WITH WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS

Record # Goal/Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

Goal PR: 8 Maintain existing wilderness characteristics associated within identified areas (outside of WSAs) found to contain wilderness characteristics.

Objective:

PR: 8.1 Maintain wilderness characteristics in areas managed as non-WSA lands with wilderness characteristics.

MANAGEMENT ACTIONS BY ALTERNATIVE

1049 PR: 8.1 Lands with wilderness

characteristics are not specially

managed to protect wilderness

values. Portions of the area

identified as the Little Red Creek

Complex are contained within the

Whiskey Mountain ACEC and

managed in accordance with the

ACEC prescriptions (Map 12).

The following areas will be

managed as non-WSA lands

with wilderness characteristics to

protect wilderness values:

● Little Red Creek Complex

including Red Creek and

Torrey Rim, (5,490 acres)

(Map 13).

Do not separately manage

areas as non-WSA lands with

wilderness characteristics to

protect wilderness values.

The following areas will be

managed as non-WSA lands

with wilderness characteristics to

protect wilderness values:

● Little Red Creek Complex

including Red Creek and

portions of Torrey Rim (4,954

acres) (Map 14).

1050 PR: 8.1 Travel management actionsfor the

Whiskey Mountain ACEC portion

of the Little Red Creek Complex

are in the Special Designations

section. Limit motorized travel

in the non-ACEC portion of the

Little Red Creek Complex to

existing roads and trails.

Close the Little Red Creek

Complex to motorized and

mechanized travel.

Same as Alternative A. Close the Little Red Creek

Complex to motorized travel

and limit mechanized travel to

designated routes. Closures will

be located at strategic locations

on BLM-administered lands,

motorized travel will be allowed

on some roads up to the identified

closure points.

1051 PR: 8.1 No similar action. Manage recreational use in the

Little Red Creek Complex

to maintain wilderness

characteristics.

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative B.

1052 PR: 8.1 No similar action. Work with partners, cooperators,

tribal groups, and willing

landowners to pursue foot and

horseback access to the Little Red

Creek Complex and the adjacent

Fitzpatrick Wilderness Area (Map

13).

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative B.

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 89

Table 2.14. 2000 Mineral Resources (MR)

2000 MINERAL RESOURCES (MR)

Record # Goal/Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

Goal MR: 1 Develop available federal mineral estate.

Objectives:

MR: 1.1 Provide opportunities to explore for, permit, and sell mineral materials.

MR: 1.2 Provide opportunities for mining claimants to explore for and develop locatable minerals.

MR: 1.3 Provide opportunities for the exploration and development of solid and fluid leasable minerals.

Goal MR: 2 Support the use of mineral resources to meet domestic demand.

Goal MR: 3 Provide protections for resource values in areas of conflict with mineral exploration and development.

Objectives:

MR: 3.1 Manage oil and gas operations in the Beaver Rim MLP area (150,782 acres) to prevent degradation of visual and geological resources, sensitive soils,

Native American or culturally significant sites, unique vegetation communities, wild horse migration routes, and headwaters of Platte River (Map 132).

MR: 3.2 Prevent degradation of headwaters of the Sweetwater River occurring in the Beaver Rim MLP area.

MR: 3.3 Protect the visual setting of Native American sites in the Beaver Rim MLP area.

MR: 3.4 Protect paleontological resources in the Beaver Rim MLP area.

MR: 3.5 Protect the free range and genetic diversity of wild horses in the Beaver Rim MLP area. Improve opportunities for public viewing of wild horses.

MR: 3.6 Protect unique plant communities in the Beaver Rim MLP area.

MANAGEMENT ACTIONS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

2001 MR: 1.3 Require a Land Use Plan amendment before leasing coal or oil shale-tar sands.

2002 MR: 1.3 Incorporate proponent committed or BLM Required Design Features or mitigation such as BMPs as COAs for any authorized mineral

activity for federal minerals, regardless of surface ownership. In project-level EISs and EAs, require, on a case-by-case basis, the

development of a wildlife resource monitoring and mitigation plan to address potential impacts from mineral development on wildlife

populations and/or habitat.

February 2013

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource
90 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

2000 MINERAL RESOURCES (MR)

Record # Goal/Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

2003 MR: 1.3 Areas within the NLCS are closed to geothermal energy development. Additional management for NLCS lands provided below under

Special Designations. These areas include:

● WSAs (55,338 acres) (Map 128)

● CDNST (Map 121)

● NHTs (Map 123)

● NWSRS-eligible waterway segments (9,919 acres) (Map 129)

2004 MR: 1.3 All oil and gas and other mineral leases are subject to standard lease stipulations; additional stipulations may apply in some areas. Require

unitization when deemed necessary for proper development and operation of an area or to facilitate more orderly (e.g., phased and/or

clustered) development as a means of minimizing adverse impacts to resources, including greater sage-grouse, so long as the unitization

plan adequately protects the rights of all parties, including the United States. In areas that are closed to mineral leasing (Category 6

restrictions), do not re-offer existing leases when they expire. If drainage occurs in an area closed to oil and gas leasing, authorize

leasing on a case-by-case basis with Category 4 restrictions. Identified areas with Yermo xanthocephalus (“Yermo”) are NSO for oil and

gas leasing. The locatable mineral withdrawal for Yermo critical habitat will be extended. When conducting site-specific NEPA analysis

of a proposed action in Core Area, closely examine the applicability of categorical exclusions. If extraordinary circumstances review is

applicable, determine whether those circumstances exist.

2005 MR: 1.3 Encourage geophysical operators to share scientific information in order to minimize surface impacts.

2006 MR: 1.3 Identify areas disturbed by expired mineral material sales including free-use permits and community use pits. Prioritize reclamation of these

sites, starting with those in Core Area where restoration as long-term greater sage-grouse habitat is possible. Next in priority are those in

riparian-wetland areas, ACECs, the NTMC, VRM Class II areas, general greater sage-grouse habitat, and wildlife migration corridors. Seek

partnerships with others, including applicants seeking suitable offsite mitigation opportunities.

MANAGEMENT ACTIONS BY ALTERNATIVE

LOCATABLE MINERALS

2007 MR: 1.2 Approximately 23,114 acres

are maintained for withdrawal

from locatable mineral entry and

extensions are applied for as needed

(Map 21). (Approximately 8,634

acres are withdrawn in pre-FLPMA

actions which would continue

indefinitely.)

See corresponding alternatives

for specific details and acreage of

withdrawals.

A total of 2,777,334 acres are open

to locatable mineral entry (Map 21).

Approximately 1,632,605 acres

are pursued for withdrawal from

locatable mineral entry (Map 22).

(Approximately 8,634 acres are

withdrawn in pre-FLPMA actions

which would continue indefinitely.)

See corresponding alternatives

for specific details and acreage of

withdrawals.

A total of 1,167,862 acres are open

to locatable mineral entry (Map

22).

Approximately 0 acres are

pursued for withdrawal from

locatable mineral entry (Map

23). (Approximately 8,634 acres

are withdrawn in pre-FLPMA

actions which would continue

indefinitely.)

See corresponding alternatives

for specific details and acreage of

withdrawals.

A total of 2,800,467 acres are

open to locatable mineral entry

(Map 23).

Approximately 449,068 acres

are pursued for withdrawal

from locatable mineral entry

(Map 24). (Approximately

8,634 acres are withdrawn in

pre-FLPMA actions which

would continue indefinitely.)

Any existing [mining] claims

within the withdrawal area

subject to validity exams.

See corresponding alternatives

for specific details of acreage of

withdrawals.

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 91

2000 MINERAL RESOURCES (MR)

Record # Goal/Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

Note: Withdrawals are a realty

action and are identified here just

for information purposes.

A total of 2,351,399 acres are

open to locatable mineral entry

(Map 24).

LEASABLE MINERALS – GEOTHERMAL

2008 MR: 1.3 728,277 acres of federal mineral

estate are open to geothermal

leasing subject to a case-by-case

analysis of impacts to ACECs and

other resource conflicts.

1,703,913 acres of federal mineral

estate are open to geothermal

leasing with moderate constraints

(Map 25).

242,226 acres of federal mineral

estate are open to geothermal

leasing with major constraints (Map

25).

134,686 acres of federal mineral

estate are closed to geothermal

leasing (Map 25).

322,717 acres of federal mineral

estate are open to geothermal

leasing with moderate constraints

(Map 26).

175,369 acres of federal mineral

estate are open to geothermal

leasing with major constraints

(Map 26).

2,304,728 acres of federal mineral

estate are closed to geothermal

leasing (Map 26).

Constraints applied for oil and gas

leasing also apply to geothermal

leasing.

797,174 acres of federal mineral

estate are open to geothermal

leasing subject to a case-by-case

analysis of impacts to ACECs

and other resource conflicts.

1,738,283 acres of federal mineral

estate are open to geothermal

leasing with moderate constraints

(Map 27).

165,747 acres of federal mineral

estate are open to geothermal

leasing with major constraints

(Map 27).

107,897 acres of federal mineral

estate are closed to geothermal

leasing (Map 27).

1,198,821 acres of federal

mineral estate are open to

geothermal leasing with

moderate constraints (Map 28).

859,566 acres of federal mineral

estate are open to geothermal

leasing with major constraints

(Map 28).

696,816 acres of federal mineral

estate are closed to geothermal

leasing (Map 28).

Constraints applied for oil

and gas leasing also apply to

geothermal leasing.

LEASABLE MINERALS – OIL AND GAS

2009 MR: 1.3 Approximately 731,144 acres of

federal mineral estate are open to

oil and gas leasing subject only to

standard lease stipulations (Map

29).

Approximately 32,952 acres of

federal mineral estate are open to

oil and gas leasing subject only to

standard lease stipulations (Map

30).

Approximately 804,794 acres of

federal mineral estate are open to

oil and gas leasing subject only to

standard lease stipulations (Map

31).

Approximately 44,945 acres

of federal mineral estate are

open to oil and gas leasing

subject only to standard lease

stipulations (Map 32).

2010 MR: 1.3 Approximately 1,715,341 acres

of federal mineral estate are open

to oil and gas leasing subject to

moderate constraints (Map 29).

Approximately 309,100 acres of

federal mineral estate are open

to oil and gas leasing subject to

moderate constraints (Map 30).

Approximately 1,755,628 acres

of federal mineral estate are open

to oil and gas leasing subject to

moderate constraints (Map 31).

Approximately 1,260,715 acres

of federal mineral estate are

open to oil and gas leasing

subject to moderate constraints

(Map 32).

February 2013

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource
92 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

2000 MINERAL RESOURCES (MR)

Record # Goal/Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

2011 MR: 1.3 Approximately 337,481 acres of

federal mineral estate are open to

oil and gas leasing subject to major

constraints (Map 29).

Approximately 187,524 acres of

federal mineral estate are open to

oil and gas leasing subject to major

constraints (Map 30).

Approximately 248,601 acres of

federal mineral estate are open

to oil and gas leasing subject to

major constraints (Map 31).

Approximately 1,336,867 acres

of federal mineral estate are

open to oil and gas leasing

subject to major constraints

(Map 32).

2012 MR: 1.3 Approximately 25,136 acres of

federal mineral estate are closed to

oil and gas leasing (Map 29).

Approximately 2,279,525 acres of

federal mineral estate are closed to

oil and gas leasing (Map 30).

Approximately 78 acres of federal

mineral estate are closed to oil

and gas leasing (Map 31).

Approximately 166,574 acres of

federal mineral estate are closed

to oil and gas leasing (Map 32).

2013 PR: 3.3 Consider soil erosion, degradation

of soil quality, sedimentation, and

other factors in determining the

management of produced water on

a case-by-case basis in accordance

with Onshore Oil and Gas Order

No. 7.

Same as Alternative A, except

avoid surface discharge of

produced water in all new oil and

gas development projects.

Same as Alternative A. Disposal of produced water

is authorized in accordance

with Onshore Oil and Gas

Order #7, Produced Water

Handling and in compliance

with state regulations. If

there is WYPDES permitted

discharge, consider soil erosion,

degradation of soil quality,

sedimentation, and other factors

in coordination with the State of

Wyoming.

GEOPHYSICAL EXPLORATION

2014 MR: 1.3 Allow geophysical exploration

subject to identified Conditions

of Approval. If a particular

geophysical exploration can be

conducted within the constraints

necessary to protect other resources,

it will be allowed.

The planning area is open to

geophysical exploration except for

lands identified as closed to oil and

gas exploration and development

or subject to major constraints.

Geophysical exploration is subject

to motorized travel limitations and

restrictions on surface-disturbing

and disruptive activities. See

sections below.

Same as Alternative A. The planning area is open

to geophysical exploration

except for lands identified as

closed to mineral leasing or

NSO to oil and gas leasing.

Geophysical exploration is

subject to motorized travel

limitations and restrictions

on surface-disturbing and

disruptive activities.

LEASABLE MINERALS – OTHER LEASABLES (PHOSPHATE)

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 93

2000 MINERAL RESOURCES (MR)

Record # Goal/Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

2015 MR: 1.3 2,590,482 acres of federal mineral

estate are open to phosphate

leasing subject to standard lease

stipulations (Map 38).

218,619 acres of federal mineral

estate are closed to phosphate

leasing (Map 38).

551,440 acres of federal mineral

estate are open to phosphate

leasing subject to standard lease

stipulations (Map 39).

2,257,661 acres of federal mineral

estate are closed to phosphate

leasing (Map 39).

2,642,047 acres of federal

mineral estate are open to

phosphate leasing subject to

standard lease stipulations (Map

40).

167,054 acres of federal mineral

estate are closed to phosphate

leasing (Map 40).

1,539,655 acres of federal

mineral estate are open to

phosphate leasing subject to

standard lease stipulations (Map

41).

1,269,446 acres of federal

mineral estate are closed to

phosphate leasing (Map 41).

SALABLE MINERALS

2016 MR: 1.1 2,493,980 acres with Category 1 or

2 restrictions are open for mineral

material disposal on a demand basis

(Map 34).

315,121 acres with Category 3-6

restrictions are closed to mineral

material disposal (Map 34).

209,842 acres with Category 1 or

2 restrictions are open to mineral

material disposal.

2,599,259 acres with Category 3-6

restrictions are closed to mineral

material disposal (Map 35).

Restrictions for oil and gas, other

mineral withdrawals, and VRM

restrict the disposal of mineral

materials; see those sections.

2,620,997 acres with Category

1 or 2 restrictions are open to

mineral material disposal.

188,104 acres with Category 3-6

restrictions are closed to mineral

material disposal (Map 36).

Areas withdrawn from locatable

mineral entry are not available

for disposal of mineral materials.

Approximately 1,853,090 acres

with Category 1 or 2 restrictions

are open for mineral material

disposal on a demand basis

(Map 37).

956,011 acres with Category

3-6 restrictions are closed to

mineral material disposal (Map

37).

DESIGNATED DEVELOPMENT AREAS (DDAs)

N/A N/A Note: Additional management actions regarding DDAs include Records 4033, 4056, and 7137.

2017 MR: 1.1,

1.2, 1.3

Do not establish DDAs. Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. Establish DDAs for intensive

mineral exploration,

development, and production

(364,630 acres) (Map 134).

February 2013

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource
94 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

2000 MINERAL RESOURCES (MR)

Record # Goal/Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

2018 MR: 1.3 Exceptions to stipulations are

considered on a site-specific basis

following standard practices.

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. New fluid and solid mineral

leases and mineral material

disposals in DDAs will

include standard stipulations.

Stipulations will be reviewed

at the permit stage and not

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 in

DDAs will be expedited.

Wildlife seasonal protections

for maintenance and operation

actions determined to be

detrimental to wildlife will not

be applied inside DDAs. Refer

to Appendix I (p. 1535).

2019 MR: 1.1,

1.2, 1.3

Exceptions to timing limitations

for threatened and endangered and

species and migratory bird species

are granted only in consultation

with the USFWS, and if migratory

bird take permits or other required

permits are obtained.

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A including

in DDAs.

2020 MR: 1.1 Standard reclamation will be

required in all areas.

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. Reclamation will be required in

accordance with DDA interim

and final reclamation objectives

in Appendix D (p. 1477).

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 95

2000 MINERAL RESOURCES (MR)

Record # Goal/Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

2021 MR: 1.1,

1.2, 1.3

No lands are managed as DDAs. Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. Federal lands and mineral

estate not inside a DDA may

be designated and managed

as DDAs if project-specific

environmental analysis

determines that adverse

impacts to other resources

can be successfully mitigated

with design features, operating

methods, and other mitigation

and if a geology and/or

reservoir analysis determines

that extraction efficiently and

adequately produces the mineral

resource.

Designation of new areas

as DDAs or expansion of

existing DDA requires an RMP

amendment.

MASTER LEASING PLANS (MLPs) – BEAVER RIM

2022 MR: 3 Do not identify any areas for MLPs. Do not apply any MLPs. Do not

consider MLPs in areas that are

closed to oil and gas leasing.

Same as Alternative A. Apply an MLP to 150,782 acres

in the Beaver Rim area (Map

135).

2023 MR: 3.1, 3.2,

3.3, 3.4, 3.5,

3.6

The Beaver Rim area is managed

subject to standard stipulations.

The Beaver Rim area is closed

to oil and gas leasing because it

is located in greater sage-grouse

nesting habitat.

Same as Alternative A. Apply the following provisions

of the Beaver Rim MLP to

150,782 acres (Map 135).

● 29,527 acres in the Beaver

MLP area are open to oil

and gas leasing subject to an

NSO stipulation.

● The remainder of the MLP

area (121,255 acres) is

open to oil and gas leasing

subject to CSU stipulations.

If any of these acres are

determined to be within a

mapped floodplain before

February 2013

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource
96 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

2000 MINERAL RESOURCES (MR)

Record # Goal/Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

the lease is issued, an NSO

stipulation, rather than a

CSU stipulation will be

applied.

2024 MR: 3.1, 3.3 Visual simulations may be

required in VRM Class II areas of

Beaver Rim. There is no special

management of visual resources for

the area.

Same as Alternative A, plus VRM

reflects limits on mineral and realty

actions.

Same as Alternative A. In VRM Class II areas of the

Beaver Rim MLP area:

● Visual simulations in

accordance with VRM

directive will be required.

● Manage the landscape

associated with Beaver Rim

so that visitors continue to

enjoy the unique geologic

features.

2025 MR: 3.1, 3.3 There is no special management of

visual resources for VRM Class III

areas.

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. In VRM Class III areas of the

Beaver Rim MLP area:

● Roads should be sited to

follow the contours of the

landscape and co-located

unless that is not feasible.

● Site wells to where they

will be less visible and

where cuts and fills can be

minimized.

● Consolidate and use

low-profile equipment.

● Paint equipment to blend

with the background.

● Bury pipelines.

● Place all linear disturbance

such as powerlines in

common corridors.

● Additional management

may be required on a

site-specific basis to lessen

adverse impacts to visual

resources and sensitive soils.

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 97

2000 MINERAL RESOURCES (MR)

Record # Goal/Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

2026 MR: 3.1,

3.2, 3.6

Final reclamation of oil and gas

surface disturbance will restore the

original landform and re-establish

the native plant community.

The Beaver Rim area is closed to

oil and gas leasing.

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A, plus

reclamation will improve

riparian-wetland conditions in

the Beaver Rim MLP area.

2027 MR: 3.1, 3.2,

3.3, 3.5, 3.6

Parcels are made available for

oil and gas leasing in response

to nominations. Standard greater

sage-grouse management is applied

with no minimum spacing of

disturbances required.

The Beaver Rim area is

closed to oil and gas leasing.

Greater sage-grouse Core Area

management is applied to the area.

No minimum distance between

existing disturbance is applied.

Same as Alternative A. Make parcels in the Beaver Rim

area available for lease starting

in the CSU areas outside of

crucial winter range. Allow

no more than 5 percent surface

disturbance in the township in

which the parcel is located until

interim reclamation goals are

achieved. Require co-location

of new disturbance if technically

feasible. If new disturbances

cannot be co-located, they

must be at least 1.2 miles from

existing disturbance.

2028 MR: 3.1, 3.2 Apply a 500-foot riparian-wetland

setback.

Apply a 1,320-foot

riparian-wetland setback.

Same as Alternative A. Apply a riparian-wetland

setback greater than 500

feet where NEPA analysis

determines that a larger

area is needed to protect

riparian-wetland resources.

2029 MR: 3.2 Do not require watershed

monitoring in the Beaver Rim

area.

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. Require watershed monitoring

including wetlands to verify

the effectiveness of watershed

protections. Monitoring

protocols will establish key

variables, such as depth of

standing water, duration

of saturation, temperature,

sediment loading, and other

metrics, as determined on a

site-specific basis. Strengthen

protections, including BMPs,

when monitoring indicates

ongoing degradation or

February 2013

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource
98 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

2000 MINERAL RESOURCES (MR)

Record # Goal/Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

inadequate benefits from

mitigation, including additional

site protections and wetland

restorations.

2030 MR: 3.1, 3.3 Tribal consultation is initiated on a

case-by-case basis.

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. Pending the results of tribal

consultation, do not authorize

surface disturbance within 1⁄4

mile of sites known to be of

interest to Native American

tribes (e.g., stone circles,

cairns, rock art) as mapped in

the Lander Field Office GIS

database. Following tribal

consultation, apply site-specific

management that will protect

Native American spiritual

and/or cultural values.

2031 MR: 3.4 Conduct inventories for

paleontological resources in

areas with “very high” and “high”

PFYC prior to all surface-disturbing

activities.

No similar action. Same as Alternative A. Develop an inventory of fossil

localities in areas identified

as high or very high PFYC

to be used in managing

mineral activities to protect

paleontological resources (see

the Paleontological Resources

section).

2032 MR: 3.4 No similar action. No similar action. No similar action. Prior to leasing any parcels

in the Beaver Rim area,

the special management

prescriptions identified under

the Paleontologic Resources

section will be completed.

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 99

2000 MINERAL RESOURCES (MR)

Record # Goal/Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

2033 MR: 3.5 Authorize fences on a case-by-case

basis.

Fences are not authorized in wild

horse HMAs.

Same as Alternative A. Do not authorize fences in

portions of the Beaver Rim

MLP area that are used by wild

horses to move among HMAs

in order to support genetic

diversity, unless necessary

to improve riparian-wetland

conditions. Avoid wild horse

HMAs for roads and other linear

disturbances.

2034 MR: 3.6 Consider surface disturbance

impacts from oil and gas

development to unique plant

communities.

The Beaver Rim area is closed to

oil and gas leasing.

Same as Alternative A. Avoid surface disturbance in

unique plant communities.

February 2013

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource
100 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table 2.15. 3000 Fire and Fuels Management (FM)

3000 FIRE AND FUELS MANAGEMENT (FM)

Record # Goal/Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

Goal FM: 1 Protect human life, property, communities at risk from fire and other communities, and enhance and protect the public land resources through vegetation

management and the response to wildland fire.

Objectives:

FM: 1.1 The BLM will first provide for firefighter and public safety in every fire management activity.

FM: 1.2 Maintain partnerships with interagency cooperators to strengthen coordination of all fire suppression and fuels management activities.

FM: 1.3 Promote community assistance and enhance the fire prevention and public education program regarding wildland fire management and vegetation

management activities.

FM: 1.4 Conduct appropriate emergency stabilization and rehabilitation where necessary after wildfire to address current and anticipated needs to resource

values at risk.

Goal FM: 2 Manage fire and fuels to restore or maintain natural ecosystem functions, restore fire-adapted ecosystems, reduce losses from landscape-level wildland

fire, and protect multiple-use values.

Objectives:

FM: 2.1 Consistent with the 10-year Comprehensive Strategy, prioritize and implement hazardous fuels reduction treatments where the adverse impacts of

wildland fire are greatest.

FM: 2.2 Consult and cooperate with private landowners, affected partners, and local, state, tribal and other federal agencies on individual treatments (such as

prescribed fire and biological, mechanical, and chemical treatments) designed to reduce or modify hazardous fuels accumulations.

FM: 2.3 Working with private landowners, affected partners, and local, state, tribal and other federal agencies, identify areas for potential use of wildland fire to

protect, maintain and enhance resources through collaborative development of operational plans.

FM: 2.4 Restore natural fire regimes and frequency to the landscape.

FM: 2.5 Using the best available science and on the ground inventory, determine existing condition class of vegetation communities and manage landscapes

to improve condition class and ecological conditions described in NRCS Ecological Site Descriptions.

FM: 2.6 Utilize fuels and vegetation treatments to maintain and enhance greater sage-grouse habitat where applicable.

MANAGEMENT ACTIONS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 101

3000 FIRE AND FUELS MANAGEMENT (FM)

Record # Goal/Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

3001 FM: 1.1, 1.2,

1.3, 1.4

Utilize a full suite of wildland fire suppression tactics based on a full evaluation of the highest priority of firefighter and public safety and

other factors, such as the circumstances under which a fire occurs, the threat to human infrastructure, important natural and cultural resources,

and other values to be protected. Coordinate responses to wildland fire across jurisdictional boundaries. Conduct emergency stabilization and

rehabilitation as needed. In greater sage-grouse Core Area, prioritize suppression to conserve the habitat immediately after firefighter and

public safety. Where applicable and technically feasible, apply greater sage-grouse BMPs such as those identified in Appendix H (p. 1521).

3002 FM: 2.5 Partner with the University of Wyoming and other research entities to develop a greater understanding of the ecology and disturbance regime

of sagebrush steppe, woodland, and forested vegetation communities found within the planning area. Use this information to develop a

regionally specific scientific foundation to vegetation management activities.

3003 FM: 1.2, 2.3,

2.4, 2.5

Inventory the FRCC (Map 42) of the vegetative communities found within the fire management units (Map 43). In coordination with

stakeholders and in consideration of greater sage-grouse Core Area objectives, prioritize areas requiring treatment and utilize appropriate

vegetation treatment techniques to improve the condition class across a landscape. Prioritize those projects in areas with the greatest benefits

to wildlife and the highest likelihood of wildfire.

3004 FM: 1.1, 2.1,

2.2, 2.5

Use chemical, biological, and mechanical treatments to reduce the risk of landscape-level wildfire within priority areas, alter fuel loading and

improve ecological condition of vegetation communities. Consider the presence and potential for noxious and nonnative plant species when

designing wildland fire response and fuels treatments.

3005 FM: 2, 1.3,

2.2, 2.4, 2.5

Use personal use and commercial vegetation sale permits, where not otherwise constrained or prohibited, for removal of firewood, post and

pole, Christmas trees, sawlogs, and wildlings, for hazardous fuels management.

3006 FM: 2.6 Allow vegetation treatments in greater sage-grouse Core Area that conserve, enhance, or restore greater sage‐grouse habitat (this includes

treatments that benefit livestock as part of an AMP/Conservation Plan to improve greater sage‐grouse habitat). In identified greater

sage-grouse winter range, vegetation treatments should emphasize strategically reducing wildfire risk around or in the winter range and

maintaining winter range habitat quality. Prioritize restoration treatments in areas that are thought to limit greater sage‐grouse distribution

and/or abundance. Focus vegetation treatments outward from existing, intact greater sage-grouse habitat. Utilize BMPs, such as those in

Appendix H (p. 1521) and other current habitat management guidelines, when designing and implementing the project.

3007 FM: 1.1, 1.4 Do not reduce sagebrush canopy cover to less than 15 percent within a defined treatment polygon in suitable greater sage-grouse Core Area

habitat unless a vegetation management objective requires additional reduction in sagebrush cover to protect or to conserve habitat quality

for greater sage-grouse or other sagebrush steppe dependent and obligate species. Maintain sagebrush and understory diversity (relative to

ecological site description) unless such removal is necessary to achieve greater sage-grouse habitat management objectives. Remove conifers

or reduce the density of conifers that have encroached into sagebrush plant communities.

3008 FM: 2.3, 2.4 Outside of greater sage-grouse Core Area, emphasize the reintroduction of fire into its natural role in the ecosystem. Where possible,

use wildland fire and prescribed fire to achieve management objectives including reducing hazardous fuel loading, restoring vegetation

communities, improving and/or protecting wildlife habitat, enhancing forage production, and addressing forest and woodland health

issues such as pine beetle outbreaks.

3009 FM: 2.2, 2.3 Cooperate with stakeholders to conduct landscape level treatments resulting in enhanced fuels management and/or restoration of fire-adapted

ecosystems. In cooperation with stakeholders, manage to promote the growth and persistence of native shrubs, grasses, and forbs.

February 2013

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource
102 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

3000 FIRE AND FUELS MANAGEMENT (FM)

Record # Goal/Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

3010 FM: 2 Monitor fuels treatment and wildfire burn areas for sufficient time after treatment or fire event in order to determine short-term and

long-term project success, detect weed infestations and accelerated soil erosion, and assess overall vegetation recovery. Utilize all available

rehabilitation tools to control weed infestation and accelerated soil erosion. Implement rest of treated areas from livestock grazing for two

full growing seasons on all prescribed or wildland fire burn areas unless vegetation recovery dictates otherwise.

3011 FM: 2 Limit the use of fire to treat sagebrush in areas receiving less than 12 inches of annual precipitation. Prescribed fire to reduce hazardous fuels

or enhance land health in areas receiving less than 12 inches of annual precipitation could be considered after exploring other potential

treatment methods and where cheatgrass is a very minor component of the understory.

3012 FM: 2 Utilizing Required Design Features and BMPs applied as COAs such as those identified in Appendix H (p. 1521), establish fuels

treatment projects at strategic locations to minimize the size of wildfires and limit further loss of greater sage‐grouse habitat. Restore

native or desirable plants and create landscape patterns to benefit greater sage-grouse. In suitable habitat within greater sage-grouse Core

Area, incorporate greater sage-grouse specific habitat objectives and apply appropriate seasonal restrictions for implementing vegetation

management treatments in greater sage-grouse Core Area. Do not allow treatments in Core Area winter concentration areas unless the

treatments are designed to strategically reduce wildfire risk around or in the winter range and will maintain winter range habitat quality.

Power wash all fire vehicles including engines, water tenders, personnel vehicles, and OHVs after they have been in the field to help to

prevent the establishment or spread of invasive weeds.

3013 FM: 1.2 Restrict the use of aerial applied fire retardant near identified rock art sites unless values at risk, such as human life and safety, require their use.

3014 FM: 1.2 Use MIST for wildfire suppression where appropriate, with special consideration for areas of significant cultural resources or historic trails,

areas with significant wildlife habitat or biological sensitivity and in areas of visual resource sensitivity unless human life or public safety

is threatened.

MANAGEMENT ACTIONS BY ALTERNATIVE

3015 FM: 1.1, 1.4 Full suppression is the most likely

fire suppression strategy with other

fire suppression strategies used on

a case-by-case basis.

Full suppression of wildland

fire is used within the WUI

and to minimize critical

resource damage. The use

of unplanned ignition to achieve

resource benefit is allowed on a

case-by-case basis.

Full suppression of wildland

fire is the most likely response

throughout the planning area, with

other suppression strategies used

on a case-by-case basis. The use

of unplanned ignition to achieve

resource benefit is not allowed.

Full suppression of wildland fire

is used within the WUI and in

areas of high resource values

including greater sage-grouse

Core Area. A full range of

wildland fire suppression tactics

are allowed throughout the

planning area, including the use

of unplanned ignition to achieve

resource benefit.

3016 FM: 1 Do not aerially apply fire retardants

during suppression activities

within 300 feet of any waterbody

including those that support

Yellowstone cutthroat trout,

burbot, and sauger.

Same as Alternative A, plus do

not authorize aerial or hand use

of fire suppression foam within 1⁄4

mile of waterbodies that support

Yellowstone cutthroat trout,

burbot, and sauger.

Same as Alternative A. Do not aerially apply fire

retardants during suppression

activities within 300 feet of

any waterbody. Do not apply

fire retardants within 500 feet

of waterways that support

Yellowstone cutthroat trout,

burbot, and sauger unless

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 103

3000 FIRE AND FUELS MANAGEMENT (FM)

Record # Goal/Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

values at risk require the use of

retardants within 500 feet from

identified waterways.

February 2013

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource
104 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table 2.16. 4000 Biological Resources (BR) – Vegetation - General

4000 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (BR) – VEGETATION - GENERAL

Record # Goal/Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

Goal BR: 1 Manage vegetation communities to restore, maintain, or enhance vegetation community health, composition, and diversity. Provide a mix of natural

succession stages that incorporate diverse structure and composition into each vegetation type.

Objectives:

BR: 1.1 Maintain, improve, enhance, or restore habitat to facilitate the conservation, recovery, and maintenance of populations of native and desirable

nonnative plant species.

BR: 1.2 Maintain, improve, or enhance areas of ecological importance, priority plant species and habitats, and unique plant communities.

BR: 1.3 Maintain, improve, or enhance sustainable forage levels for all grazing/browsing animals depending upon identified desirable vegetation communities.

BR: 1.4 Utilize mechanical, chemical, and biological methods, including fire and livestock grazing, to achieve desirable vegetation communities.

BR: 1.5 Manage grazing/browsing use levels in consideration of plant, riparian-wetland, and soil health requirements.

BR: 1.6 Maintain, restore, and enhance aspen, forest, woodland, and non-sagebrush shrub communities for a healthy mix of successional stages. Emphasize stand

diversity, sustainability, and consideration of other resources and uses in forest and woodland communities.

BR: 1.7 Manage vegetation communities across the landscape to improve FRCC.

BR: 1.8 Manage vegetative resources to optimize protection and recovery from drought, disease, insect infestations, and wildfire.

BR: 1.9 Coordinate with local, state, and federal agencies and stakeholders to protect and recover vegetative resources and other habitat components affected by dry

conditions, drought, disease, severe insect infestations, noxious weeds, and wildfires.

Goal BR: 2 Maintain, enhance, or restore forest-stand community health, composition, and diversity to an ecologically appropriate mosaic considering factors such as

density, basal area, canopy cover, age class, stand health, successional stages, and understory.

Objectives:

BR: 2.1 Limit infestation and epidemics in forests and woodlands as much as possible by managing for endemic populations of native insects, diseases, and

pathogens.

BR: 2.2 Maintain and protect characteristics and composition of mature forest and woodland communities with old growth characteristics.

BR: 2.3 Improve opportunities to sustainably harvest forest products in identified areas while providing for other forest values and uses. Improve forest and

woodland health to protect watershed values and support wildlife habitat requirements.

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 105

Table 2.17. 4000 Biological Resources (BR) – Vegetation - Forests, Woodlands, and Aspen Communities

4000 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (BR) – VEGETATION - FORESTS, WOODLANDS, AND ASPEN COMMUNITIES

Record # Goal/Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

MANAGEMENT ACTIONS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

4001 BR: 1, 1.2,

1.5, 2

Update and complete inventory of forests and woodlands, identifying characteristics such as areas of woodland encroachment, areas of unique

or old growth characteristics or ecological significance, areas of damage from insect and disease, fuel loading within the WUI, general forest

and woodland health, as well as areas suitable for commercial timber sales.

4002 BR: 1.2 Manage forests and woodlands to improve stand diversity, sustainability, and consideration of other resources and resource uses while

following Wyoming Silvicultural BMPs (Appendix H (p. 1521)).

4003 BR: 1.9 Cooperate with other agencies, partners, adjacent landowners and other relevant parties to develop cooperative partnerships and implement

landscape-wide, cross-boundary forest management within the South Pass, Lander Slope, Green Mountain, and Dubois Primary Forest

Resource Areas (Map 47).

4004 BR: 1.4 Identify areas in which wildland fire could be implemented as a management tool to enhance forest and woodland health.

4005 BR: 1.6, 2 Actively promote aspen regeneration throughout the Lander Field Office using a variety of treatment methods to enhance wildlife habitat

and improve overall ecological health.

4006 BR: 2.1 Allow the sale of personal use permits to meet public demand for post and poles, firewood, sawlogs, Christmas trees, burlwood and other

vegetative products consistent with forest health objectives and wildlife habitat requirements. After NEPA analysis, authorize commercial

use for seed collections for use in habitat restoration or research.

4007 BR: 1.1,

1.2, 2.1

Manage old growth and rare forest and woodland communities to maintain the ecological characteristics unique to the site(s).

FORESTS AND WOODLANDS

4008 BR: 1, 1.1,

1.2

Manage forests and woodlands

in response to conditions on the

ground, including forest health,

wildlife habitat, and demand for

forest products.

Manage forests and woodlands to

improve vegetative health and for

the benefit of other resources using

natural processes to the greatest

extent possible.

Manage forests and woodlands

using all available treatment

methods to maintain and improve

forest health across the forested

landscape and to provide forest

products to the public.

Same as Alternative A.

4009 BR: 1.3, 2 Implement forest replanting after

sale, vegetative treatment, or

fire on a case-by-case basis if

natural regeneration does not occur

within a timeframe appropriate for

vegetative type.

Implement forest replanting after

sale, vegetative treatment, or fire

on a case-by-case basis to benefit

forest health and to improve

carbon sequestration.

Implement forest replanting

as soon as possible after sale,

vegetative treatment, or fire on

a case-by-case basis to more

effectively sustain commodity

production.

Same as Alternative A.

February 2013

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource
106 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

4000 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (BR) – VEGETATION - FORESTS, WOODLANDS, AND ASPEN COMMUNITIES

Record # Goal/Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

4010 BR: 1.9 Authorize a variety of silvicultural

techniques to protect resource

values and maintain forest health.

Implement active silvicultural

techniques only where natural

processes are not able to

accomplish forest and woodland

health goals.

Authorize the full range of

silvicultural techniques such as

thinning and selective cuts and

prescribed fire to maintain forest

and woodland health and to reduce

the risk of mortality by insects,

disease, and wildfire.

Same as Alternative C.

4011 BR: 1.1,

1.2, 1.4,

1.8, 2.1

Allow clear-cuts within the

following parameters:

● Cannot exceed 25 acres in size

● Cannot be within 100 feet of

riparian-wetland areas

● Cannot be on slopes greater

than 45 percent

Prohibit clear-cuts and harvest

methods that create clear-cuts.

Authorize clear-cuts within the

following parameters:

● Can be of any size

● Cannot be within 100 feet of

riparian-wetland areas

● Limit ground based logging

systems to a maximum of

45 percent slope; any slope

greater than 45 percent may be

logged with cable systems or

by helicopter

Allow clear-cuts. Determine

clear-cut size, location, and slope

based on a combination of resource

values and silvicultural objectives

on a site-specific basis.

4012 BR: 1.2,

1.8, 1.9,

2.1

Manage forest insect and disease

outbreaks on a case-by-case basis.

Manage forest insect and disease

outbreaks only as necessary for

human health and safety such

as in areas around developed

campgrounds and within the WUI.

Manage forest insect and disease

outbreaks with the full range

of silviculture techniques and

treatment methods.

Same as Alternative A.

4013 BR: 1.1,

1.2, 2.1

Manage unique forest and

woodland communities as they

are identified on a case-by-case

basis including some removal as

appropriate.

Same as Alternative A, except

manage all unique communities

to maintain the ecological

characteristics unique to the site.

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A, except

ensure unique forests and

woodland communities are

managed to maintain the

ecological characteristics unique

to the site.

4014 BR: 1.3,

1.4, 1.5, 2

Manage forest product sales

in the following areas on a

case-by-case basis with the

following restrictions and in

response to local and regional

market conditions (Map 47):

● Lander Slope: Authorize 10

MMBF over a 5-year period

followed by a 10-year period

Develop forest management plans

for the Green Mountain, South

Pass, Lander Slope, and Dubois

Primary Forest Resource Areas

(Map 47) for forest product sales

and management of pine beetle

and other infestation. Lander

Slope, Red Canyon, and South

Develop forest management

plans for the Green Mountain,

South Pass, Lander Slope, and

Dubois Primary Forest Resource

Areas for forest product sales and

management for forest health and

commercial production.

Develop a forest management

plan for the Green Mountain

Primary Forest Resource Area and

as funding permits for the South

Pass and Dubois Primary Forest

Resource Areas (Map 47) for

commercial and over-the-counter

forest product sales, enhancement

of forest health, addressing fuel

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 107

4000 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (BR) – VEGETATION - FORESTS, WOODLANDS, AND ASPEN COMMUNITIES

Record # Goal/Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

of rest to enhance diversity and

uneven age stand.

● Red Canyon: Authorize forest

product sales on a case-by-case

basis to improve wildlife

conditions. Limit aspen cuts

to 5 acres in size and only

allow to enhance stand health.

Limit cuts of conifer stands to

dead or dying trees to facilitate

regeneration.

● South Pass: Authorize sales of

small volumes of timber on a

demand basis to remove dead

or dying timber and to help

regeneration.

Pass are managed as one area with

the following restrictions:

● Lander Slope: Prohibit forest

product sales unless necessary

because of human health and

safety issues or to improve

wildlife habitat and overall

forest health.

● Red Canyon: Prohibit forest

product sales unless necessary

because of human health and

safety issues or to improve

wildlife habitat and overall

forest health.

● South Pass: Prohibit forest

product sales unless necessary

because of human health and

safety issues or to improve

wildlife habitat and overall

forest health.

loading within the WUI and

management of pine beetle and

other infestation.

Manage the Lander Slope and

Red Canyon as one area. Prohibit

commercial forest product sales in

this area unless necessary because

of human health and safety issues

(WUI) or to improve wildlife

habitat and overall forest health.

February 2013

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource
108 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table 2.18. 4000 Biological Resources (BR) – Vegetation - Grassland and Shrubland Communities

4000 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (BR) – VEGETATION - GRASSLAND AND SHRUBLAND COMMUNITIES

Record

#

Goal/

Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

MANAGEMENT ACTIONS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

N/A N/A Note: Management actions to minimize disturbance to vegetation through application of Best Management Practices, mitigation, and reclamation

practices for all surface-disturbing activities are in the Soil Reclamation section.

Management actions for vegetation resources for the benefit of wildlife and special status species are located in those respective sections.

4015 BR: 1.1,

1.3, 1.6

Manage for specific species and vegetative attributes (plant density, composition, cover, and diversity) using ecologically sustainable practices.

4016 BR: 1,

1.1, 1.2

Manage grazing in sagebrush communities in accordance with the site’s ecological site description to accommodate the plant growth requirements

of the larger cool season bunchgrasses such as needle and thread, bluebunch wheatgrass, green needlegrass, and Indian ricegrass.

4017 BR: 1.2 Identify unique plant communities and manage to protect, preserve, or enhance these communities.

MANAGEMENT ACTIONS BY ALTERNATIVE

4018 BR: 1,

1.1, 1.2,

1.3

Manage vegetation communities

for vegetative attributes described

in NRCS Ecological Site Guides

and to meet identified vegetative

goals.

Manage vegetation communities

to benefit biological diversity

including wildlife, fish, and special

status species.

Manage vegetation communities to

maximize forage production for the

ecological site.

Same as Alternative A, plus

when existing Ecological Site

Descriptions have not been

developed, are too general, or are

not correct to serve adequately as

benchmarks, identify and document

local areas of similar potential

within each specific ecological

site that exemplify achievement of

appropriate habitat objectives, and

use these sites for the development

of new reference sheets to be

used as the benchmark reference.

Establish measurable objectives

related to greater sage-grouse

habitat.

4019 BR: 1.4 On a case-by-case basis, use

vegetation treatments to increase

forage production when consistent

with healthy rangeland ecosystems.

Use vegetation treatments to restore

diversity of ecological sites and

transitional states, and to benefit all

resources.

Use vegetation treatments to change

plant community composition in

a manner that achieves rangeland

health objectives and facilitates

grazing management. Assure

that projects conform to wildlife

objectives, particularly with regard

to greater sage-grouse.

Use vegetation treatments to change

plant community composition in

a manner that achieves wildlife

objectives, rangeland health

objectives, and facilitates grazing

management. Assure that projects

conform to resource objectives for

the site.

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 109

Table 2.19. 4000 Biological Resources (BR) – Invasive Species and Pest Management

4000 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (BR) – INVASIVE SPECIES AND PEST MANAGEMENT

Record # Goal/Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

Goal BR: 3 Manage for healthy native plant communities by reducing, preventing expansion of, or eliminating the occurrence of INNS, undesirable vegetation, or

noxious weeds (predatory plant pests or disease) by implementing management actions consistent with goals included in Partners Against Weeds and consistent

with state and local weed management plans.

Objectives:

BR: 3.1 Maintain adequate baseline information, inventory and monitoring, regarding the extent and control of invasive species to make informed decisions, evaluate

effectiveness of management actions, and assess progress toward goals to improve invasive species management. Develop a prevention and early detection program.

BR: 3.2 Coordinate with adjoining jurisdictions in management and control of INNS across jurisdictional and political boundaries.

BR: 3.3 Include provisions for INNS management in all BLM-funded or authorized actions.

Goal BR: 4 Support internal and external education and awareness of noxious weeds.

Objective:

BR: 4.1 Develop and deploy educational and public awareness programs and materials in cooperation with other agencies and organizations.

Goal BR: 5 In all parts of the planning area, manage for the reduction, prevention, and halting the expansion of cheatgrass in the planning area. Emphasize the

prevention of invasive annual grass and woody plants in greater sage-grouse Core Area.

MANAGEMENT ACTIONS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

4020 BR: 3.1,

3.3

Cooperate with other federal and state agencies, counties, conservation districts, Weed and Pest Management Areas, and other entities to

control weed infestation. Cooperate with APHIS and other stakeholders to control grasshoppers and Mormon crickets on BLM-administered

lands in conjunction with control efforts initialized on adjoining non-federal lands.

4021 BR: 3.1,

3.2, 3.3

Integrated pest management is consistent with Partners Against Weeds (BLM 1996). Use fire and mechanical/chemical treatments to control

weeds. Reseed or replant as necessary to promote vegetative growth in consultation and cooperation with interested parties.

4022 BR: 4 Develop and implement a program promoting public awareness of Wyoming Declared Noxious Weeds and Pests as well as INNS.

4023 BR: 3.2,

3.3

Manage weed treatments to maintain and improve greater sage-grouse habitat. Apply Required Design Features and BMPs as COAs such as

those in Appendix H (p. 1521).

4024 BR: 3.2,

3.3

Require the use of certified noxious-weed free forage, mulch, and other land-applied products by BLM-authorized activities on

BLM-administered lands.

4025 BR: 3.3 Should INNS become established in a location, develop and implement site-specific plans to eradicate/control invasive weeds in all

surface-disturbing activities in the immediate vicinity. Priority for control will be: (1) Wyoming Declared Weed and Pest Species, (2) those

weeds on the Western States Combined Declared Noxious Weed List, (3) those annual/biennial invasive weeds interfering with reclamation

efforts, and (4) those INNS interfering with a management objective.

February 2013

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource
110 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

4000 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (BR) – INVASIVE SPECIES AND PEST MANAGEMENT

Record # Goal/Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

4026 BR: 5 Develop a plan to manage cheatgrass in coordination with other agencies and individuals with the local (County) Weed & Pest Control

Districts acting as the point of contact among all parties.

4027 BR: 3.3 Require that all equipment and vehicles used for BLM-authorized activities be cleaned for seeds of noxious weeds and INNS before moving

onto BLM-administered lands. Prohibit project vehicles accessing BLM-administered lands via cross-county travel from driving through

infestations during access to the site. If the area on which BLM-authorized activities take place is identified as being a high risk for invasive

and/or noxious weeds, require that vehicles be cleaned before leaving the worksite with prescriptions for the disposal of wash water.

MANAGEMENT ACTIONS BY ALTERNATIVE

4028 BR: 3.3 Do not require livestock flushing

to prevent the spread of INNS.

If the Authorized Officer

determines that livestock are

likely carrying ingested seeds of

INNS, the Authorized Officer may

require that livestock be flushed

for weeds for a period of 72 hours

before allowing livestock to move

onto BLM-administered lands.

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative B.

4029 BR: 3.3 Manage activities that contribute

to the spread of noxious weeds on

a case-by-case basis in accordance

with factors identified in Executive

Order 13112.

If the Authorized Officer

determines that BLM-authorized

activities are contributing to the

spread of noxious or invasive

species, adjust the terms of the

authorized activity to aid in the

control of the species.

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative B.

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 111

Table 2.20. 4000 Biological Resources (BR) – Riparian-Wetland Resources

4000 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (BR) – RIPARIAN-WETLAND RESOURCES

Record # Goal/Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

Note: Vegetation Goals BR: 1-2 apply to Riparian-Wetland Resources as well.

Goal BR: 6 Maintain, enhance, or restore riparian-wetland areas to support biodiversity and provide the appropriate natural potential combination of vegetation,

landform, or large woody debris to: (a) dissipate stream energy associated with high water flows or energies associated with wind and/or wave action and overland

flow from adjacent sites, (b) reduce erosion and improve water quality, (c) filter sediment, (d) capture bedload, (e) allow for floodplain development, (f) improve

floodwater retention and groundwater recharge, (g) develop root masses that stabilize stream banks, islands and shoreline features against cutting action, (h)

allow for natural rates of water percolation, and (i) develop diverse ponding and channel characteristics to provide the habitat and the water depth, duration, and

temperature necessary for fish production, waterfowl breeding, and other uses.

Objectives:

BR: 6.1 Develop recovery management prescriptions for riparian-wetland areas that are not functioning properly and/or have impaired water quality.

BR: 6.2 Develop management plans capable of ensuring riparian-wetland areas will achieve or exceed PFC.

BR: 6.3 Manage all resources and resource uses to maintain, enhance, or restore riparian-wetland habitats.

BR: 6.4 Maintain, enhance, or restore aquatic ecosystems including stream geomorphology.

MANAGEMENT ACTIONS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

4030 BR: 6 Identify riparian-wetland management actions to promote biodiversity and develop an implementation plan to incorporate actions into

BLM-authorized activities. Manage riparian-wetland areas and wet meadows to achieve or maintain diverse species richness that includes a

component of perennial forbs in conjunction with desirable riparian sedges, rushes, bulrushes, and grasses, as appropriate.

4031 BR: 6.1,

6.2, 6.3,

6.4

Implement identified management actions to have riparian-wetland areas meet or exceed PFC and Standard 2 of the Wyoming Standards for

Healthy Rangelands.

4032 BR: 6.4 Design utility line watercourse crossings to limit impacts to riparian-wetland areas.

MANAGEMENT ACTIONS BY ALTERNATIVE

February 2013

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource
112 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

4000 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (BR) – RIPARIAN-WETLAND RESOURCES

Record # Goal/Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

4033 BR: 6.2,

6.3, 6.4

Prohibit surface-disturbing

activities within 500 feet of surface

water, riparian-wetland areas,

and playas unless activities are

determined to be necessary and

when impacts can be mitigated.

Mineral and realty actions in these

areas are managed with Category 4

restrictions (Map 5).

Prohibit surface-disturbing

activities within 1,320 feet of

surface water, riparian-wetland

areas, playas, and 100-year

floodplains, where mapped.

Mineral and realty actions in these

areas are managed with Category

4 restrictions (Map 5).

Same as Alternative A, unless

on a site-specific basis a lesser

distance is shown to provide

equivalent protection of surface

water, riparian-wetland areas, and

playas.

Same as Alternative C in DDAs.

Same as Alternative A in all other

areas.

4034 BR: 6.1,

6.2, 6.3

On a case-by-case basis, use

various site-specific management

actionsto make significant progress

towards PFC including fencing,

resting, deferred use, and road

closures.

Use the natural healing capacity

of the land to make significant

progress towards PFC utilizing

management actions such as road

closures, lease stipulations, and

livestock allotment management.

Use all management tools such

as range improvement projects,

travel management, and road

construction, to make significant

progress towards PFC.

Use all tools to make significant

progress towards PFC including

but not limited to making

adjustments in livestock

grazing such as season of

use, rest/deferment, modification

of the number of livestock, and

installing range improvement

projects designed to implement

comprehensive livestock grazing

strategies, travel management

(i.e., road closures), and other

authorizations.

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 113

Table 2.21. 4000 Biological Resources (BR) – Fish and Wildlife

4000 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (BR) – FISH AND WILDLIFE

Record # Goal/Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

Goal BR: 7 Manage for the biological integrity and habitat function of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems to sustain and optimize distribution and abundance of all

native and desirable nonnative fish and wildlife species consistent with habitat capability.

Objectives:

BR: 7.1 Manage habitats to support WGFD in the attainment of big game herd unit objectives, fish management objectives, and well-distributed, healthy

populations of fish and wildlife species consistent with the WGFD’s Strategic Habitat Plan, State Wildlife Action Plan, and strategic population plans, and to

achieve the stated purpose of designated WHMAs.

BR: 7.2 Maintain habitats sufficient to fulfill the life-cycle requirements of diverse fish and wildlife species. Manage to protect important breeding and natal

or parturition habitats for terrestrial and aquatic species.

BR: 7.3 Maintain or improve habitat integrity, continuity, connectivity and productivity for fish and wildlife on a landscape scale.

BR: 7.4 Provide barrier-free movement and habitat protection from disturbance and fragmentation in identified wildlife migration routes and fish passages.

BR: 7.5 Maintain, restore, or enhance fisheries habitats so they achieve optimal channel geomorphology and vegetative structure for productivity and biological

diversity.

BR: 7.6 Provide healthy and stable ecosystems that support fish and wildlife habitat values, appropriate species’ habitat needs, and the existing species’ diversity.

Goal BR: 8 Manage direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts to fish and wildlife and their habitats such that no unnecessary or undue degradation results from BLM

actions and authorized activities.

Objectives:

BR: 8.1 In the absence of voluntary offsite mitigation or in areas with site-specific allowances, manage for no greater than a 10 percent net loss of acres of big

game crucial winter range and parturition habitat over the life of the plan.

BR: 8.2 Implement proactive management and conservation measures to prevent and/or reduce adverse impacts to wildlife and aquatic species.

BR: 8.3 Coordinate with USDA Wildlife Services to avoid non-target species mortality and minimize other disturbances to fish and wildlife from predator

control activities.

BR: 8.4 Maintain and protect critical fish spawning, egg incubation, and fry areas.

Goal BR: 9 Manage terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems to provide recreational and educational benefits and opportunities for the public,

February 2013

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource
114 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

4000 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (BR) – FISH AND WILDLIFE

Record # Goal/Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

Objectives:

BR: 9.1 Improve public awareness and support, including partnerships, for the conservation, restoration, and management of vegetation, fish, wildlife, and special

status species programs.

BR: 9.2 Work with partners to develop and provide fish, wildlife, and habitat outreach and educational materials to the public.

BR: 9.3 Identify and provide opportunities for consumptive, non-consumptive or recreational use of fish and wildlife and their habitats.

Goal BR: 10 Manage for quality habitats that would support the introduction, reintroduction, and augmentation of identified high priority fish and wildlife species on

BLM-administered lands.

Objective:

BR: 10.1 Identify opportunities in coordination with stakeholders to introduce or reintroduce fish and wildlife species.

MANAGEMENT ACTIONS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

4035 BR: 7.2 Choose and implement appropriate mitigation and Best Management Practices to minimize decreases in habitat function. Mitigate impacts as

near to the impact, for the same or similar impacted species or habitats, as soon as possible. In cases where impacts cannot be mitigated to an

acceptable level onsite or where the BLM and WGFD agree that mitigation or additional habitat protections farther away will be of greater

benefit to wildlife, offsite mitigation will be considered. Apply the same conservation measures on split-estate lands unless, in the case of

federal minerals, this would not be consistent with the surface owner’s rights.

4036 BR: 7.3 Minimize adverse impacts to fish and wildlife during the life of projects through project placement and maintenance of connectivity between

large contiguous blocks of undisturbed habitat in cooperation with interested stakeholders. Require seasonal restrictions or other identified

mitigation as needed to minimize impacts to migratory birds and their habitats protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

4037 BR: 7.2 Prohibit surface-disturbing and disruptive activities within identified big game crucial winter range (Maps 50-54) from November 15 to April

30 and within identified big game parturition areas (Maps 50-54) from May 1 to June 30 unless an exception, waiver, or modification is

granted by the Authorized Officer. Authorize exceptions for reclamation seeding when appropriate. Mineral and realty actions in these areas

are managed with Category 1 restrictions, except as provided below.

4038 BR: 8.2 Use an integrated management approach (mechanical, chemical, or biological treatments, prescribed fire, and grazing management techniques)

to manipulate vegetative communities to achieve fish, wildlife, and watershed objectives.

4039 BR: 7.3,

7.4

Remove or modify identified wildlife hazard fences that are adversely affecting wildlife where opportunities exist. Require wildlife escape

ramps be installed in stock water troughs and tanks.

4040 BR: 8.3 Coordinate BLM-authorized animal damage control with APHIS-Wildlife Services and other agencies using guidance provided by the

existing MOU with APHIS.

4041 BR: 8.1,

9.2, 9.3

Identify opportunities to develop wildlife viewing areas in cooperation with stakeholders.

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 115

4000 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (BR) – FISH AND WILDLIFE

Record # Goal/Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

4042 BR: 10.1 Cooperate with and provide support to WGFD, USFWS, and stakeholders in reintroducing native fish and wildlife species into historic or

suitable ranges.

4043 BR: 7.1 Cooperate with the WGFD to recommend adjustments to herd objectives in light of the habitat condition. Recommend wildlife use

adjustments if monitoring data indicate that adjustments are necessary. Cooperate with WGFD to update and adjust seasonal range maps

to incorporate new information/data.

4044 BR: 7.5 Design, locate, and, where feasible, modify road crossings of streams to minimize impacts to fish populations and habitat.

4045 BR: 7.6,

9.1, 9.2

Work cooperatively with stakeholders and local governments to develop and implement management strategies to prevent the introduction

and spread of aquatic invasive species.

4046 BR: 7.1 Manage habitat within the Whiskey Mountain bighorn sheep area in cooperation with the WGFD and the USFS as provided in the Special

Designations section for the Whiskey Mountain ACEC.

4047 BR: 7.1 Manage in accordance with the recommendations of the statewide Bighorn/Domestic Sheep Interaction Report and the 2012 WAFWA

Recommendations for Domestic Sheep and Goat Management in Wild Sheep Habitat (WSWG 2012). Do not allow the use of domestic

goats, llamas, etc., in Bighorn Sheep core Herd Units. Allow the use of domestic goats, llamas, etc. in the rest of the planning area where

bighorn sheep are not present.

4048 BR: 8.2 Avoid the movement of water from one drainage to another drainage to prevent aquatic invasive species and disease transfer. If equipment has

been used in an area known to contain aquatic invasive species, the equipment will need to be inspected by an authorized aquatic invasive

species inspector certified in the State of Wyoming prior to use in any water in the planning area. If aquatic invasive species are found, the

equipment will need to be decontaminated following procedures found in Appendix H (p. 1521).

4049 BR: 8.2 Require monitoring of impacts to wildlife from wind-energy development and apply appropriate mitigation.

4050 BR: 7.6,

9.3

The Dubois, Red Canyon, Lander Slope, Green Mountain, greater sage-grouse Core Area, and the Sweetwater River watershed are priorities

for management of fish and wildlife and their habitat. See the Special Designation-ACEC section for management alternatives.

4051 BR: 7.2,

8.2

To minimize impacts to wildlife from oil and gas development, consider implementing recommendations found in WGFD document

Recommendations for Development of Oil and Gas Resources within Important Wildlife Habitats (WGFD 2009a). To minimize impacts

to wildlife from wind-energy development, consider implementing recommendations found in the WGFD document Wildlife Protection

Recommendations for Wind Energy Development in Wyoming (WGFD 2010).

MANAGEMENT ACTIONS BY ALTERNATIVE

FISH

February 2013

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource
116 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

4000 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (BR) – FISH AND WILDLIFE

Record # Goal/Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

4052 BR: 8.4 Apply seasonal protections for

surface-disturbing activities that

would adversely impact fish

spawning on a case-by-case basis.

Mineral and realty actions in these

areas are managed with Category

2 restrictions on a case-by-case

basis (Map 49).

Apply seasonal protections for

surface-disturbing activities

within the floodplain or 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 will vary by species

and location. Mineral and realty

actions in these areas are managed

with Category 2 restrictions.

Do not apply seasonal protections

for fish spawning. Mineral and

realty actions in these areas

are managed with Category 2

restrictions.

Apply timing limitations to

surface-disturbing activities

within water channels that will

adversely affect spawning, egg

incubation, and fry areas in

fish-bearing streams. Spring

spawning is protected March

15 to July 31 and fall spawning

is protected September 15 to

November 30. Dates may vary by

species and location.

4053 BR: 8.4,

9.3

Manage human caused barriers

to fish passage on a case-by-case

basis.

Remove human caused barriers

to fish passage where feasible to

facilitate genetic diversity and

population stability.

Place barriers as needed to protect

conservation populations of fish

species from hybridization or

competition.

Build fish passages where

necessary.

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A, plus

remove barriers, build passages,

or place barriers to protect

conservation populations from

hybridization or competition.

4054 BR: 7.5 On a case-by-case basis, authorize

actions under the jurisdiction of

the BLM that would result in the

removal or depletion of water

from fish bearing streams.

Prohibit new actions under the

jurisdiction of the BLM that would

result in the removal or depletion

of water from fish bearing streams.

Modify or remove existing projects

that affect the sustainability of fish

populations.

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A, unless

authorized actions would result

in the loss of a sustainable fish

population. Existing projects that

affect the sustainability of fish

populations will be modified or

removed on a case-by-case basis.

For the protection of aquatic

habitat and water quality, the area

adjacent to Boysen State Park

adjacent to Highway 20 is closed

to oil and gas leasing.

GENERAL WILDLIFE

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 117

4000 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (BR) – FISH AND WILDLIFE

Record # Goal/Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

4055 BR: 7.1,

8.2

On a case-by-case basis, reduce

the footprint of surface-disturbing

activities and facilities to the

smallest practical to protect

wildlife and their habitats.

In all cases, minimize the footprint

of surface-disturbing activities and

facilities to the smallest practical to

protect wildlife and their habitats.

Do not reduce the footprint of

surface-disturbing activities and

facilities to protect wildlife and

their habitats.

To protect wildlife and their

habitats, except when safety

and maintenance issues are

identified, reduce the footprint

of surface-disturbing activities

and facilities to the smallest size

necessary to achieve the purpose

for the disturbance. To protect

wildlife and their habitat and other

resource values, including cultural

and visual resources, and to avoid

conflict with the Westside Energy

Corridor, the BLM-administered

lands in Townships 40 and 41

North are closed to phosphate

leasing. Other types of surface

disturbance, such as mineral

material sales, will be authorized

only in consideration of these

values.

4056 BR: 8.2 Wildlife seasonal protections for

surface-disturbing and disruptive

activities do not limit maintenance

and operation actions unless

specifically identified in project

analysis.

Wildlife seasonal protections for

surface-disturbing and disruptive

activities also apply to maintenance

and operation actions of a

developed project when the activity

is determined to be detrimental to

wildlife.

Do not apply wildlife seasonal

protections to maintenance and

operation actions.

Outside of DDAs, wildlife

seasonal protections from

surface-disturbing and disruptive

activities apply to maintenance

and operations actions when

the activity is determined to

be detrimental to wildlife

(see Appendix I (p. 1535)).

Reclamation of surface

disturbance will be in accordance

with Appendix D (p. 1477) for

non-DDA areas.

February 2013

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource
118 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

4000 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (BR) – FISH AND WILDLIFE

Record # Goal/Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

4057 BR: 8.2 Do not avoid surface-disturbing

activities in reptile hibernacula

(den) sites.

For the protection of reptiles

and their habitat, avoid

surface-disturbing and disruptive

activities within 1,000 feet of

identified hibernacula (den) sites.

Mineral and realty actions in these

areas are managed with Category

3 restrictions.

Same as Alternative A. For the protection of reptiles

and their habitat, prohibit

surface-disturbing activities

within 200 feet of identified

hibernacula (den) sites.

4058 BR: 7.3 Approve new fences and remove

or modify existing fences on a

case-by-case basis to address

habitat fragmentation and big

game migration corridors (Map

60).

Do not approve new fences (except

for those necessary to exclude

and/or protect wildlife or for

human health and safety) and

remove existing fences, when

appropriate, to reduce habitat

fragmentation and allow big

game passage through migration

corridors (Map 60).

Same as Alternative A. Approve new fences on a

case-by-case basis and do not

construct fences across identified

big game migration corridors

unless fence is critical to the

success of a Comprehensive

Grazing Strategy that makes

significant progress toward

meeting the Wyoming Standards

for Healthy Rangelands and

adverse project impacts are

mitigated. Look at opportunities

to remove existing fences in

migration corridors to manage for

a no net gain of fences in corridors.

Remove or modify existing fences

to address habitat fragmentation

and barriers to migration on a

case-by-case basis. Type E fence

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.

4059 BR: 7.4 On a case-by-case basis, close

and reclaim redundant roads to

reduce road density and habitat

fragmentation.

Identify and close and/or reclaim

unnecessary roads to reduce road

density and habitat fragmentation.

Do not close and reclaim

unnecessary roads.

Same as Alternative A, plus

conduct in coordination with

adjacent landowners and/or state

and county governments.

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 119

4000 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (BR) – FISH AND WILDLIFE

Record # Goal/Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

4060 BR: 8.1 Manage wind-energy

development on a case-by-case

basis in consideration of greater

sage-grouse, raptor concentration

areas, big game crucial winter

range, migration corridors, and

parturition areas.

Exclude wind-energy development

in big game crucial winter range,

migration corridors, and parturition

areas, raptor concentration areas,

and areas within 3 miles of greater

sage-grouse leks, as identified.

Same as Alternative A. Limit wind-energy development

in greater sage-grouse Core Area

to no more than one location

per 640 acres and require that

the cumulative disturbance from

all sources is no more than 5

percent of sagebrush habitat

within the project area. Until such

time as research on impacts to

greater sage-grouse is completed

and adequate mitigation can be

developed, greater sage-grouse

Core Area will be closed to

wind-energy development.

Same as Alternative A in big game

crucial winter range, migration

corridors, and parturition areas,

raptor concentration areas, and

outside of greater sage-grouse

Core Area.

BIG GAME

4061 BR: 7.6 On a case-by-case basis, consider

forage requirements for big game

herd objectives when making

forage allocations for livestock

and wild horses.

Adjust livestock and wild horse

forage allocations as needed to

meet forage requirements for big

game herd objectives.

Give priority to livestock forage

needs when allocating vegetative

resources.

Ensure that wildlife forage

requirements are met for big game

herd objectives when making

forage allocations for livestock

and wild horses.

4062 BR: 7.1 On a case-by-case basis, manage

vegetation in identified crucial

winter range and parturition areas

to benefit the identified species

(Maps 50-54).

In areas identified as crucial winter

range and parturition areas, manage

vegetation to benefit the identified

big game species (Maps 50-54).

In areas identified as crucial

winter range and parturition areas,

manage vegetation to benefit all

grazing/browsing animals (Maps

50-54).

Same as Alternative A.

February 2013

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource
120 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

4000 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (BR) – FISH AND WILDLIFE

Record # Goal/Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

4063 BR: 8.2 On a case-by-case basis, authorize

livestock water development

projects in big game crucial winter

range and parturition areas (Maps

50-54).

Prohibit livestock water

development projects in big

game crucial winter range and

parturition areas (Maps 50-54).

Authorize livestock water

development projects in big game

crucial winter range and parturition

areas (Maps 50-54).

Authorize livestock water

development projects in big

game crucial winter range and

parturition areas (Maps 50-54)

only if the project is critical to

the success of a Comprehensive

Grazing Strategy and project

impacts are mitigated.

4064 BR: 8.1,

8.2

On a case-by-case basis, avoid

authorizing road development in

big game crucial winter range and

parturition areas.

Prohibit road development in

big game crucial winter range

and parturition areas unless, on a

case-by-case basis, it can be shown

that there are no impacts to the

species.

Do not limit BLM-authorized road

development in big game crucial

winter range and parturition areas

except in those areas closed to

surface-disturbing activities.

Same as Alternative A.

4065 BR: 8.2 Prohibit surface-disturbing and

disruptive activities within

identified elk winter range from

November 15 to April 30 (Map

51). Mineral and realty actions

in these areas are managed with

Category 1 restrictions.

Same as Alternative A. Surface-disturbing and disruptive

activities within identified elk

winter range are not subject to

seasonal limitations.

Same as Alternative A, plus the

seasonal protection is also for

identified mule deer winter range.

For the benefit of mule deer and

their habitat, close the area in

Townships 40 and 41 and the area

south of Highway 28 near South

Pass that is not part of an ACEC

or the Hudson to Atlantic City to

phosphate leasing.

RAPTORS

4066 BR: 8.2 Prohibit surface-disturbing and

disruptive activities within 3⁄4 mile

of active raptor nests except bald

eagles (Map 62) from February 1

to July 31. Actual distances

and dates may vary based on

topography, species, season of

use, and other pertinent factors.

See Record 4072 for management

of bald eagle nests.

Prohibit surface-disturbing and

disruptive activities within 11⁄2

miles of active raptor nests except

bald eagle nests (Map 62) during

the following time periods:

● February 1 to July 15: golden

eagle, barn owl, red-tailed

hawk, great-horned owl, other

raptors

● March 1 to July 31: short-eared

owl, long-eared owl,

Same as Alternative B, except

prohibit surface-disturbing and

disruptive activities within 1⁄2 mile

of active raptor nests except bald

eagle nests (Map 62).

See Record 4072 for management

of bald eagle nests.

Prohibit surface-disturbing and

disruptive activities within 3⁄4

mile of active raptor nests, except

ferruginous hawk nests where

surface-disturbing and disruptive

activities are prohibited within 1

mile, during the following time

periods:

● February 1 to July 31 for

all raptors except northern

goshawk and burrowing owl

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 121

4000 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (BR) – FISH AND WILDLIFE

Record # Goal/Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

ferruginous hawk, peregrine

falcon, screech owl

● April 1 to July 31: osprey,

merlin, sharp-shinned hawk,

kestrel, prairie falcon, northern

harrier, Swainson’s hawk,

Cooper’s hawk

● April 1 to September 15 (or

whenever the young have

fledged): burrowing owl

● April 1 to August 31: northern

goshawk

See Record 4072 for management

of bald eagle nests.

● April 1 to August 31 for

northern goshawk

● April 1 to September 15 for

burrowing owl

See Record 4072 for management

of bald eagle nests.

Distances and dates may vary

based on raptor species, chick

fledging, topography, and other

pertinent factors.

February 2013

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource
122 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table 2.22. 4000 Biological Resources (BR) – Special Status Species

4000 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (BR) – SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES

Record # Goal/Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

Goal BR: 11 Manage for the biological integrity and habitat function to facilitate the conservation, recovery and maintenance of populations of fish, wildlife, and

plant special status species.

Objectives:

BR: 11.1 Protect or enhance areas of ecological importance for special status species. Manage for no net loss of habitat for any special status species.

BR: 11.2 Conserve and recover special status species by determining and implementing strategies, restoration opportunities, use restrictions, and management

actions.

BR: 11.3 Manage specific environmental hazards, risks, and impacts in a manner compatible with special status species health.

BR: 11.4 Identify habitat thresholds necessary to sustain well-distributed healthy populations of special status species to avoid future listings under the ESA.

BR: 11.5 Develop and implement habitat management plans, activity plans, or use other mechanisms to protect high priority special status species.

Goal BR: 12 Provide quality habitats to support the introduction, reintroduction, and augmentation of identified high priority fish, wildlife, and plant special status

species.

Objective:

BR: 12.1 Identify opportunities in coordination with stakeholders to introduce or reintroduce special status species.

Goal BR: 13 Maintain and/or increase greater sage‐grouse abundance and distribution by conserving, enhancing or restoring the sagebrush ecosystem upon which

populations depend, in cooperation with other conservation partners. Sustain the integrity of the sagebrush biome to provide the amount, continuity, and quality of

habitat that is necessary to maintain sustainable populations of greater sage-grouse and other species by achieving the objectives below.

Objectives:

BR: 13.1 Maintain large patches of high quality sagebrush habitats with emphasis on patches occupied by greater sage-grouse.

BR: 13.2 Maintain connections between sagebrush habitats, with emphasis on connections between habitats occupied by greater sage-grouse.

Goal BR: 14 Identify the amount of habitat that should undergo restoration and/or rehabilitation during the life of the plan and initiate restoration and/or rehabilitation

by achieving the objective below.

Objective:

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 123

4000 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (BR) – SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES

Record # Goal/Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

BR: 14.1 Restore and/or reconnect large patches of sagebrush habitat with emphasis on reconnecting patches occupied by stronghold and isolated populations of

greater sage-grouse.

MANAGEMENT ACTIONS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

4067 BR: 11.2 Develop and implement protective measures for federally listed species in coordination with the USFWS. BLM will closely examine the

applicability of categorical exclusions in priority habitat. If extraordinary circumstances review is applicable, BLM should determine whether

those circumstances exist. BLM will continue to take action in cooperation with the USFWS to facilitate the recovery of threatened and

endangered plant species that occur on BLM-administered land.

4068 BR: 11.2 Require black-footed ferret surveys before authorizing surface-disturbing activities in prairie dog towns suitable as potential habitat for

black-footed ferrets, unless cleared by the USFWS.

4069 BR: 11.2,

11.5

Upon designation of special status species, identify distribution, key habitat areas, and special management needs to be used in developing

activity plans. Apply appropriate Required Design Features and BMPs as COAs (such as those identified in Appendix H (p. 1521)) to

reduce adverse impacts to special status species.

4070 BR: 12.1 Coordinate with agencies, including state and local governments, in the restoration, reintroduction, augmentation, or reestablishment of

threatened, endangered, and other special status species populations and/or habitats.

4071 BR: 11.2 Implement appropriate conservation agreements, conservation measures, and BLM-endorsed management strategies for threatened,

endangered, and other special status species. Comply with terms of the Statewide Programmatic Section 7 consultations (conservation

measures from the letters of concurrence, biological assessments, and biological opinions) for management of threatened, endangered,

proposed, and candidate species.

4072 BR: 11.2 Implement conservation measures, terms and conditions, appropriate Best Management Practices, required design features and reasonable and

prudent measures within existing state programmatic biological opinions for the bald eagle. Surface-disturbing and disruptive activities are

prohibited within 1 mile of a bald eagle nest from February 1 to August 15.

4073 BR: 11.2 To protect mountain plover habitat, including a 1⁄4-mile buffer, prohibit surface-disturbing and disruptive activities from April 10 to July

10 unless surveys indicate the absence of breeding/nesting mountain plovers. Mineral and realty actions in these areas are managed with

Category 1 restrictions.

4074 BR: 11.2,

11.5

Develop site-specific measures for BLM-authorized activities to protect threatened, endangered, and sensitive species. Reduce the footprint

of development and facilities to the smallest practical to protect special status species and their habitat. Incorporate Required Design

Features and BMPs as COAs, such as those identified in Appendix H (p. 1521) as appropriate for authorized activities to address adverse

impacts to special status species. Require seasonal restrictions or other identified mitigation as needed to minimize impacts to migratory

birds and their habitats protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

4075 BR: 11.2 Provide information to fire personnel to prevent fire suppression vehicles from staging in and driving over special status species plant

populations. Currently, only the desert yellowhead population has been identified (Map 67).

4076 BR: 11.1 Prohibit surface-disturbing and disruptive activities in greater sage-grouse winter concentration areas, as they are identified, from December

1 to March 14 unless data indicate a date modification is necessary to better protect wintering greater sage-grouse. Mineral and realty

actions in these areas are managed with Category 1 restrictions.

February 2013

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource
124 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

4000 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (BR) – SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES

Record # Goal/Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

4077 BR: 11.2 Maintain the current locatable mineral withdrawal for desert yellowhead critical habitat. Mineral and realty actions in this area are

managed with Category 5 restrictions. Prohibit surface-disturbing activities and apply a NSO to mineral leasing activities within the Cedar

Rim population of desert yellowhead.

4078 BR: 11.1,

13.1, 13.2,

14.1

The Dubois area and Wyoming Governor’s greater sage-grouse Core Area (Map 63) are priorities for management of special status fish

and wildlife species and their habitats.

4079 BR: 13.1,

13.2, 14.1

Maintain sagebrush and understory diversity (relative to ecological site description) in seasonal greater sage-grouse and other sagebrush

obligate species habitats unless such removal is necessary to achieve habitat management objectives. Vegetation treatments for greater

sage-grouse would follow the “Wyoming Game and Fish Department Protocols for Treating Sagebrush to be Consistent with Wyoming

Executive Order 2011-5; Greater Sage-Grouse Core Area Protection” (WGFD 2011) or the most current science available. See IM 2012-019

Attachment 6 or the most current guidance available.

4080 BR: 13.1,

13.2, 14.1

Maintain seeps, springs, wet meadows, and riparian vegetation in a functional and diverse condition for young greater sage-grouse and other

species that depend on forbs and insects associated with these areas. Restore lost riparian functioning systems by repairing abnormally incised

drainages to raise water tables and increase water storage and brood-rearing habitats, within greater sage-grouse habitat.

4081 BR: 11.2,

11.5

If the grizzly bear is delisted, manage habitat in accordance with the recommendations of the Wyoming Grizzly Bear Management Plan.

4082 BR: 11.2 Discourage the use of broad‐spectrum insecticides where insect control is required. Target pest control toward key problem areas and schedule

applications to be the smallest amount effective in greater sage‐grouse brood-rearing areas.

4083 BR: 11.2,

11.3

In cooperation with stakeholders, design and locate fences so as not to disturb important greater sage‐grouse habitat areas. Increase the

visibility of existing fences to reduce hazards to flying greater sage‐grouse. Require the installation of fence markers on new wire fences

constructed in greater sage-grouse habitat to increase fence visibility and reduce collision potential.

4084 BR: 11.2,

11.3

To minimize adverse impacts to greater sage-grouse from allowable uses, utilize recommendations from the following sources: “Grazing

Influence, Management, and Objective Development in Wyoming’s Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat – With Emphasis on Nesting and Early

Brood Rearing”; “Sage-Grouse Habitat Management Guidelines for Wyoming”; Studies in Avian Biology article “Ecology and Conservation

of Greater Sage-Grouse: A Landscape Species and Its Habitats”; “WAFWA Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Strategy” and additional

information as it becomes available.

4085 BR: 11.2,

11.3

Establish forage utilization levels in greater sage-grouse nesting habitat to ensure adequate residual cover remains.

GENERAL SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES

4086 BR: 11.2 On a case-by-case basis, require

surveys for BLM sensitive species

as part of authorizing actions.

Require protective actions when

appropriate.

Require surveys for presence of

BLM sensitive species before

authorizing surface-disturbing and

disruptive activities. Authorize

activities only if protective

measures can mitigate or eliminate

adverse impacts to species and

their habitat.

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A.

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 125

4000 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (BR) – SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES

Record # Goal/Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

4087 BR: 11.4,

11.5, 13.1,

13.2, 14.1

Limits on habitat loss for special

status species are not addressed in

the current RMP. Manage habitat

loss for special status species on a

case-by-case basis.

Establish limits of acceptable

habitat loss including habitat

modification, fragmentation, and

loss of function for special status

species.

Do not establish limits on habitat

loss for special status species

except as required to protect

threatened and endangered

species. Address habitat loss on a

case-by-case basis.

Establish limits of acceptable

cumulative habitat loss

including habitat modification,

fragmentation, and loss of function

for special status species on a

case-by-case basis. Limits of

habitat loss and fragmentation for

greater sage-grouse in Core Area

are addressed in Record 4097.

SPECIAL STATUS PLANTS

4088 BR: 11.3 Allow chemical vegetation

treatments within identified

habitat for BLM sensitive plant

species on a case-by-case basis.

Prohibit chemical vegetation

treatments within 1⁄4 mile of habitat

for BLM sensitive plant species

unless the purpose is to protect

or enhance sensitive species.

Increased buffers to protect plant

populations may be required on a

case-by-case basis.

Allow chemical vegetation

treatments within identified habitat

for BLM sensitive plant species

unless treatment would result

in direct mortality of the plant

population.

Allow chemical vegetation

treatments within identified

sensitive plant populations so

long as treatments will benefit the

population.

4089 BR: 11.2 Apply specific measures to

protect known special status plant

populations from BLM-authorized

activities and motorized travel on

a case-by-case basis.

Close areas with special status

plant populations to motorized

and mechanized travel. Mineral

and realty actions in these areas

are managed with Category 4

restrictions.

Allow surface-disturbing activities

in areas with special status plant

populations unless the activity

would result in the loss of the

population. Limit motorized travel

to existing road and trails. Mineral

and realty actions in these areas

are managed with Category 1

restrictions.

Same as Alternative A, plus close

desert yellowhead critical habitat

to motorized and mechanized

travel.

4090 BR: 11.2 On a case-by-case basis, require

inventory of potential habitats

for BLM sensitive plant species

prior to authorizing activity. If a

sensitive species is present, apply

appropriate protective measures

where possible.

Prohibit activities until the site

is inventoried for BLM sensitive

plant species and appropriate

protective measures are applied.

Do not inventory for BLM

sensitive plant species prior to

authorizing activities. Apply

appropriate protective measures on

a case-by-case basis.

Same as Alternative A.

February 2013

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource
126 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

4000 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (BR) – SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES

Record # Goal/Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

4091 BR: 11.2 Authorize range improvement

projects in BLM sensitive plant

species habitat on a case-by-case

basis.

Prohibit range improvement

projects within 1⁄2 mile of BLM

sensitive plant species habitat

unless a benefit to the plant species

will be achieved.

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A, plus, as

needed, buffer with the minimum

distance necessary to protect

population from grazing impacts.

SPECIAL STATUS FISH

4092 BR: 11.2 Activities that could contribute

sediment to waterbodies that

support Yellowstone cutthroat

trout, burbot, and sauger are

authorized on a case-by-case

basis.

Prohibit activities that could

contribute sediment to waterbodies

that support Yellowstone cutthroat

trout, burbot, and sauger unless

determined that additional

sediment would benefit the species.

Authorize activities that could

contribute sediment to waterbodies

that support Yellowstone cutthroat

trout, burbot, and sauger unless

determined that additional

sediment would result in species

mortality.

Avoid activities that contribute

sediment to waterbodies that

support Yellowstone cutthroat

trout, burbot, and sauger unless

determined that additional

sediment will not harm species

or adequate mitigations can be

applied.

SPECIAL STATUS WILDLIFE

4093 BR: 11.2 Greater sage-grouse Core Area

is open to oil and gas and

geothermal leasing subject to

standard stipulations including

stipulations for the protection of

greater sage-grouse.

Greater sage-grouse Core Area

is closed to oil and gas and

geothermal leasing.

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A, subject

to the management actions

described below and in the Special

Designations section.

4094 BR: 11.2 Prohibit surface-disturbing and

disruptive activities on or within

1⁄4 mile of occupied greater

sage-grouse leks (16,283 acres)

(Map 63).

Prohibit surface-disturbing

and disruptive activities on or

within 0.6 mile of occupied or

undetermined greater sage-grouse

leks (93,411 acres) (Map 64).

Same as Alternative A. Prohibit surface-disturbing or

surface occupancy on or within a

0.6-mile radius of the perimeter of

occupied greater sage-grouse leks

in Core Area and on or within a

1⁄4-mile radius of the perimeter of

occupied greater sage-grouse leks

outside Core Area unless greater

sage-grouse or lek integrity would

not be adversely affected, or unless

an exception is granted pursuant to

Appendix E (p. 1483) (Map 65).

In Core Area, keep any new roads

or road upgrades 1.9 miles from

the perimeter of the lek.

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 127

4000 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (BR) – SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES

Record # Goal/Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

4095 BR: 11.2 Avoid surface-disturbing and

disruptive activities in greater

sage-grouse nesting habitat within

2 miles of occupied leks (794,452

acres) from February 1 to July 31

(Map 63).

Avoid surface-disturbing and

disruptive activities in greater

sage-grouse nesting habitat within

3 miles of occupied leks (1,339,609

acres) from February 1 to July 31

(Map 64).

Same as Alternative A. Prohibit surface-disturbing

and/or disruptive activities from

March 15 to June 30 in Core

Area. Surface disturbance or

disruption defined as notice-level

activity pursuant to 43 CFR

3809.21 in Core Area during

the period March 15 to June 30

is considered to be unnecessary

or undue degradation unless the

proponent is able to establish that

it is not, based on site-specific

information. Outside Core Area,

prohibit surface-disturbing and/or

disruptive activities from March

15 to June 30 within 2 miles of the

perimeter of occupied leks (Map

65).

Where credible data support

different timeframes for these

seasonal restrictions, dates may

be expanded 14 days prior to or

subsequent to the above dates.

4096 BR: 11.2 Avoid BLM-authorized human

activity within 1⁄4 mile of occupied

greater sage-grouse leks (16,283

acres) between 8 p.m. and 8 a.m.

from March 1 to May 15 on a

case-by-case basis (Map 63).

Prohibit BLM-authorized human

activity on or within 0.6 mile

of perimeter of occupied or

undetermined greater sage-grouse

leks (93,411 acres) between one

hour before sunset to one hour

after sunrise from March 1 to

May 15 unless activity is specific

to inventorying, monitoring or

viewing of greater sage-grouse

(Map 64).

Avoid BLM-authorized human

activity within 1⁄4 mile of perimeter

of occupied greater sage-grouse

leks (16,283 acres) between 8

p.m. and 8 a.m. from March 1 to

May 15 unless activity is specific

to inventorying, monitoring or

viewing of greater sage-grouse

(Map 63).

Prohibit disruptive activities

between 6 p.m. and 8 a.m. from

March 1 to May 15 on or within

0.6-mile radius of the perimeter of

occupied greater sage-grouse leks

in Core Area (Map 65).

February 2013

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource
128 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

4000 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (BR) – SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES

Record # Goal/Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

4097 BR: 11.2 No similar action. In identified greater sage-grouse

breeding, nesting, and

brood-rearing habitat, limit

the density of disturbances to 1 per

640 acres and cumulative surface

disturbance to less than or equal to

2.5 percent of the sagebrush habitat

in the same 640 acres.

Do not limit the density of

disturbances or acres of surface

disturbance in identified greater

sage-grouse breeding, nesting, and

brood-rearing habitat.

In greater sage-grouse Core Area,

limit the density of disturbances

to an average of one oil and gas

or mining location per 640 acres.

The one location and cumulative

value of existing disturbances

will not exceed 5 percent of

habitat. See IM 2012-019 or

subsequent guidance with regard

to disturbance calculations.

4098 BR: 11,

11.1, 11.2,

11.3, 11.4,

11.5,

No similar action. If greater sage-grouse Core Area

prescriptions, including limitations

on surface disturbance, would

prevent access to non-federal

lands or valid rights existing at

the time the ROD was signed,

authorize construction of the

required new ROW to the absolute

minimum standard necessary

to provide access. If the new

disturbance for the ROW coupled

with existing disturbance would

exceed 2.5 percent of the area,

the ROW would be contingent

upon the ROW applicant securing

mitigation to offset the disturbance.

Same as Alternative A. If the new disturbance for a

ROW in greater sage-grouse

Core Area coupled with existing

disturbance would exceed 5

percent (see IM 2012-019 or

subsequent guidance with respect

to disturbance calculations), then

additional effective mitigation is

necessary to offset the resulting

loss of greater sage-grouse habitat.

Interim reclamation following

construction of the ROW and

final reclamation following the

relinquishment of the ROW

will ensure reestablishment of the

predisturbance greatersage-grouse

habitat, with the reclamation bond

amount set in consideration of this

reclamation obligation.

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 129

4000 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (BR) – SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES

Record # Goal/Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

4099 BR: 11.2,

11.3, 11.5

Major overhead powerlines are

authorized on a case-by-case

basis, except that ACECs are

avoided for major ROWs.

Core Area is closed to major

ROWs, except in designated

corridors.

Core Area is open to major ROWs. In Core Area, major overhead

powerlines will not be authorized

unless within 0.5 mile of an

existing 115 kV or greater

powerline or in a designated

corridor authorized for overhead

powerlines. Minor overhead

powerlines will not be authorized

unless adequate mitigation to

protect greater sage-grouse is

provided and the Authorized

Officer determines that overhead

installation has the fewest adverse

impacts to greater sage-grouse.

4100 BR: 11.2,

11.3, 11.5

No similar action. Core Area is closed to wind-energy

development.

Same as Alternative A. Until research on impacts of wind

energy to greater sage-grouse

is completed and adequate

mitigation can be developed,

exclude wind-energy development

in Core Area.

4101 BR: 11.2 Allow livestock water

development projects in greater

sage-grouse nesting areas on a

case-by-case basis.

Prohibit livestock water

development projects in greater

sage-grouse nesting areas (Map

64).

Allow livestock water development

projects in greater sage-grouse

nesting habitats.

Allow livestock water

development projects in greater

sage-grouse nesting habitat if

the project will contribute to

improved greater sage-grouse

habitat, developments can be

designed to be compatible with

greater sage-grouse, and if they

are part of a Comprehensive

Grazing Strategy. When fences

are authorized, require a design

that has the fewest adverse

impacts to greater sage-grouse

including features to reduce

greater sage-grouse strikes and

mortality. Remove, modify, or

mark fences in high-risk areas.

February 2013

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource
130 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

4000 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (BR) – SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES

Record # Goal/Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

4102 BR: 11.2 Allow new high-profile structures

within greater sage-grouse nesting

habitats on a case-by-case basis.

Prohibit new, permanent,

high-profile structures (higher

than 12 feet) within 1 mile of

occupied greater sage-grouse

nesting habitat (Map 64). Mineral

and realty actions in these areas

are managed with Category 4

restrictions.

Allow high-profile structures

within greater sage-grouse nesting

habitats. Mineral and realty actions

in these areas are managed with

Category 1 restrictions.

New permanent, high-profile

structures within greater

sage-grouse nesting habitat

will be allowed on a case-by-case

basis. Require the installation

of anti-perching devices on

appropriate structures to reduce

predation opportunities.

4103 BR: 11.2 Manage wind-energy development

on a case-by-case basis in

consideration of impacts to greater

sage-grouse and its habitat.

Exclude wind-energy development

in greater sage-grouse Core Area.

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A, but in

conformity with Records 4060 and

4097. Until research on impacts

of wind-energy development to

greater sage-grouse is completed

and adequate mitigation

can be developed, exclude

wind-energy development in

greater sage-grouse Core Area.

4104 BR: 11.2 On a case-by-case basis, require

facilities be located and noise

levels of equipment be reduced

to minimize the impacts of

continuous noise on breeding and

nesting greater sage-grouse.

Limit noise sources to 10 dBA

above natural ambient noise

measured at the perimeter of

occupied greater sage-grouse leks.

Limit noise sources to 10 dBA

above natural ambient noise

measured at the perimeter of

occupied greater sage-grouse leks

from March 1 to May 15.

Same as Alternative C, unless

scientific findings indicate a

different noise level is appropriate.

In addition, limit noise sources

in other important greater

sage-grouse habitats if research

and/or policy indicates the need.

4105 BR: 11.3 To minimize raptor use, require

anti-perching devices on new

overhead powerlines and wind

energy meteorological towers in

greater sage-grouse, prairie dog,

mountain plover, and pygmy

rabbit habitats on a case-by-case

basis.

Install anti-perching devices on all

new overhead powerlines and on

wind energy meteorological towers

in greater sage-grouse, prairie dog,

mountain plover and pygmy rabbit

habitats. Work with ROW holders

to install anti-perching devices on

existing overhead powerlines in

these habitats.

Same as Alternative A. To minimize raptor use, require

anti-perching devices on new

overhead powerlines in greater

sage-grouse Core Area. Require

anti-perching devices on new

overhead powerlines and wind

energy meteorological towers

in prairie dog, mountain plover,

and pygmy rabbit habitats on

a case-by-case basis. Work

with ROW holders to install

anti-perching devices on existing

powerlines in these habitats.

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 131

4000 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (BR) – SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES

Record # Goal/Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

4106 BR: 11.3 Allow above ground low voltage

utility lines or require burying

lines in greater sage-grouse,

prairie dog, mountain plover,

and pygmy rabbit habitats on a

case-by-case basis.

Bury all new low voltage utility

lines and high voltage utility lines

where technologically feasible in

greater sage-grouse, prairie dog,

mountain plover, and pygmy rabbit

habitats.

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A, plus

evaluate and take advantage of

opportunities such as the renewal

of existing ROWs to remove

or modify existing powerlines,

prioritizing greater sage-grouse

Core Area.

4107 BR: 11.2 On a case-by-case basis, avoid

surface-disturbing activities in

occupied pygmy rabbit habitats.

Prohibit surface-disturbing

activities within 328 feet (100

meters) of suitable pygmy rabbit

habitat.

Allow surface-disturbing activities

in occupied pygmy rabbit habitats

on a case-by-case basis.

Prohibit surface-disturbing

activities within 200 feet of

occupied pygmy rabbit habitat.

4108 BR: 11.2 Avoid surface-disturbing activities

in occupied white-tailed prairie

dog colonies where possible.

Prohibit surface-disturbing

activities in all white-tailed prairie

dog colonies.

On a case-by-case basis, avoid

surface-disturbing activities in

white-tailed prairie dog complexes

larger than 100 acres.

Same as Alternative A.

4109 BR: 11.2,

11.3

Avoid surface-disturbing and

disruptive activity impacts to bat

maternity roosts and hibernation

areas on a case-by-case basis.

Prohibit surface-disturbing and

disruptive activities within 1⁄4 mile

of identified bat maternity roosts

and hibernation areas that would

adversely impact bats and their

habitat.

Allow surface-disturbing and

disruptive activities adjacent to

or in bat maternity roosts and

hibernation areas unless direct bat

mortality would occur.

Same as Alternative B.

4110 BR: 11.1 Manage travel corridors for

threatened and endangered species

and BLM sensitive species on

a case-by-case basis (Map 66).

(Note: Only Canada lynx analysis

units have been identified to date.)

Preserve traditional migration

and travel corridors for all special

status species as corridors are

identified.

Preserve essential migration and

travel corridors for threatened and

endangered species as corridors are

identified.

Same as Alternative A, plus

manage permitted activities within

travel corridors to avoid adverse

impacts to sensitive species.

February 2013

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource
132 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

4000 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (BR) – SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES

Record # Goal/Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

4111 BR: 11.1 Mineral and realty actions in the

Dubois area not included in an

ACEC are managed as follows:

● Open to oil and gas leasing

subject standard stipulations

● Open to geophysical

exploration

● Open to phosphate leasing

● Open to locatable minerals

● Open to mineral material

disposals

● Open to major ROWs

● Open to minor ROWs

To protect the concentration of

special status species and their

habitats, mineral and realty actions

in the Dubois area not included in

an ACEC are managed as follows:

● Closed to oil and gas leasing

● Closed to geophysical

exploration

● Closed to phosphate leasing

● Open to locatable minerals

● Closed to mineral material

disposals

● Excluded to major ROWs

● Avoided for minor ROWs

Same as Alternative A. To protect the concentration of

special status species and their

habitats, mineral and major realty

actions in the Dubois area not

included in a WSA or an ACEC

are managed as follows:

● Closed to oil and gas leasing

● Closed to geophysical

exploration

● Closed to phosphate leasing

● Open to locatable minerals

● Closed to mineral material

disposals unless entirely

contained within the 120 acres

located in T41N, R107W, Sec.

1 N1/2SE1/4.1

● Excluded to major ROWs

● Avoided for minor ROWs

4112 BR: 11.2 On a case-by-case basis, adjust

livestock grazing season of use

dates to avoid conflict with grizzly

bears.

Adjust livestock grazing season

of use dates to avoid conflict with

grizzly bears.

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A.

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 133

Table 2.23. 4000 Biological Resources (BR) – Wild Horses

4000 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (BR) – WILD HORSES

Record # Goal/Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

Goal BR: 15 Manage healthy wild horse herds within appropriate management levels that will maintain a thriving natural ecological balance between wild horse

populations, wildlife, livestock, vegetation resources, and other resource values.

Objectives:

BR: 15.1 Adjust and maintain wild horse numbers and HMAs to comply with federal policies and applicable agreements with the State of Wyoming, including the

August 2003 Consent Decree as applicable to the management situation.

BR: 15.2 Maintain or enhance herd viability, genetic integrity, and unique characteristics that distinguish individual herds.

BR: 15.3 Provide opportunities for viewing wild horses.

MANAGEMENT ACTIONS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

4113 BR: 15.1 Conduct regular and periodic gathers when necessary to maintain a thriving natural ecological balance or when required by emergency to

maintain the initial Appropriate Management Level ranges (number of horses) listed below. If NEPA analysis indicates a need for a change in

the viable population of horses, Appropriate Management Levels may be changed without an amendment to the RMP.

● Antelope Hills/Cyclone Rim: 60-82

● Conant Creek: 60-100

● Crooks Mountain: 65-85

● Dishpan Butte: 50-100

● Green Mountain: 170-300

● Muskrat Basin: 160-250

● Rock Creek Mountain: 50-86

4114 BR: 15.1,

15.2

Utilize chemical and other population control measures as needed to maintain Appropriate Management Level ranges.

4115 BR: 15.1 Gather wild horses outside the established HMAs during routine periodic gathers (Map 68). Prioritize gathers in greater sage-grouse Core

Area unless removals are necessary in other areas to prevent serious environmental issues, including herd health impacts. Utilize Required

Design Features and BMPs (such as those in Appendix H (p. 1521)) as COAs to promote genetic diversity and limit adverse impacts

to wild horses from gathers.

4116 BR: 15.2 Employ selective removal criteria during periodic gathers to increase desired genotype and phenotype.

4117 BR: 15.1 Utilize monitoring and evaluation data to assess habitat and populations within HMAs.

4118 BR: 15.1 Conduct animal health monitoring.

4119 BR: 15.1 Manage the North Lander four herds as one herd to promote good distribution, but maintain separate horse Appropriate Management

Levels in existing HMAs.

4120 BR: 15.1 Maintain sufficient year-round water sources to sustain wild horses. Evaluate all proposed range improvement projects to benefit wild horses

for impacts to other resources and uses.

February 2013

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource
134 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

4000 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (BR) – WILD HORSES

Record # Goal/Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

4121 BR: 15.1 Update the Herd Management Area Plan as needed to meet herd health objectives, including Appropriate Management Levels, and to address

impacts to other resources. Consider forage competition and evaluate overall utilization levels by all grazing animals and incorporate

greater sage-grouse habitat management objectives.

4122 BR: 15.1 Manage wind-energy development within wild horse HMAs and adjacent lands so as not to preclude the ability to manage wild horses

within the HMAs.

MANAGEMENT ACTIONS BY ALTERNATIVE

4123 BR: 15.3 Do not establish scenic loops for

viewing wild horses.

Establish scenic loops for viewing

wild horses in some or all of the

following areas (Map 68):

● Antelope Hills to Cyclone Rim

● Green Mountain Herd Area

● Muskrat Basin to Dishpan

Butte

Same as Alternative B. Same as Alternative B, but

limit road improvements to

those necessary for public safety

keeping as small a footprint as

possible. Encourage primitive

recreation and outfitters to add

wild-horse viewing opportunities.

Identify locations for web cams or

electronic viewing opportunities,

to expand opportunities to view

wild horses from a distance.

Partner with state and local

tourism promoters to encourage

wild-horse viewing.

4124 BR: 15.1,

15.2

Consider impacts on herd health,

including genetic diversity, when

making management decisions

regarding fencing.

Remove or modify existing fences

to allow free movement among

herd populations.

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A, plus

remove or modify existing fences

to allow free movements among

herd populations as opportunities

arise.

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 135

Table 2.24. 5000 Heritage Resources (HR) – Cultural Resources

5000 HERITAGE RESOURCES (HR) – CULTURAL RESOURCES

Record # Goal/Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

Goal HR: 1 Identify, preserve, and protect significant cultural resources and ensure that they are available for appropriate uses by present and future generations

(FLPMA, Section 103(c), 201(a) and (c); NHPA, Section 110(a); ARPA, Section 14(a)).

Objectives:

HR: 1.1 Compile a record of known cultural resources in the Lander Field Office and assign those resources to appropriate uses. Manage each type of cultural

resource according to their proper use allocation, and monitor those resources’ condition and use.

HR: 1.2 Maintain a representative sample of each cultural resource type for future generations.

Goal HR: 2 Seek to reduce imminent threats and resolve potential conflicts from natural or human-caused deterioration, or potential conflict with other resource uses

(FLPMA Section 103(c), NHPA 106, 110 (a)(2)) by ensuring that all authorizations for land use and resource use will comply with the NHPA Section 106.

Objectives:

HR: 2.1 Develop activity plans or project/site-specific treatment plans or other protective measures for significant cultural resources at risk from deterioration

or adverse effects from other uses (e.g., Beaver Creek Oil and Gas Unit). Coordinate with other BLM programs to prevent potential conflicts before they are

allowed to occur.

HR: 2.2 Consult with Native American tribal governments regarding proposed land uses having the potential to affect cultural resources identified as having

tribal interests or concerns. Determine the types of resources of concern to various tribes, and take tribal views into consideration when making land use

allocations or decisions.

Goal HR: 3 Protect significant cultural resources while endeavoring to minimize economic and social impacts to private landowners and local communities.

Objectives:

HR: 3.1 Consult and coordinate with affected landowners and local communities when devising protection measures for cultural resources.

HR: 3.2 Consult and coordinate with affected landowners and local communities when devising recreational use plans for cultural resources.

Goal HR: 4 Maintain existing and establish new working relationships with Native American tribes for purposes of advancing the protection of cultural resources.

Objective:

HR: 4.1 Consult, as appropriate, with Native Americans to identify tribally-sensitive resources or places that may be present within the Lander Field Office.

Safeguard all information considered by tribes to be confidential, and utilize the information to prevent conflicts with incompatible uses.

February 2013

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource
136 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

5000 HERITAGE RESOURCES (HR) – CULTURAL RESOURCES

Record # Goal/Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

Goal HR: 5 Promote stewardship, conservation, and appreciation of cultural and paleontological resources.

Objectives:

HR: 5.1 Maintain and enhance programs that provide opportunities for scientific research of cultural and paleontological resources. Develop relationships and

cooperative agreements with the University of Wyoming and other research institutions.

HR: 5.2 Provide opportunities for public education, interpretation, and scientific research of cultural and paleontological resources. Continue Project Archeology

teaching courses, and continue to conduct public presentations for schools, community organizations, and the public. Provide for appropriate interpretation of sites

of high public interest. Provide selected cultural and paleontological resources for scientific research.

HR: 5.3 Preserve and stabilize significant cultural and paleontological resources, especially resources that face immediate threat, and/or historic structures

in high public use areas.

HR: 5.4 Pursue establishment of site stewardship programs at vulnerable cultural sites, e.g., the Castle Gardens Rock Art Site.

Goal HR: 6 Preserve and protect the historical remains and historical settings of the Oregon, Mormon Pioneer, California, and Pony Express NHTs. See the

Congressionally Designated Trails section for management alternatives for these resources. If they are not designated as an ACEC then management actions for them

will be analyzed in this (5000 – Heritage Resources) section.

Goal HR: 7 Preserve and protect the historical remains and historical settings of intact portions of the Warm Springs Canyon Flume.

Objectives:

HR: 7.1 Coordinate with operations and other programs to stabilize and/or repair suitable portions of the Flume.

HR: 7.2 Establish appropriate management prescriptions to maintain or improve the historic and physical integrity of the Flume and its settings.

HR: 7.3 Ensure recreation use in the area near the Flume will be compatible with private landowner concerns and historical values.

Goal HR: 8 Preserve and protect the historical remains and historical settings of the South Pass Historic Mining Area and associated sites, including Miner’s Delight

and South Pass City. See the Areas of Critical Environmental Concern section for management alternatives for these resources. If they are not designated as ACEC then

management actions for them will be analyzed in this (5000 – Heritage Resources) section.

Goal HR: 9 Preserve and protect the historical remains and historical settings of other significant trails and roads, including intact portions of the Bridger Trail;

the Rawlins-Fort Washakie, the Casper-Lander, the Green River to Fort Washakie, the Point of Rocks to South Pass, and the Birdseye Pass Stage Trails; and the

Yellowstone/National Park to Park Highways. See the Areas of Critical Environmental Concern section for management alternatives for these resources. If they are not

designated ACECs, then management actions for them will be analyzed in this (5000 – Heritage Resources) section.

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 137

5000 HERITAGE RESOURCES (HR) – CULTURAL RESOURCES

Record # Goal/Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

Goal HR: 10 Preserve and protect the prehistoric remains and natural settings of the Castle Gardens Rock Art Site. See the Areas of Critical Environmental

Concern section for management alternatives for these resources. If they are not designated ACECs, then management actions for them will be analyzed in this

(5000 – Heritage Resources) section.

Goal HR: 11 Preserve and protect the cultural remains and natural settings of Cedar Ridge Traditional Cultural Property. See the Areas of Critical Environmental

Concern section for management alternatives for these resources. If they are not designated ACECs, then management actions for them will be analyzed in this

(5000 – Heritage Resources) section.

Goal HR: 12 Preserve and protect the cultural remains and natural settings of Sacred, Spiritual, and/or Traditional Cultural Properties.

MANAGEMENT ACTIONS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

5001 HR: 1 Identify representative samples of cultural resource types (prehistoric and historic) from each Archeological Study Unit, and protect and

preserve them for appreciation by future generations.

5002 HR: 4.1 Continue existing relationships and develop new relationships with Native American tribes, in order to identify sites, areas, and resources

important to them. Document and keep confidential important sites, areas, and resources, as appropriate. Incorporate the information into

the planning system, to identify conflicts in the earliest stages, and to avoid conflicts whenever possible. Manage identified areas of tribal

importance to minimize disturbance to them and to ensure continued access.

5003 HR: 4.1 Ensure that areas important to Native American communities are not transferred from federal ownership, physically modified, or affected by

management actions in ways that restrict or deny access and/or use.

5004 HR: 4.1 Protect and manage sites that are eligible for or listed on the NRHP (Map 69). Manage sites allocated for conservation, traditional use, or

public use to avoid adverse effects; manage sites allocated for scientific or experimental use for their research potential. Protect and manage

NHLs, NHTs, and NNLs through management of non-compatible uses.

5005 HR: 1.1,

2.1

Identify areas of significant prehistoric cultural resources that are at high risk from development, as data becomes available.

5006 HR: 3.1,

3.2

In cooperation with local government and stakeholders (including Fremont County entities such as the Museums Board and the Historic

Preservation Board), consider the economic and social effects of protecting cultural resources. Coordinate with affected landowners, local

communities, and agencies on any decisions that could affect their use or operations. Consistent with cultural resource protection goals and

objectives, devise management actions that do not adversely affect the objectives of private landowners or local communities.

5007 HR: 12 Manage sacred, spiritual, and/or traditional cultural properties as they are identified.

5008 HR: 12 Limit motorized travel to existing or designated roads and trails in the areas around sacred, spiritual, and/or traditional properties.

MANAGEMENT ACTIONS BY ALTERNATIVE

February 2013

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource
138 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

5000 HERITAGE RESOURCES (HR) – CULTURAL RESOURCES

Record # Goal/Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

5009 HR: 2.1 Allow BLM-authorized activities

to proceed in accordance with

current Wyoming State Protocol

and NHPA regulations.

For cultural resources significant

for their information potential,

require the recovery of scientific

data if an activity would cause

adverse effects. For cultural

resources significant for reasons

other than information potential,

require detailed documentation.

Allow BLM-authorized activities

to proceed in accordance with

current Wyoming State Protocol

and NHPA regulations, with an

emphasis on avoiding National

Register-eligible properties (Map

69).

Allow BLM-authorized activities to

proceed in accordance with current

Wyoming State Protocol and NHPA

regulations.

Allow development to proceed by

imposing the minimum restrictions

required by regulation on activities

that could cause adverse effects

to National Register-eligible

properties.

Allow BLM-authorized activities

to proceed in accordance with

RMP decisions and current

Wyoming State Protocol and

NHPA regulations.

For cultural resources significant

for their information potential,

require avoidance whenever

possible. If avoidance is not

possible, require the recovery

of scientific data if an activity

would cause adverse effects. For

cultural resources significant for

reasons other than information

potential, require avoidance

whenever possible; if avoidance

is not possible, require detailed

documentation.

5010 HR: 2.1, 6 On a case-by-case basis for

Significant (see Glossary)

cultural resources, implement

appropriate viewshed protections,

limit degradation, promote

educational opportunities, and

limit effects from development

and BLM-authorized activities.

Continue to preserve and stabilize

significant sites known to be

in danger of degradation or as

brought to the attention of the

BLM.

Conduct assessments in areas

where cultural resources are

threatened by development

or are known to be in danger

of degradation. Identify and

prioritize endangered sites and

apply the following management:

● Sites where the historic setting

is important: implement

landscape or viewshed-wide

protections of cultural

resources and limit degradation

of the historic setting. Sites

include the NHTs, RHT&EHs,

Castle Gardens, South Pass

Historic Mining Area, Warm

Springs Canyon Flume, sacred

sites, and Cedar Ridge.

Same as Alternative A, except

impose the minimum restrictions

required by regulation on activities

that could cause adverse effects

to National Register-eligible

properties.

Same as Alternative A.

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 139

5000 HERITAGE RESOURCES (HR) – CULTURAL RESOURCES

Record # Goal/Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

● Sites threatened with

degradation: develop funding

for conservation of sites,

working in cooperation with

interested partners. Sites

include the NHTs, RHT&EHs,

Castle Gardens, South Pass

Historic Mining Area, and

Warm Springs Canyon Flume.

5011 HR: 2.2 Consult with tribes when specific

projects may have the potential

to adversely affect resources

important to them. Consider tribal

views when uses threaten these

sites and protect tribally important

sites, areas, and resources

whenever possible.

Same as Alternative A, plus

conduct ethnographic research to

identify sensitive sites throughout

the Lander Field Office. Protect all

tribally important sites. Develop

standards for programmatic

management based on the type of

site.

Same as Alternative A, except that

in areas where protection would

conflict with other uses, impose the

minimum restrictions required by

regulation on activities that could

cause adverse effects to National

Register-eligible properties.

Same as Alternative A.

5012 HR: 5.1 Continue cooperative agreements

with the University of Wyoming to

make mitigation and research

projects more timely and

cost-effective.

Same as Alternative A, plus

establish cooperative relationships

with other partners to increase

scientific research of cultural and

paleontological resources.

Same as Alternative A. Continue cooperative agreements

with the University of Wyoming

to make mitigation and research

projects more timely and

cost-effective. Establish

cooperative relationships with

other partners to increase scientific

research of cultural resources

when opportunities arise.

5013 HR: 1.1 Conduct inventories for

cultural resources prior to all

surface-disturbing activities.

Same as Alternative A, except

use Class I Regional Overview to

proactively identify areas of high,

medium, and low probability for

the discovery of cultural sites.

Conduct non-project specific Class

III inventories in areas of high

development potential and of high

probability for cultural resource

sites.

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A.

SPECIFIC CULTURAL RESOURCES

See the Special Designations section for management alternatives for cultural resources that are managed or are nominated for management as Special Designations.

February 2013

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource
140 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

5000 HERITAGE RESOURCES (HR) – CULTURAL RESOURCES

Record # Goal/Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

WARM SPRINGS CANYON FLUME, NATURAL BRIDGE, AND GEYSER

5014 HR: 7.1,

7.2, 7.3

Manage the Warm Springs Canyon

Flume site (557 acres) (Map 69)

to protect the site as a National

Register-eligible property.

Manage the Warm Springs Canyon

Flume site and surroundings (834

acres) (Map 69) to protect the area

as a National Register-eligible

property.

Same as Alternative A. Manage the Warm Springs

Canyon Flume site (557 acres)

and the area around it (Map 69)

to protect and stabilize the area

as a National Register-eligible

property.

5015 HR: 7.3 Mineral and realty actions in the

557-acre Warm Springs Canyon

Flume Site area are managed

with Category 5 restrictions.

Mineral and realty actions in the

remainder of the area (277 acres)

are managed with Category 2

restrictions.

Mineral and realty actions in the

834-acre Warm Springs Canyon

Flume Site are managed with

Category 6 restrictions.

Mineral and realty actions in the

557-acre Warm Springs Canyon

Flume Site are managed with

Category 1 restrictions.

Mineral and realty actions in

the 557-acre Warm Springs

Canyon Flume Site are managed

with Category 5 restrictions.

Mineral and realty actions in the

remainder of the area (277 acres)

are managed with Category 4

restrictions.

5016 HR: 7.2 The Flume area is available for

livestock grazing, subject to

standard Protocol and NHPA

measures to protect the site.

Same as Alternative A, except

do not authorize new range

improvement projects within the

834 acres.

Same as Alternative A. The Flume area is available for

livestock grazing, but prohibit

activities that could result in

damage to the flume.

5017 HR: 7.2 Limit motorized travel to existing

roads and trails.

Limit motorized travel to

designated roads and trails.

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A.

5018 HR: 7.2 Develop a cultural resource

management plan for the Flume,

including stabilization of selected

segments of the Flume.

Same as Alternative A,

plus manage the Flume and

surroundings in cooperation with

USFS and nearby landowners to

better preserve the property.

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative B.

SACRED, SPIRITUAL, and/or TRADITIONAL CULTURAL PROPERTIES

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 141

5000 HERITAGE RESOURCES (HR) – CULTURAL RESOURCES

Record # Goal/Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

5019 HR: 12 Mineral and realty actions

are subject to the following

restrictions (1,118 acres):

● 0 to 1⁄4 mile from a property

is managed with Category 3

restrictions.

● The area beyond 1⁄4 mile from

a property is managed with

Category 1 restrictions and

subject to standard Protocol

and NHPA measures.

Mineral leasing, mining, and realty

actions are subject to the following

restrictions (60,700 acres):

● 0 to 3 miles from a property

is managed with Category 4

restrictions.

● The area beyond 3 miles from

a property is managed with

Category 1 restrictions and

subject to standard Protocol

and NHPA measures.

Same as Alternative A. Mineral leasing, mining, and

realty actions in the established

protection zones around the

following sites [48FR301

(2,940 acres), 48FR311 (555

acres), 48FR3997 (1,045

acres), 48FR4070 (3,378 acres),

48FR4489 (930 acres)], 48FR773

(588), 48FR6125 (770 acres), new

sacred sites as they are identified

and then verified by tribes and

the BLM, are managed with the

following restrictions (10,206

total acres):

● Open to oil and gas leasing

subject to NSO stipulations

● Open to geophysical

exploration

● Closed to solid mineral leasing

● Open to locatable minerals

● Closed to salable minerals

● Excluded to major ROWs

● Avoided for minor ROWs

5020 HR: 12 Properties are available for

livestock grazing, subject to

standard Protocol and NHPA

measures to protect them.

Same as Alternative A, except

do not authorize new range

improvement projects within 2

miles of each property.

Same as Alternative A. Sites listed in Record 5019 are

available for livestock grazing, but

prohibit new range improvement

projects within the site protection

zones unless these projects are

designed to protect the sites.

Consult with grazing permittees

on extent of site protection areas.

5021 HR: 1, 7 Develop cultural resource

management plans for each

property as time and funding

permit.

Develop cultural resource

management plans for each

property in consultation with

affected tribes. Complete

ethnographic studies,

archeological surveys, and

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A.

February 2013

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource
142 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

5000 HERITAGE RESOURCES (HR) – CULTURAL RESOURCES

Record # Goal/Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

stewardship programs to better

manage the properties.

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 143

Table 2.25. 5000 Heritage Resources (HR) – Paleontological Resources

5000 HERITAGE RESOURCES (HR) – PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Record # Goal/Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

Goal HR: 13 Locate, evaluate, manage, and protect, where appropriate, paleontological resources on BLM-administered lands.

Objectives:

HR: 13.1 Compile a record of known paleontological resources in the Lander Field Office and assign those resources to appropriate uses. Manage each type of

paleontological resource according to their proper use allocation, and monitor those resources’ condition and use.

HR: 13.2 Maintain a representative sample of each paleontological resource type for future generations.

Goal HR: 14 Facilitate the appropriate scientific, educational, and recreational uses of paleontological resources, such as research and interpretation.

Objectives:

HR: 14.1 Develop management recommendations to promote the scientific, educational, and recreational uses of paleontological resources.

HR: 14.2 Continue to work closely with paleontological researchers who carry permits to scientifically survey, collect, and excavate fossil resources on

BLM-administered lands.

Goal HR: 15 Ensure that proposed land uses, initiated or authorized by the BLM, do not inadvertently damage or destroy important paleontological resources on

BLM-administered lands.

Objectives:

HR: 15.1 Utilize the BLM PFYC system to assess possible resource impacts and mitigation needs for federal actions.

HR: 15.2 Require surveys, monitoring, and excavation where appropriate to identify and protect important paleontological resources from surface-disturbing

activities.

Goal HR: 16 Foster public awareness and appreciation of our nation’s rich paleontological heritage.

Objectives:

HR: 16.1 Maintain and enhance programs that provide opportunities for scientific research of paleontological resources. Develop relationships and cooperative

agreements with the University of Wyoming and other research institutions.

HR: 16.2 Provide opportunities for public education, interpretation, and scientific research of paleontological resources. Provide for appropriate interpretation of

sites of high public interest. Provide selected paleontological resources for scientific research.

February 2013

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource
144 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

5000 HERITAGE RESOURCES (HR) – PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Record # Goal/Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

HR: 16.3 Preserve and stabilize significant paleontological resources, especially resources that face immediate threat, and/or paleontological localities in high

public use areas.

MANAGEMENT ACTIONS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

5022 HR: 13.1,

15.1, 15.2

Mineral and realty actions in areas with “very high” or “high” PFYC (Map 70) are managed with Category 2 restrictions. When disturbing

formations considered to have “very high” or “high” PFYC, survey and/or monitor for the discovery of significant paleontological resources.

Protect paleontological resources which are considered to be significant (vertebrate fossils and invertebrate or plant fossils considered

scientifically important by professional paleontologists) from the effects of development projects. Protection also includes data recovery

through scientific collection or excavation, and/or protection/stabilization. Develop special management plans for areas of unusual or

concentrated significant paleontological resources.

5023 HR: 13.2,

15.1, 15.2,

16.1, 16.3

Protect significant paleontological resources from natural degradation and from non-project human-caused damage. Continue to protect

significant fossil localities suffering from natural weathering and erosion through collection efforts. Continue to protect significant localities

suffering from vandalism through physical and administrative measures.

MANAGEMENT ACTIONS BY ALTERNATIVE

5024 HR: 13.2,

15.1, 15.2,

16.1, 16.3

Allow standard development

and BLM-authorized activities

to proceed in accordance with

resource protections identified in

regulations and guidelines.

For significant paleontological

resources, require the recovery of

scientific data if an activity would

cause adverse effects.

Same as Alternative A, plusidentify

resources that would be useful for

public interpretation and pursue

funding to allow visitation and

interpretation.

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative B.

5025 HR: 16.1,

16.2, 16.3

On a case-by-case basis for

significant paleontological

resources, limit degradation,

promote educational

opportunities, and limit

impacts from development

and BLM-authorized activities.

Continue to preserve and stabilize

significant fossil localities known

to be in danger of degradation or

as brought to the attention of the

BLM.

Same as Alternative A, plus

conduct inventories in areas where

paleontological resources are

threatened by development or

are known to be in danger of

degradation. Identify and prioritize

endangered sites and apply the

following management:

● Localities threatened by

development: implement

protections based on level

of threat and importance of

resource; prohibit development

where needed.

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A, plus

conduct inventories in areas

where significant paleontological

resources are known to be

threatened by development or

to be in danger of degradation.

Identify and prioritize endangered

sites and apply the following

management:

● Significant localities

threatened by development:

implement protections

based on level of threat

and importance of resource;

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 145

5000 HERITAGE RESOURCES (HR) – PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Record # Goal/Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

● Localities with educational

potential: work cooperatively

to protect these areas from

degradation; develop and

improve educational values of

these localities.

● Sites threatened with

degradation: develop

funding for conservation of

paleontological localities,

working in cooperation with

interested partners.

prohibit development where

needed.

● Significant localities with

educational potential: work

cooperatively to protect these

areas from degradation;

develop and improve

educational values of these

localities.

● Significant localities

threatened with natural

deterioration: develop

funding for conservation

of paleontological localities,

working in cooperation with

interested partners.

5026 HR: 14.2,

16.3

Continue cooperative

relationships with the University

of Wyoming and other institutions

to make mitigation and research

projects more feasible.

Same as Alternative A,

plus establish cooperative

relationships with other partners

to increase scientific research of

paleontological resources.

Same as Alternative A. Continue cooperative relationships

with the University of Wyoming

and other institutions to

make mitigation and research

projects more feasible. Establish

cooperative relationships with

other partners to increase scientific

research of paleontological

resources where opportunities

arise.

5027 HR: 13.1,

15.1, 15.2

Conduct inventories for

paleontological resources in

areas with “very high” and

“high” PFYC prior to all

surface-disturbing activities.

Same as Alternative A, plus

pursue more detailed analyses

of the planning area to further

identify areas of high potential

for significant paleontological

resources.

Same as Alternative A. Prior to surface-disturbing

activities, conduct inventories in

areas with “very high” and “high”

PFYC, and as needed in areas

with “moderate” PFYC. Require

monitoring of surface-disturbing

activities based on inventory

results.

February 2013

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource
146 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

5000 HERITAGE RESOURCES (HR) – PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Record # Goal/Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

5028 HR: 14.1,

15.2, 16.2,

16.3

Beaver Rim proposed NNL

(1,120 acres within the Beaver

Rim ACEC): Continue current

management of the Beaver Rim

ACEC (see Special Designations

– ACECs for current management

of the Beaver Rim ACEC),

which will protect the NNL’s

fossil resources. Mineral and

realty actions in the Beaver Rim

proposed NNL are managed with

Category 3 restrictions and a

Plan of Operations is required for

locatable mineral activities.

Mineral and realty actions in

the Beaver Rim proposed NNL

are managed with Category 5

restrictions. In addition, apply

the following restrictions and

management within the Beaver

Rim fossil area:

● Complete paleontological

inventory of the area to define

significant fossil localities.

● Develop a management plan to

preserve and protect significant

paleontological resources.

● Limit motorized travel to

existing roads and trails.

● Do not authorize any use that

NEPA analysis determines to

cause a significant adverse

impact to a fossil area.

● Close significant fossil localities

to land disposals.

Manage paleontological resources

on a case-by-case basis.

Same as Alternative A.

5029 HR: 14.1 Mineral and realty actions in

the Bison Basin proposed NNL

(1,280 acres) are managed with

Category 2 restrictions.

Mineral and realty actions in the

Bison Basin NNL are managed with

Category 5 restrictions. In addition,

apply the following restrictions

and management within the Bison

Basin fossil area:

● Complete a paleontological

inventory of the area to define

significant fossil localities.

● Develop a management plan to

preserve and protect significant

paleontological resources.

● Limit motorized travel to

existing roads and trails.

● Do not authorize any use that

NEPA analysis determines to

Manage paleontological resources

on a case-by-case basis.

Same as Alternative A.

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 147

5000 HERITAGE RESOURCES (HR) – PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Record # Goal/Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

cause a significant adverse

impact to a fossil area.

● Close significant fossil localities

to land disposals.

5030 HR: 15.1,

16.3

In the Bonneville to Lost Cabin

high potential fossil area, continue

inventory and monitoring of

surface-disturbing activities in

areas with “very high” and “high”

PFYC to manage fossil resources.

Same as Alternative A, plus

complete a paleontological

reconnaissance of the area and

develop a management plan to

protect significant paleontological

resources.

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A.

5031 HR: 15.1,

16.3

In the Lander Slope high potential

fossil area, continue inventory and

monitoring of surface-disturbing

activities in areas with “very high”

and “high” PFYC to manage fossil

resources.

Same as Alternative A, plus

complete a paleontological

reconnaissance of the area and

develop a management plan to

preserve and protect significant

paleontological resources.

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A.

5032 HR: 15.1,

16.3

In the Gas Hills high potential

fossil area, continue inventory and

monitoring of surface-disturbing

activities in areas with “very high”

and “high” PFYC to manage fossil

resources.

Same as Alternative A, plus

complete a paleontological

reconnaissance of the area and

develop a management plan to

preserve and protect significant

paleontological resources.

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative B.

February 2013

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource
148 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table 2.26. 5000 Heritage Resources (HR) – Visual Resources

5000 HERITAGE RESOURCES (HR) – VISUAL RESOURCES

Record # Goal/Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

Goal HR: 17 Maintain the overall scenic (visual) quality of BLM-administered lands.

Objectives:

HR: 17.1 VRM Class I Objective: Preserve the existing character of the landscape. Provide for natural ecological changes; however, preserving the landscape will

not preclude very limited management activity. The level of change to the characteristic landscape will be very low and will not attract attention.

HR: 17.2 VRM Class II Objective: Retain the existing character of the landscape. The level of change to the characteristic landscape will be low. Management

activities may be seen but will 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.

HR: 17.3 VRM Class III Objective: Partially retain the existing character of the landscape. The level of change to the characteristic landscape will be moderate.

Management activities may attract attention but should not dominate the view of the casual observer. Changes will repeat the basic elements found in the

predominant natural features of the characteristic landscape.

HR: 17.4 VRM Class IV Objective: Provide for management activities which require major modification to the existing character of the landscape. The

level of change to the characteristic landscape can be high. These management activities may dominate the view and be the major focus of viewer attention.

However, every attempt will be made to minimize the impact of these activities through careful location, minimal disturbance, and repeating the basic elements

found in the predominant natural features of the characteristic landscape.

Note: Management actions associated with Scenic ACECs, NHTs, and Scenic Trails are contained within the Special Designations section.

MANAGEMENT ACTIONS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

5033 HR: 17.1 Manage WSAs as VRM Class I visual resources (Map 128).

5034 HR: 17.1,

17.2

Prohibit surface-disturbing activities within important scenic areas (VRM Class I and II visual resources). Grant exceptions if it can be

demonstrated through a visual simulation and contrast rating worksheet (from all key observation points within the area) that the project

or identified mitigation will meet or exceed VRM Class I or II objectives. This restriction does not apply to temporary structures such

as drilling rigs.

5035 HR: 17.1,

17.2

Work with private landowners and partners to pursue conservation easements on lands adjacent to areas managed as VRM Class I and II

visual resources.

MANAGEMENT ACTIONS BY ALTERNATIVE

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 149

5000 HERITAGE RESOURCES (HR) – VISUAL RESOURCES

Record # Goal/Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

5036 HR: 17.1,

17.2, 17.3,

17.4

Maintain existing VRM Class

designations for BLM-administered

surface lands in the planning area

(Map 75):

● VRM Class I: 57,443 acres

● VRM Class II: 202,785 acres

● VRM Class III: 222,121 acres

● VRM Class IV: 1,853,862 acres

● VRM Class V*: 57,995 acres

*VRM Class V no longer exists

as a Class objective option for

managing visual resources. As a

result, these areas are managed as

VRM Class IV.

Allow fewer visual intrusions on

BLM-administered surface lands in

the planning area by reducing the

amount of VRM Class IV visual

resource inventory areas to existing

oil and gas fields and around large

open pit mines (Map 76).

This would result in the following

approximate land use allocations:

● VRM Class I: 59,317 acres

● VRM Class II: 1,284,122 acres

● VRM Class III: 292,890 acres

● VRM Class IV: 756,813 acres

Allow for more visual intrusions

on BLM-administered surface

lands except in areas managed

as VRM Class I visual resources

(Map 77).

This would result in the following

approximate land use allocations:

● VRM Class I: 55,360 acres

● VRM Class II: 25,730 acres

● VRM Class III: 722,356 acres

● VRM Class IV: 1,590,758

acres

Adjust the new Lander Field

Office VRM designations to allow

for resource development while

also protecting important scenic

features:

● VRM Class I: 60,115 acres

● VRM Class II: 780,810 acres

● VRM Class III: 857,979 acres

● VRM Class IV: 694,759 acres

5037 HR: 17.1,

17.2

No similar action. On a case-by-case basis in areas

managed as VRM Class III and

IV, prohibit surface-disturbing and

disruptive activities that create a

moderate to strong contrast with

the existing visual environment

that can be observed from areas

managed as VRM Class I and II,

such as wind development.

Allow surface-disturbing activities

in areas managed as VRM Class

III and IV visual resources that can

be observed from areas managed

as VRM Class I and II, regardless

of the degree of visual contrast.

Surface-disturbing activities

within VRM Class III and IV not

within view of Congressionally

Designated Trails will be

evaluated based on the VRM

Class designation at the site of the

surface disturbance.

Surface-disturbing activities out

of scale with the surrounding

landscape within view of the

Congressionally Designated Trails

will be evaluated based on VRM

Class II standards.

To protect visual resource values,

areas south of the Green Mountain

ACEC are closed to wind-energy

development (Map 100).

5038 HR: 17.1,

17.2, 17.3

All proposed actions within areas

managed as VRM Class I, II, and

Same as Alternative A, plus all

proposed actions within areas

managed as VRM Class I and II

visual resources require a visual

Same as Alternative A, except on

a case-by-case basis determine

if the project applicant would

be required to utilize a visual

Same as Alternative C.

February 2013

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource
150 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

5000 HERITAGE RESOURCES (HR) – VISUAL RESOURCES

Record # Goal/Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

III visual resources require a VRM

contrast rating worksheet.

simulation prior to analysis and/or

mitigation design (Map 76).

simulation to test or show

mitigation measures.

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 151

Table 2.27. 6000 Land Resources (LR) – Lands and Realty

6000 LAND RESOURCES (LR) – LANDS AND REALTY

Record # Goal/Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

Goal LR: 1 Manage the acquisition, disposal, withdrawal, and use of BLM-administered lands to meet the needs of internal and external customers and to preserve

important resource values.

Objectives:

LR: 1.1 Develop and maintain a land-ownership pattern that will provide access for managing and protecting BLM-administered lands.

LR: 1.2 Use appropriate actions such as disposal and acquisition to resolve issues related to intermixed land-ownership patterns.

LR: 1.3 Maintain availability of BLM-administered lands to meet the habitation, cultivation, trade, mineral development, recreation, and manufacturing needs of

external customers and the general public. Improve access to BLM-administered lands.

LR: 1.4 Withdraw BLM-administered lands to meet resource protection needs.

LR: 1.5 Identify areas for R&PP actions.

MANAGEMENT ACTIONS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

6001 LR: 1.1,

1.2

Respond to specific proposals for land use authorizations on a case-by-case basis. Do not classify, open, or make available any

BLM-administered lands for agricultural leasing or agricultural entry under either the Desert Land Entry or Indian Allotment for one or

more of the following reasons: unsuitable topography, presence of sensitive resources or resource conflicts, lack of water or access, small

parcel size, or unsuitable soils.

6002 LR: 1.2 Identify lands for acquisition through exchange and/or purchase (Map 1) with priority on meeting special management objectives such as

greater sage-grouse Core Area, ACECs, and NLCS lands. Prioritize lands that do not have split estate unless in Core Area where greater

sage-grouse management objectives would benefit.

6003 LR: 1.3 The BLM currently leases 35 acres under the R&PP Act. The Recreation section has alternatives for two new R&PP leases. Consider R&PP

leases and patents through the planning area as requested by qualified entities.

6004 LR: 1.2 Lands identified for disposal or disposal with restrictions will be classified under Sections 203, 206, and 209 of FLPMA.

6005 LR: 1.1 No parcels within an NLCS unit or an ACEC or in greater sage-grouse Core Area are identified for disposal unless the disposal would benefit

the goals and objectives of the area’s priority values or other important resource values. (In the 1987 RMP, parcels in NLCS units were

identified for disposal but Alternative A management is to retain all parcels in these areas.) Acquire lands in areas with mixed ownership

and where land exchanges would result in additional or more contiguous federal ownership patterns or would improve management for the

benefit of priority resources.

MANAGEMENT ACTIONS BY ALTERNATIVE

RETENTION OF BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS

6006 LR: 1.1,

1.2

Retain approximately 2,385,637

acres of BLM-administered land.

Retain approximately 2,388,774

acres of BLM-administered land.

Same as Alternative B. Retain approximately 2,386,137

acres of BLM-administered land.

February 2013

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource
152 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

6000 LAND RESOURCES (LR) – LANDS AND REALTY

Record # Goal/Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

DISPOSAL OF BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS

6007 LR: 1.1,

1.2

8,573 acres of BLM-administered

land are available for disposal by

sale, exchange, or other means

(Map 94).

5,436 acres of BLM-administered

land are available for disposal by

sale, exchange, or other means

(Map 95).

Same as Alternative B. 8,073 acres of BLM-administered

land are available for disposal by

sale, exchange, or other means

(Map 94).

6008 LR: 1.1,

1.2

1,475 acres of BLM-administered

land are available for disposal with

restrictions on use (Map 94).

1,435 acres of BLM-administered

land are available for disposal

with restrictions on use (Map 95),

including offsite compensation

or mitigation, including the

establishment of a conservation

easement.

Same as Alternative B. 6,665 acres of BLM-administered

land are available for disposal

with restrictions on use (Map 94),

including offsite compensation

or mitigation, including the

establishment of a conservation

easement.

BLM WITHDRAWALS

6009 LR: 1.4 23,114 acres are identified for

withdrawal (Map 21).

8,634 acres are withdrawn in

pre-FLPMA actions.

Pursue withdrawals on a total of

1,632,605 acres in the planning

area (Map 22) including the

acres identified in Alternative B.

Renew existing withdrawals before

expiration.

8,634 acres are withdrawn in

pre-FLPMA actions.

Do not pursue new withdrawals.

Existing withdrawals other than

the desert yellowhead withdrawal,

are allowed to expire.

8,634 acres are withdrawn in

pre-FLPMA actions.

Pursue withdrawals on 449,068

acres (Map 24). Renew existing

withdrawals before they expire.

8,634 acres are withdrawn in

pre-FLPMA actions.

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 153

Table 2.28. 6000 Land Resources (LR) – Renewable Energy

6000 LAND RESOURCES (LR) – RENEWABLE ENERGY

Record # Goal/Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

Goal LR: 2 Provide opportunities for developing alternative energy resources.

Objective:

LR: 2.1 Identify areas suitable for locating alternative energy developments where important cultural and natural resource values will not be adversely affected by

these facilities.

MANAGEMENT ACTIONS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

6010 LR: 2 Management prescriptions for wind-energy development in important wildlife habitat, areas managed as VRM Class I and II, RMZs, areas with

cultural resources, and special designations are found in those respective sections.

6011 LR: 2 Consider non-wind renewable energy development on a case-by-case basis consistent with management and objectives identified in

the RMP. Approval of non-wind renewable energy development inconsistent with management and objectives in the RMP would require

a Land Use Plan amendment.

6012 LR: 2 Programmatic policies and Best Management Practices for wind-energy development are identified in the ROD for Wind-Energy Development

on Bureau of Land Management-Administered Land in the Western States (2006) and IM 2009-043. The ROD identified the following areas

within the NLCS as wind-energy development exclusion areas:

● WSAs (55,338 acres) (Map 128)

● CDNST (no buffer is identified) (Map 121)

● NHTs (no buffer is identified) (Map 123)

● NWSRS-eligible waterway segments (9,919 acres of BLM-administered surface) (Map 129)

6013 LR: 2 Initiate government-to-government consultation with the appropriate tribal governments if it is determined that wind-energy development

proposals might directly and substantially affect tribes.

6014 LR: 2 Programmatic policies, Best Management Practices, leasing procedures, and stipulations identified in the ROD for the PEIS for Geothermal

Leasing in the Western United States (2008) are analyzed in the minerals section.

MANAGEMENT ACTION BY ALTERNATIVE

6015 LR: 2 Manage 2,113,512 acres as open

to wind-energy development (Map

97).

Manage 64,816 acres as

wind-energy development

avoidance areas (Map 97).

Manage 215,882 acres as

wind-energy development

exclusion areas (Map 97).

Manage 41,372 acres as open to

wind-energy development (Map

98).

Manage 23,887 acres as

wind-energy development

avoidance areas (Map 98).

Manage 2,328,951 acres as

wind-energy development

exclusion areas (Map 98).

Manage 2,284,235 acres as open

to wind-energy development (Map

99).

Manage 15,818 acres as

wind-energy development

avoidance areas (Map 99).

Manage 94,157 acres as

wind-energy development

exclusion areas (Map 99).

Manage 224,289 acres as open to

wind-energy development (Map

100).

Manage 1,215,599 acres as

wind-energy development

avoidance areas (Map 100).

Manage 954,322 acres as

wind-energy development

exclusion areas (Map 100).

February 2013

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource
154 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table 2.29. 6000 Land Resources (LR) – Rights-of-Way and Corridors

6000 LAND RESOURCES (LR) – RIGHTS-OF-WAY AND CORRIDORS

Record # Goal/Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B (Most Resource

Conservation)

Alternative C (Most Resource

Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

Goal LR: 3 Manage BLM-administered lands to meet transportation and ROW needs.

Objectives:

LR: 3.1 Provide opportunities to meet the needs of ROW customers.

LR: 3.2 Support the availability of ROWs consistent with federal policies regarding the development of renewable energy sources.

MANAGEMENT ACTIONS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

6016 LR: 3.1,

3.2

In accordance with the ROD for Designation of Energy Corridors on Bureau of Land Management-Administered Lands in the 11 Western

States (2009), Energy Corridor 79-216 is a designated corridor.

6017 LR: 3.1 The preferred location for new ROWs and access route authorizations is in areas already disturbed by existing ROWs. See Appendix

H (p. 1521) for design constraints to limit surface disturbance associated with new ROWs. Locate linear ROWs such as fiber optic and

low-voltage powerline corridors along currently established road systems (e.g., state highways and county roads). Identify opportunities to

reclaim duplicative ROWs or those no longer in use. Utilize IM 2012-019 Attachment 5 or later guidance to calculate disturbance associated

with ROWs.

6018 LR: 3.1 Allow carbon dioxide sequestration and research. Lands that are available to oil and gas leasing are available to carbon dioxide sequestration

and research subject to the same surface limitations as would be applied to oil and gas operations. Lands that are closed to oil and gas

leasing are excluded for carbon dioxide sequestration and research.

6019 LR: 3 Close the Beef Gap section of the Sweetwater Rocks complex to any new ROWs even if co-located with existing ROWs.

MANAGEMENT ACTIONS BY ALTERNATIVE

6020 LR: 3.1 On a case-by-case basis

concentrate major utility ROWs in

existing utility corridors whenever

possible (Map 105).

Allow proposed major utility

ROWs only in designated utility

corridors.

Designate the following routes as

utility corridors and access routes

and prefer these locations for the

placement of utility ROWs (Map

106):

● The Lost Creek Corridor,

which runs north/south

from Wamsutter to Lysite

(approximately 1⁄4 mile wide,

except near the NHTs, where it

is 400 feet wide).

Evaluate proposed major utility

ROWs on a case-by-case basis.

Allow major utility corridors up to

3 miles wide in the planning area

in the following locations (Map

107):

● Lost Creek Spur

● Lost Creek

● Pathfinder

● Sand Draw to Casper

● Highway 20\26

● Beaver Creek North

● Shoshoni\Badwater

● Bairoil

The following corridors are

designated as corridors for major

ROW development (Map 108).

Please note: the location of the

designated corridors asrepresented

on the map are approximate and

subject to verification based on

existing disturbance, particularly

in the Sand Draw to Casper

corridor through the Gas Hills

mining district. The corridor

widths shown on Map 108 are

overstated to improve clarity.

● Jim Bridger (containing the

Spence-Mustang-Jim Bridger

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 155

6000 LAND RESOURCES (LR) – RIGHTS-OF-WAY AND CORRIDORS

Record # Goal/Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B (Most Resource

Conservation)

Alternative C (Most Resource

Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

● Sand Draw to Casperapproximately 10 miles of

corridor connecting Lost Creek

and the Casper Field Office’s

designated corridor.

● Boysen Scenic Byway

● Lost Cabin\Pony Express

● Colorado Interstate Gas

● Pacificorp Transmission

● Sand Draw

● Bison Basin

● Frontier

● Frontier-Anadarko

● Pacificorp

existing 230 kV powerline)

from where it enters the Lander

planning area in Township 25

North, Range 94 West to where

it intersects with the Lost

Creek pipeline: above and

below ground.

● Lost Creek: variously below

ground only and above and

below ground as follows:

○ Lost Creek 1: from

where the pipeline enters

the Lander planning area

in the south in Township

25 North, Range 93 West

to where the pipeline

meets the existing 230

kV powerline in the Jim

Bridger corridor: below

ground only.

○ Lost Creek 2: from the

Jim Bridger meeting

point northward until

the Lost Creek pipeline

meets the Sand Draw

to Casper designated

corridor: above and

below ground.

○ Lost Creek 3: from the

Sand Draw to Casper

meeting point north to

Highway 20/26: below

ground only.

○ Lost Creek 4: from north

of Highway 20/26 to

the Westwide Corridor:

above and below ground.

February 2013

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource
156 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

6000 LAND RESOURCES (LR) – RIGHTS-OF-WAY AND CORRIDORS

Record # Goal/Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B (Most Resource

Conservation)

Alternative C (Most Resource

Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

The section of the corridor

through the Jeffrey City area

that is not within the NTMC

is open to oil and gas leasing

subject to CSU stipulations.

● Pathfinder: below ground

only. (The Pathfinder

corridor is only in the

Lander planning area in

Township 30 North, Range

85 West.)

● Sand Draw to Casper: above

and below ground

● Highway 20/26: above and

below ground

● Beaver Creek (formerly

called Beaver Creek North

and Lost Creek Spur): below

ground only

● Shoshoni/Badwater: below

ground

● Bairoil: below ground only

● Sand Draw: below ground

only

● Bison Basin: below ground

only

● Frontier going southwest

from Bairoil to where it

leaves the Lander planning

area: below ground only

● Frontier-Anadarko (now

called Rattlesnake Hills)

north of Black Rock: below

ground

● Pacificorp (now called Black

Rock): above and below

ground

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 157

6000 LAND RESOURCES (LR) – RIGHTS-OF-WAY AND CORRIDORS

Record # Goal/Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B (Most Resource

Conservation)

Alternative C (Most Resource

Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

● Pacificorp (going east-west

in Township 35): above and

below ground

Widths for these corridors

are 1⁄2 mile unless there are

resource conflicts, then the width

will be adjusted accordingly

(i.e., neck down as necessary).

Designated corridors are subject

to the prescriptions for resource

protections except that they

are open for ROWs even if the

surrounding areas are excluded or

avoided.

Major ROWs will not be

authorized outside of designated

corridors unless the proponent

establishes that location in a

designated corridor is not possible.

Additional expense does not, by

itself, render the location within a

designated corridor “not possible.”

6021 PR: 3.3

BR: 1.1,

11.1, 11.2

See Record 6017. See Record 6017. See Record 6017. ROWs outside of designated

corridors are co-located in existing

disturbance unless the proponent

establishes that co-location is not

possible or that the new location

minimizes adverse impacts to

other resources compared to

co-location.

February 2013

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource
158 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

6000 LAND RESOURCES (LR) – RIGHTS-OF-WAY AND CORRIDORS

Record # Goal/Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B (Most Resource

Conservation)

Alternative C (Most Resource

Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

6022 LR: 3.1 Authorize communication

facilities under site-specific leases

on a case-by-case basis. The areas

avoided for utility corridors are

also avoided by communication

sites. Encourage co-location with

existing sites. The site on Whiskey

Peak is limited to facilities that will

be contained within the existing

building footprint.

Require new communication

facilities to be co-located with the

following existing sites (Map 106):

● Atlantic City

● Black Rock

● Cedar Rim

● Crooks Mountain

● Gun Barrel

● Horse Heaven

● Muskrat

The site on Whiskey Peak is

limited to facilities that will be

contained within the existing

building footprint.

Communication facility leases will

be for a maximum of 10 years.

Review applications for renewal

of existing leases to determine if

improvement in technology makes

the site unnecessary.

Authorize communication

facilities under site-specific leases

on a case-by-case basis.

Require new communication

facilities be co-located with the

following existing sites unless

proponent demonstrates existing

sites are unable to meet the public

needs and project is consistent

with the Land Use Plan (Map 108):

● Atlantic City

● Cedar Rim

● Crooks Mountain

● Gun Barrel

● Horse Heaven

● Muskrat

The site on Whiskey Peak is

limited to facilities that will be

contained within the existing

building footprint.

The following sites are closed to

new communication facilities and

existing facilities are allowed to

expire at the end of the existing

ROW grant (Map 108):

● BLM Ridge

● Black Rock

6023 LR: 3 Manage 66,099 acres as ROW

avoidance areas (Map 101).

Manage 315,219 acres as ROW

avoidance areas (Map 102).

Manage 11,714 acres as ROW

avoidance areas (Map 103).

Manage 1,369,300 acres as ROW

avoidance areas (Map 104).

See Appendix E (p. 1483) for

avoidance criteria.

6024 LR: 3 Manage 205,916 acres as ROW

exclusion areas (Map 101).

Manage 1,919,029 acres as ROW

exclusion areas (Map 102).

Manage 147,053 acres as ROW

exclusion areas (Map 103).

Manage 417,426 acres as ROW

exclusion areas (Map 104).

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 159

Table 2.30. 6000 Land Resources (LR) – Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management

6000 LAND RESOURCES (LR) – COMPREHENSIVE TRAILS AND TRAVEL MANAGEMENT

Record # Goal/Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

Goal LR: 4 Utilize a comprehensive approach to travel planning and management to sustain and enhance recreational opportunities and experiences, visitor

access/safety, and resource conservation and use.

Objective:

LR: 4.1 In consideration of the various resources, resource uses, and special designations, all BLM-administered lands within the Lander Field Office will be

classified as open, limited, or closed to motorized travel.

Goal LR: 5 Manage the use of OHVs (see Glossary) in partnership with other land-management agencies, local governments, communities, and interest groups.

Objective:

LR: 5.1 Pursue the opportunities (such as supplemental funding and labor contributions) to aid the BLM in implementing transportation and travel management

planning decisions.

Goal LR: 6 Utilize a travel management approach to provide and improve sustainable access for public needs and experiences.

Objectives:

LR: 6.1 At minimum, travel management areas will provide route networks and locations in consideration of primary travelers and valid existing rights.

LR: 6.2 Travel management areas where access is deemed a priority will provide for sufficient route networks and locations to meet public needs.

LR: 6.3 Travel management areas where access is deemed essential for visitor recreation experiences will provide for sufficient route networks and locations to

produce targeted recreation settings.

Goal LR: 7 Utilize a travel management approach to protect natural resources and settings.

Objectives:

LR: 7.1 At a minimum, travel management areas will provide route networks and locations that meet or exceed Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands

(see Appendix J (p. 1537)).

LR: 7.2 Travel management areas intensively managed to protect natural and cultural resources will provide networks and locations that maintain or enhance the

quality of the identified resource.

February 2013

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource
160 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

6000 LAND RESOURCES (LR) – COMPREHENSIVE TRAILS AND TRAVEL MANAGEMENT

Record # Goal/Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

LR: 7.3 Travel management areas intensively managed to protect recreational, archeological, paleontological, and visual settings will provide route densities and

locations that maintain or enhance the identified setting quality.

Goal LR: 8 Utilize a travel management approach to promote the safety of public land users.

Objective:

LR: 8.1 Provide route networks, locations, or visitor information to promote the safety of public land users.

Goal LR: 9 Utilize a travel management approach to minimize conflicts among the various users of BLM-administered lands.

Objective:

LR: 9.1 Provide route networks, route locations, or visitor information to minimize resource use/user conflict.

MANAGEMENT ACTIONS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

6025 LR: 6.1,

6.2, 6.3,

7.1, 7.2,

7.3, 8.1,

9.1

Evaluate management decisions concerning modifications to “limited areas” and recreational facility or trail proposals through activity level

planning. Evaluate Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management decisions to determine whether they are consistent with meeting specific

land use plan and management objectives, prescriptions, or the Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands. Adjust travel systems to

ensure they remain in compliance with meeting area-specific land use plan and other management objectives, including providing access to

BLM-administered lands. Maintain the existing roadless areas, within the Greer Peak and Lysite Mountain regions.

6026 LR: 6.1,

6.2, 6.3,

7.1, 7.2,

7.3, 8.1,

9.1

Evaluate modifications (as needed to meet planning objectives) to all ‘limited’ travel designations through activity level planning.

6027 LR: 6.1,

6.2, 6.3,

7.1, 7.2,

7.3, 8.1,

9.1

Grant administrative use authorizations on a case-by-case basis with approval from the Authorized Officer. All access agreements will specify

the following: what type of use is allowed and for what purpose, times, dates or seasons of access, where the use will occur, and additional

stipulations required to provide for adequate resource protection and to meet pertinent planning decisions.

6028 LR: 7.2 Close critical habitat of the desert yellowhead (360 acres) to motorized travel to protect sensitive plant habitat (Map 67).

6029 LR: 6.1,

6.2, 6.3,

7.1, 7.2,

7.3, 8.1,

9.1

In areas with limited travel designations, limit motorized and mechanized travel to within 300 feet from motorized/mechanized routes for direct

access for big game carcass retrieval provided that: (1) no resource damage occurs, (2) no new routes are created, and (3) such access is

not otherwise prohibited by the Authorized Officer.

6030 LR: 7.2 Close the Rocky Ridge segment of the NHTs to motorized travel to protect sensitive historic resources (Map 123).

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 161

6000 LAND RESOURCES (LR) – COMPREHENSIVE TRAILS AND TRAVEL MANAGEMENT

Record # Goal/Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

6031 LR: 5.1,

7.3

Pursue opportunities to develop inter-agency implementation and enforcement of travel management decisions to improve public education

regarding travel and to reduce non-compliance.

6032 LR: 4 Define an over-snow vehicle as a motorized vehicle that is designed for use over snow and 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.

6033 LR: 9.1 On groomed nonmotorized winter trails (e.g., Beaver Creek Nordic Ski Area), restrict travel to only nonmotorized uses during the grooming

season (December 1 to May 1) unless otherwise approved by the Authorized Officer (Map 109).

MANAGEMENT ACTIONS BY ALTERNATIVE

OVER-LAND TRAVEL

6034 LR: 6.1,

7.1, 7.2,

7.3

To protect winter wildlife habitat,

sensitive soils, erodible slopes,

watersheds, and visual resources,

limit motorized travel in the

following areas to designated

roads and trails subject to

seasonal travel limitations (closed

December 1 to June 15) (Map

109):

● Lander Slope (21,575 acres)

● Red Canyon (14,730 acres)

● Whiskey Mountain (7,699

acres)

● Green Mountain above 7,000

feet (63,491 acres)

To protect wildlife

winter/parturition habitat, sensitive

soils, erodible slopes, watersheds,

and visual resources, limit

motorized and mechanized travel in

the following areas to designated

roads and trails subject to seasonal

travel limitations (closed December

1 to June 15) (Map 110):

● Lander Slope (21,575 acres)

● Red Canyon (14,730 acres)

● Whiskey Mountain (2,728

acres)

● Green Mountain (63,491 acres)

Close 5,490 acres of the existing

Whiskey Mountain area to

motorized and mechanized travel.

Do not apply seasonal travel

limitations (Map 111).

To protect wildlife

winter/parturition habitat,

sensitive soils, erodible slopes,

watersheds, and visual resources,

limit motorized and mechanized

travel in the following areas to

designated roads and trails subject

to seasonal travel limitations (Map

112):

● Lander Slope ACEC (except

the Bus @ Baldwin Creek,

Sinks Canyon Climbing Area

and Baldwin Creek Canyon

which are discussed below) is

closed to motorized vehicles

December 1 to June 15 (25,065

acres).

● Red Canyon is closed to all

travel (human presence) from

December 1 to April 30 and

closed to motorized travel

from December 1 to June 15

(15,109 acres) (Map 113).

● Whiskey Mountain ACEC

(except Whiskey Mountain

WSA and lands with

wilderness characteristics

which are discussed below) is

closed to motorized vehicles

December 1 to May 1).

February 2013

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource
162 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

6000 LAND RESOURCES (LR) – COMPREHENSIVE TRAILS AND TRAVEL MANAGEMENT

Record # Goal/Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

● Green Mountain is closed

to motorized vehicle use

December 1 to June 15 at

identified points on roads and

trails rather than based on

elevation.

6035 LR: 6.1,

7.1, 7.2,

7.3

To protect winter wildlife habitat

and watersheds, limit motorized

travel in the following area to

existing roads (Map 109) without

seasonal restrictions:

● East Fork (4,431 acres)

● Beaver Rim ACEC (6,421

acres)

To protect winter wildlife habitat

and watersheds, limit motorized

and mechanized travel in the

following areas to designated roads

and trails (Map 110):

● East Fork (14,802 acres) subject

to seasonal travel limitations

(closed December 1 to June 15)

● Beaver Rim Area (20,254 acres)

● Cedar Ridge (7,039 acres)

Same as Alternative A. To protect winter wildlife habitat

and watersheds, limit motorized

and mechanized travel in the East

Fork ACEC to designated roads

and trails (Map 112). The East

Fork ACEC is seasonally closed

to all travel December 16 to May

15 (consistent with surrounding

WGFD lands) except for those

BLM-administered lands directly

accessed from East Fork County

Road.

6036 LR: 6.1,

7.1, 7.2,

7.3

Limit motorized travel in the

Beaver Rim ACEC (6,421 acres)

to existing roads and trails (Map

109).

Limit motorized and mechanized

travel in the Beaver Rim Area

(20,254 acres) to designated roads

and trails (Map 110).

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A, until

a Travel Management Plan

is completed, at which time

motorized travel will be limited to

designated routes.

6037 LR: 6.1,

7.1, 7.2,

7.3

Close the Dubois Badlands ACEC

(4,897 acres) to motorized travel

to protect natural resources,

recreational values, the WSA, and

scenic resources (Map 109).

Same as Alternative A. Limit motorized travel in the

WSA portion of the Dubois

Badlands ACEC to designated

roads and trails that existed and

were identified before or during the

inventory phase of the wilderness

review. Limit motorized travel

in the area within the ACEC, but

outside of the WSA to existing

roads and trails (Map 111).

The WSA portion of the area

is closed to motorized vehicles.

Management of the non-WSA

lands is discussed in the ACEC -

East Fork section.

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 163

6000 LAND RESOURCES (LR) – COMPREHENSIVE TRAILS AND TRAVEL MANAGEMENT

Record # Goal/Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

6038 LR: 6.1,

7.1, 7.2,

7.3

The Castle Gardens TCP area (78

acres) is closed to motorized travel

to protect natural and cultural

resources (Map 109) except for

one designated road to the parking

area. Travel management in the

area outside of the TCP identified

in Alternative B as part of the

ACEC area is limited to existing

roads and trails.

Same as Alternative A, except that

travel in the part of the proposed

ACEC outside of the TCP is limited

to designated roads and trails.

Limit motorized travel within the

Castle Gardens area (78 acres) and

the adjacent areas to existing roads

and trails (Map 111).

Limit motorized travel within the

immediate Castle Gardens area

and the periphery (1734 acres) to

designated roads and trails (Map

112).

6039 LR: 6.1,

7.1, 7.2,

7.3

Limit motorized travel in the areas

adjacent to WSAs (Map 109) to

existing roads and trails up to the

boundary of the WSA.

To provide logical visitor

management boundaries, limit

motorized and mechanized travel

in the area directly adjacent to the

following WSAs to designated

roads and trails (Map 110):

● Copper Mountain (6,936 acres)

● Sweetwater Rocks (including

the area around Split Rock,

Lankin Dome, Miller Springs,

and Savage Peak WSAs)

(34,186 acres)

● Sweetwater Canyon (9,135

acres)

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A, until

a Travel Management Plan

is completed, at which time

motorized travel will be limited to

designated routes.

6040 LR: 6.1,

6.3, 7.1,

7.3

Open the following areas to

mechanized travel (Map 109):

● The Bus @ Baldwin Creek

● The Dubois Mill Site

● Johnny Behind the Rocks/Blue

Ridge

● Sinks Canyon Climbing Area

To manage areas in accordance with

the recreation alternatives, limit

mechanized travel in the following

areas to designated roads and trails

(Map 110):

● The Bus @ Baldwin Creek

● The Dubois Mill Site

● Johnny Behind the Rocks/Blue

Ridge

● Sinks Canyon Climbing Area

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A.

February 2013

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource
164 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

6000 LAND RESOURCES (LR) – COMPREHENSIVE TRAILS AND TRAVEL MANAGEMENT

Record # Goal/Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

6041 LR: 6.1,

6.3, 7.1,

7.3

Limit motorized travel in the

following areas to existing roads

and trails (Map 109):

● Johnny Behind the Rocks/Blue

Ridge

Limit motorized travel in the

following areas to designated

roads and trails (Map 109):

● The Bus @ Baldwin Creek

● The Dubois Mill Site

● Sinks Canyon Climbing Area

To manage RMZs in the manner

detailed in the recreation

alternatives, close the following

areas to motorized travel (Map

110):

● The Bus @ Baldwin Creek

● The Dubois Mill Site

● Johnny Behind the Rocks/Blue

Ridge

● Sinks Canyon Climbing Area

Same as Alternative A. To manage RMZs in the manner

detailed in the recreation

alternatives, close the following

areas to motorized travel (Map

112):

● The Bus @ Baldwin Creek

● Johnny Behind the Rocks/Blue

Ridge

● Sinks Canyon Climbing Area

6042 LR: 6.1,

7.1, 7.2,

7.3

Do not specially manage lands

with wilderness characteristics.

In order to maintain lands with

wilderness characteristics, close the

following area to motorized and

mechanized vehicle travel (Map

110):

Little Red Creek Complex (5,490

acres) including:

● Glacier Trail

● Red Creek

● Torrey Rim

Same as Alternative A. In order to maintain lands with

wilderness characteristics, close

the following area to motorized

travel and limit mechanized travel

to designated roads and trails

(Map 112):

Little Red Creek Complex (4,954

acres) including:

● Red Creek

● Portions of Torrey Rim

6043 LR: 6.1,

7.1, 7.2,

7.3

In order to maintain the

outstanding remarkable values

of eligible WSR waterways,

motorized travel in Sweetwater

Canyon and Baldwin Creek

Canyon is limited to designated

roads and trails.

In order to maintain the outstanding

remarkable values of suitable WSR

waterways, close the following

areas to motorized and mechanized

travel (Map 110):

● Baldwin Creek Canyon (2,349

acres)

● Sweetwater Canyon (9,135

acres)

Do not manage any watercourses

as tentatively classified eligible

and suitable WSR waterways.

Same as Alternative B for

motorized and mechanized travel

in Baldwin Creek Canyon. Travel

management in Sweetwater

Canyon is in accordance with

BLM Manual 6330, Management

of Wilderness Study Areas. See

the Special Designations section

for Sweetwater Canyon travel

management.

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 165

6000 LAND RESOURCES (LR) – COMPREHENSIVE TRAILS AND TRAVEL MANAGEMENT

Record # Goal/Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

6044 LR: 6.1,

7.1, 8.1,

9.1

Limit motorized travel in the

planning area, unless otherwise

specified, to existing roads,

primitive roads, and trails

(2,226,504 acres) (Map 109) at a

minimum, until such time as travel

management planning is complete

and routes are either designated

or closed. This designation

is an interim designation until

route-specific planning can

occur. At the point at which

route planning is implemented,

motorized travel in the area will

be limited to designated roads

and trails. For more information

on this process see Appendix

W (p. 1813).

Same as Alternative A, except

limit motorized travel on 2,128,741

acres to existing roads, primitive

roads, and trails (Map 110).

This designation is an interim

designation until route-specific

planning can occur. At the

point at which route planning is

implemented, motorized travel

in the area will be limited to

designated roads and trails. For

more information on this process

see Appendix W (p. 1813).

Same as Alternative A, except limit

motorized travel on 2,337,958

acres to existing roads, primitive

roads, and trails (Map 111).

This designation is an interim

designation until route-specific

planning can occur. At the

point at which route planning is

implemented, motorized travel

in the area will be limited to

designated roads and trails. For

more information on this process

see Appendix W (p. 1813).

Same as Alternative A, except

limit motorized travel on

2,213,081 acres (Map 112).

This designation is an interim

designation until route-specific

planning can occur. At the

point at which route planning is

implemented, motorized travel

in the area will be limited to

designated roads and trails. For

more information on this process

see Appendix W (p. 1813).

6045 LR: 6.1,

6.2, 6.3

Limit motorized travel in the

remainder of the planning area

to existing roads and trails (Map

109), except for the performance

of necessary tasks requiring

motorized travel (e.g., retrieving

big game carcasses, repairing

range improvements, managing

livestock, and mineral activities

where surface disturbance does not

total more than 5 acres as described

in the “5 acre exemption” under

the 43 CFR 3809 regulations).

Prohibit cross-country motorized

travel in all areas with limited

and closed travel management

designations (Map 110), with

the following exceptions and

supplementary stipulations:

● BLM authorization to exercise

valid existing rights

● For emergency and other

purposes as authorized under

8340.0-5(a)(2), (3), (4) and (5)

● Any non-amphibious registered

motorboat

● Any military, fire, emergency,

or law enforcement vehicle

while being used for emergency

purposes

● Any vehicle whose use is

expressly authorized by

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative B.

Authorizations or permits

that include motorized vehicle

activities shall address the use

of motorized vehicles as part

of the authorization or permit.

Authorized motorized vehicle

activities will require NEPA

analysis and other environmental

compliance actions and should be

compatible with the RMP goals

and objectives. Any motorized

vehicle use associated with

applying for an authorization

or permit is subject to the

regulations and policies related

to the particular application

process. See Management Actions

Common to All Alternatives for

February 2013

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource
166 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

6000 LAND RESOURCES (LR) – COMPREHENSIVE TRAILS AND TRAVEL MANAGEMENT

Record # Goal/Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

the Authorized Officer, or

otherwise officially approved

● Vehicles in official use

● Any combat or combat support

vehicle when used in times of

national defense emergencies

additional information regarding

use authorizations.

OVER-SNOW TRAVEL

6046 LR: 6, 7,

8, 9

Do not limit over-snow vehicle

travel.

Areas open to over-snow vehicle

travel must have a minimum

average of 12 inches of snow or be

recognized as a groomed motorized

trail such as the Continental

Divide Snowmobile Trail. If

these conditions do not exist, then

the over-land travel designations

regulate travel in the area.

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative B.

6047 LR: 7.1,

7.2, 7.3,

8.1, 9.1

Close the Red Canyon area (14,730

acres) to all forms of over-snow

travel including motorized and

nonmotorized use (Map 114).

Same as Alternative A, plus

explicitly close the following areas

to over-snow motorized travel

(Map 115):

● Beaver Creek Nordic Ski Area

(33 acres)

● East Fork (14,802 acres)

● Green Mountain (63,491 acres)

● Lander Slope (21,575 acres)

● Whiskey Mountain (2,209

acres)

Close the following WSAs to

over-snow motorized travel:

● Copper Mountain (6,936 acres)

● Lankin Dome (6,347 acres)

● Miller Springs (6,697 acres)

● Savage Peak (7,178 acres)

● Split Rock (13,963 acres)

● Sweetwater Canyon (9,135

acres)

Do not close any areas to

over-snow motorized travel.

The following areas are limited

(closed) seasonally to over-snow

motorized travel (Map 116):

● Lander Slope ACEC (except

the Bus @ Baldwin Creek,

Sinks Canyon Climbing Area

and Baldwin Creek Canyon

which are discussed below)

closed to over the snow

motorized vehicles December

1 to June 15 (21,558 acres)

● Red Canyon closed to travel

(human presence) from

December 1 to April 30 and

closed to motorized over-snow

travel December 1 to June 15

(15,109 acres)

● Whiskey Mountain ACEC

(except Whiskey Mountain

WSA and lands with

wilderness characteristics

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 167

6000 LAND RESOURCES (LR) – COMPREHENSIVE TRAILS AND TRAVEL MANAGEMENT

Record # Goal/Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

● Whiskey Mountain (519 acres)

Close the Little Red Creek

Complex (5,490 acres) of lands

with wilderness characteristics to

over-snow vehicle travel.

which are discussed below)

closed to motorized over-snow

travel December 1 to May

15 (5,089 acres)

● East Fork (except for

contiguous BLM-administered

lands intersected by the East

Fork County Road) closed

to all travel consistent with

WGFD-managed lands which

are currently closed December

16 to May 15

● Green Mountain closed to

motorized vehicles December

1 to June 15

Close the following areas to

over-snow motorized travel:

● Beaver Creek Nordic Ski Area

● The Bus @ Baldwin Creek

● Sinks Canyon Climbing Area

● Baldwin Creek Canyon

● Little Red Creek Complex

of lands with wilderness

characteristics

Close the following WSAs to

over-snow motorized travel:

● Copper Mountain (6,936

acres)

● Lankin Dome (6,347 acres)

● Miller Springs (6,697 acres)

● Savage Peak (7,177 acres)

● Split Rock (13,963 acres)

● Sweetwater Canyon (9,135

acres)

February 2013

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource
168 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

6000 LAND RESOURCES (LR) – COMPREHENSIVE TRAILS AND TRAVEL MANAGEMENT

Record # Goal/Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

● Whiskey Mountain (519 acres)

6048 LR: 6.1,

6.2, 6.3

Open the remainder of the planning

area to over-snow motorized travel

(2,379,481 acres) (Map 114). Do

not limit over-snow travel based

on snow depth.

Open the remainder of the planning

area to over-snow motorized

travel subject to snow depth

limits contained in Record 6046

(2,213,037 acres) (Map 115).

The planning area is open to

over-snow motorized travel. Do

not limit over-snow travel based

on snow depth.

The remainder of the planning area

is open to over-snow motorized

travel subject to snow depth

limits contained in Record 6046

(2,323,785 acres) (Map 116).

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 169

Table 2.31. 6000 Land Resources (LR) – Livestock Grazing Management

6000 LAND RESOURCES (LR) – LIVESTOCK GRAZING MANAGEMENT

Record # Goal/

Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

Goal LR: 10 Maintain or enhance rangeland health and livestock grazing opportunities.

Objectives:

LR: 10.1 Continue to assess rangeland health on a 10-year cycle in accordance with the Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands. Use rangeland health

assessments to prioritize rangeland management.

LR: 10.2 Implement grazing strategies, including range improvement projects, to maintain or enhance vegetative communities and ecosystem functions and

to achieve the Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands and grazing objectives in cooperation, consultation, and coordination with permittees/lessees,

cooperators and the interested public. Design all range projects in a manner that minimizes potential for invasive species establishment. Monitor for, and treat

invasive species associated with existing range improvements

LR: 10.3 Manage allotment and pasture boundaries to facilitate grazing management that maintains and enhances rangeland health.

LR: 10.4 Update and use the allotment priority ranking (Maintain, Improve, and Custodial categorization process) established in the 1987 RMP and update

allotment categories with new information as it becomes available.

LR: 10.5 Manage grazing to provide sustainable forage and establish allowable use levels in those areas authorized for livestock grazing.

LR: 10.6 Develop a forage reserve plan to identify and manage voluntary forage reserves within the planning area.

LR: 10.7 Identify and determine areas and/or allotments available for livestock grazing.

LR: 10.8 Support livestock grazing AUM levels consistent with multiple use and the ability of BLM-administered lands to provide adequate habitat and forage.

LR: 10.9 Manage grazing to assist with successful recovery, reclamation, rehabilitation and restoration of disturbed rangelands to meet the Wyoming Standards

for Healthy Rangelands.

LR: 10.10 As opportunities arise, remove or modify fences to facilitate livestock, wild horse, and wildlife movement and to reduce threats to animal safety.

MANAGEMENT ACTIONS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

6049 N/A Common Goals 3 and 5 apply to values associated with livestock grazing.

February 2013

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource
170 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

6000 LAND RESOURCES (LR) – LIVESTOCK GRAZING MANAGEMENT

Record # Goal/

Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

6050 LR: 10.1,

10.2

In cooperation, consultation, and coordination with permittees/lessees, cooperators, and stakeholders including interested parties, develop and

implement appropriate livestock grazing management actions to address the Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands, improve forage

for livestock, and enhance rangeland health. Within greater sage-grouse Core Area, incorporate greater sage-grouse habitat objectives and

management considerations into all BLM grazing allotments containing greater sage-grouse habitat through AMPs or permit renewals.

Consider the application of BMPs for the protection of greater sage-grouse as terms and conditions of grazing permit/lease renewals. In areas

where Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands are not being met or are not making progress towards meeting standards, because of current

livestock grazing, modify existing permits or condition the issuance of new permits on the implementation of new grazing strategies to meet

standards in accordance with grazing regulations. Apply appropriate BMPs (Appendix H (p. 1521)) as terms and conditions of the permit.

6051 LR: 10.4 Categorize allotments as M, I, and C (see Appendix K (p. 1547)) and re-categorize as necessary. Re-categorizations from the 1987 RMP

are identified in Appendix K (p. 1547).

6052 LR: 10.2,

10.3, 10.5

A total of 69,276 acres, of which 38,058 acres cannot be made suitable for grazing and includes previously retired allotments, are unavailable

for grazing (Maps 117-119).

6053 LR: 10.7 Retain designated stock driveways. Permit other livestock trails on a case-by-case basis.

6054 LR: 10.1 Monitor precipitation and vegetative production trends on BLM-administered lands as a tool to understand impacts to soil, water, and

vegetative resources. Monitor measurable objectives and evaluate grazing management to assume that management actions are achieving

greater sage-grouse habitat objectives.

6055 LR: 10.1 On a case-by-case basis adjust allotment and pasture boundaries, including combining allotments, to facilitate management and to achieve

progress towards rangeland health. Review livestock conversions on a case-by-case basis.

6056 LR 10.8 Require that forage supplements have label information stating that the material is safe/compatible for sheep, wildlife, and wild horses in areas

where conflicts exist. Require that all forage supplement labels be submitted to the field office for approval by the Authorized Officer prior to use.

6057 LR: 10.3 Conduct grazing program monitoring (see Glossary) of allotments by focusing on Category I allotments in order of priority starting with those

allotments that have degraded riparian-wetland areas or are in whole or in part in greater sage-grouse Core Area. The level of monitoring

will be commensurate with the intensity of grazing. Modify BLM-authorized grazing use on an allotment-by-allotment basis to protect soil,

water, vegetative resources, and wildlife.

6058 LR: 10.9 Modify or implement livestock grazing strategies (Appendix K (p. 1547)) to facilitate successful reclamation efforts.

6059 LR: 10.3,

10.5

Continue implementation of existing AMPs. Develop and implement new comprehensive grazing strategies and AMPs with grazing

permittees/lessees and interested publics to achieve desired resource goals. Grant administrative use authorizations on a case-by-case basis

with approval from the Authorized Officer. All access agreements will specify the following: what type of use is allowed and for what

purpose, times, dates or seasons of access, where the use will occur, and additional stipulations required to provide for adequate resource

protection and to meet pertinent planning decisions.

6060 LR: 10 Changes in the current amounts, kinds, and season of livestock grazing use will be based on a rangeland health assessment or if resource

monitoring indicates that a grazing use adjustment is necessary or an analysis indicates that a requested change in grazing use is appropriate.

MANAGEMENT ACTIONS BY ALTERNATIVE

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 171

6000 LAND RESOURCES (LR) – LIVESTOCK GRAZING MANAGEMENT

Record # Goal/

Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

6061 LR: 10.7,

10.8

The planning area is open to

livestock grazing except for

parcels identified on Map 117.

2,324,934 acres are open to

grazing.

69,276 acres are unavailable to

livestock grazing.

The planning area is open to

livestock grazing except for parcels

identified on Map 118.

2,312,095 acres are open to grazing.

69,276 acres are unavailable to

livestock grazing.

Same as Alternative A. The planning area is open to

livestock grazing except for parcels

identified on Map 119.

2,317,368 acres are open to grazing.

69,276 acres are unavailable to

grazing.

6062 LR: 10.3,

10.5, 10.6

Acquired lands are open

to livestock grazing on a

case-by-case basis consistent

with the management objectives

for the acquisition or the area in

which the land is located, such as

an ACEC.

Acquired lands are closed to

livestock grazing.

Acquired lands are open to

livestock grazing.

Same as Alternative A.

6063 LR: 10.3,

10.5, 10.6

No similar action. Where livestock grazing permits

are voluntarily relinquished, the

BLM will close the area to livestock

grazing.

Re-offer relinquished livestock

grazing permits; do not close the

area to livestock grazing.

When livestock grazing permits

and/or grazing preference are

voluntarily relinquished in portions

of or all of an allotment, analyze

appropriate livestock grazing

management including considering

closure to livestock grazing based

on benefits to resources and other

uses.

6064 LR: 10.5,

10.6

No similar action. Establish and manage future forage

reserves as opportunities arise

within the planning area on a

voluntary basis or as lands are

acquired.

Do not establish forage reserves. Same as Alternative B.

February 2013

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource
172 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

6000 LAND RESOURCES (LR) – LIVESTOCK GRAZING MANAGEMENT

Record # Goal/

Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

6065 LR: 10.7 No similar action. Permit extended periods of non-use

of grazing preference, without

penalty, on a case-by-case basis

when the advantage to greater

sage-grouse habitat or other

resource values warrant, and a

permittee or lessee voluntarily takes

non-use of their grazing preference

in a specific grazing allotment.

No similar action. Same as Alternative B.

6066 LR: 10.2,

10.5, 10.8

Allow new range improvements

on a case-by-case basis.

Utilize non-infrastructure livestock

grazing management to maintain,

enhance, or achieve rangeland

health. Prohibit new range

improvements if adverse impacts to

other resources would result.

Utilize all livestock

grazing management

including infrastructure and

non-infrastructure to maintain,

enhance, or achieve rangeland

health.

Utilizing Required Design Features

and BMPs such as those in

Appendix H (p. 1521) applied as

COA, develop and install range

improvement projects necessary to

implement comprehensive grazing

strategies leading to improved

rangeland health or to enhance

successful comprehensive grazing

strategies (see Glossary) already

in place. Benefits associated with

the projected improvement in

rangeland health should exceed the

adverse impacts associated with

the project infrastructure. Avoid

projects that would expand grazing

on the landscape without a clear

link to a Comprehensive Grazing

Strategy and consideration of other

resources.

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 173

6000 LAND RESOURCES (LR) – LIVESTOCK GRAZING MANAGEMENT

Record # Goal/

Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

6067 LR: 10.10 No similar action (many of

these items are addressed on a

case-by-case basis).

No similar action (many of

these items are addressed on a

case-by-case basis).

No similar action (many of

these items are addressed on a

case-by-case basis).

Include terms and conditions on

grazing permits and leases that

ensure plant growth requirements

are met, and residual forage remains

available for greater sage-grouse

hiding cover as necessary. Specify

as necessary:

● No new range improvement

projects within 1⁄2 mile of water

and riparian-wetland areas,

regional historic trails, and

early highways (or as needed to

protect the setting, so long as

impacts are not visible).

● Intensity of use (utilization)

subject to the provisions of

Records 4018, 6050, and 6068;

● Develop project-specific

BMPs that become terms and

conditions.

6068 LR: 10.5,

10.8

Unless otherwise specified,

establish allotment stocking rates

to maximize utilization of forage

in areas preferred by livestock,

while achieving standards for

rangeland health. This action

generally corresponds with a

moderate (41 to 60 percent)

utilization level.

Establish allotment stocking rates

in areas preferred by livestock

to achieve an adequate residual

forage standard used as cover for

wildlife and to be made available

for utilization by wildlife and

wild horses. This action generally

corresponds with a light (21 to 40

percent) utilization level.

Same as Alternative A. Establish stocking rates in areas

preferred by livestock that

allow for appropriate utilization

levels by livestock adjusted

for the anticipated intensity

of use necessary to provide

sufficient forage and cover to

support and maintain healthy

diverse wildlife and wild horse

populations, and to achieve

Wyoming Standards for Healthy

Rangelands. Utilization levels may

vary based on the implementation

of a Comprehensive Grazing

Strategy or as needed to achieve

vegetation objectives.

February 2013

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource
174 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

6000 LAND RESOURCES (LR) – LIVESTOCK GRAZING MANAGEMENT

Record # Goal/

Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

6069 LR: 10.9,

10.10

No similar action (many of

these items are addressed on a

case-by-case basis).

No similar action (many of

these items are addressed on a

case-by-case basis).

No similar action (many of

these items are addressed on a

case-by-case basis).

Prioritize completion of land health

assessments and processing of

grazing permits within greater

sage-grouse Core Area and on

allotments with riparian-wetland

areas in failing condition.

Emphasize allotments that

have the best opportunities for

riparian-wetland improvement

or for conserving, enhancing,

or restoring habitat for greater

sage-grouse.

When conducting land health

assessments, include indicators

and measurements of structure,

condition, and composition of

vegetation specific to achieving

greater sage‐grouse habitat

objectives. If local/state seasonal

habitat objectives are not available,

use greater sage‐grouse habitat

recommendations from Connelly et

al. 2000 and Hagen et al. 2007 or

as more recent research suggests.

Work cooperatively with

permittees, lessees, and

other landowners to develop

comprehensive grazing strategies

to develop site-specific objectives

to conserve, enhance or restore

greater sage-grouse Core Area and

general habitat areas. Develop a

Comprehensive Grazing Strategy

to achieve these objectives. In

Core Area, monitor measurable

objectives in representative sites

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 175

6000 LAND RESOURCES (LR) – LIVESTOCK GRAZING MANAGEMENT

Record # Goal/

Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

and evaluate grazing management

to ensure that management actions

are achieving greater sage-grouse

habitat objectives.

6070 LR: 10.2,

10.9

No similar action (many of

these items are addressed on a

case-by-case basis).

No similar action (many of

these items are addressed on a

case-by-case basis).

No similar action (many of

these items are addressed on a

case-by-case basis).

Prioritize the management of

hot-season grazing on riparian

and meadow complexes to

promote recovery or maintenance

of appropriate vegetation and

water quality through the use of

comprehensive grazing strategies as

identified in Appendix K (p. 1547).

In areas of continuous season-long

grazing where rangeland health

standards are not met, modify

existing grazing permits to

incorporate rest and/or deferment

of grazing to facilitate rangeland

health recovery and attainment of

rangeland health standards.

6071 LR:10.8,

10.9

No similar action (many of

these items are addressed on a

case-by-case basis).

No similar action (many of

these items are addressed on a

case-by-case basis).

No similar action (many of

these items are addressed on a

case-by-case basis).

Manage drought and post-drought

recovery periods for the

maintenance and improvement

of rangeland health, and the cover

and forage needs of all grazing

animals and wildlife.

February 2013

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource
176 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

6000 LAND RESOURCES (LR) – LIVESTOCK GRAZING MANAGEMENT

Record # Goal/

Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

6072 LR: 10.9 No similar action (many of

these items are addressed on a

case-by-case basis).

No similar action (many of

these items are addressed on a

case-by-case basis).

No similar action (many of

these items are addressed on a

case-by-case basis).

Evaluate existing project

infrastructure in the development of

comprehensive grazing strategies.

Identify projects that are no

longer necessary, or that are

contributing to adverse impacts

to other resources, and modify or

remove projects as appropriate to

mitigate impacts, in conjunction

with comprehensive grazing

strategies. Evaluate whether the

infrastructure contributes to the

introduction or spread of INNS,

and develop mitigation (including

removal of infrastructure) to reduce

or eliminate weed infestation and

spread.

6073 LR: 10.2 Prohibit placement of salt and

mineral supplements such as

low moisture block supplements

within 1⁄4 mile of water and

riparian-wetland areas.

Prohibit placement of salt and

mineral supplements, such as low

moisture block supplements:

● closer than 1⁄2 mile to water

and riparian-wetland areas and

regional historic trails and early

highways or as needed to protect

setting

● within 0.6 mile of a greater

sage-grouse lek

● on areas being reclaimed

● within 3 miles on each side of

the NHTs unless the project and

its associated impacts are not

visible from the NHTs

Same as Alternative A, plus use

the placement of salt and mineral

supplements to maximize the

utilization of the resource.

Prohibit placement of salt and

mineral supplements, such as low

moisture block supplements in the

following areas:

● within 1⁄2 mile of water

and riparian-wetland areas,

regional historic trails and

early highways or as needed

to protect setting, so long as

impacts are not visible.

● within 0.6 mile of the perimeter

of greater sage-grouse leks

● on areas being reclaimed

Locate supplements (salt or

mineral blocks) in a manner

designed to conserve, enhance, or

restore greater sage‐grouse habitat.

6074 LR: 10.10 Remove or modify fences and

cattleguards on a case-by-case

basis to facilitate livestock, wild

Where opportunities exist, remove

or modify existing fences and

Where opportunities exist, remove

or modify fences and cattleguards

Same as Alternative A, plus remove

or modify fences and cattleguards

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 177

6000 LAND RESOURCES (LR) – LIVESTOCK GRAZING MANAGEMENT

Record # Goal/

Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

horses, and wildlife movement

and management.

cattleguards to enhance other

resource values.

as needed to facilitate livestock

movement and management.

while enhancing other resource

values.

February 2013

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource
178 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table 2.32. 6000 Land Resources (LR) – Recreation

6000 LAND RESOURCES (LR) – RECREATION

Record # Goal/

Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

Goal LR: 11 Respond to distinct recreation customer demand by providing for customer realization of diverse activity, experience, and benefit opportunities.

Objectives:

LR: 11.1 Manage SRMAs for specific visitors, affected community residents, local governments and private sector businesses, or other constituents and the

communities or other places where these customers originate (recreation-tourism market).

LR: 11.2 SRMA Objective: Specific outcome-focused objectives, recreation setting character conditions, and the administrative, marketing, and monitoring

framework can be found in Appendix C (p. 1453).

Goal LR: 12 Manage to maintain or improve visitor safety, respond to use/user conflicts, and provide for resource protection.

Objectives:

LR: 12.1 Visitor Services 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 ACEC and WSR) objectives.

LR: 12.2 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).

LR: 12.3 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 landowners sufficient to curb illegal trespass and property damage;

and (3) other recreation participants sufficient to maintain a diversity of recreation activity participation.

Goal LR: 13 Ensure the facilitation of Hunting Heritage and Wildlife Conservation.

Objectives:

LR: 13.1 Expand wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities on BLM-administered lands.

LR: 13.2 Improve and enhance access to BLM-administered lands important for wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities.

LR: 13.3 Ensure the enjoyment of wildlife-dependent recreation among various demographic groups.

LR: 13.4 Facilitate trophy/high quality hunting opportunities in WGFD hunt units targeted for special management criteria.

MANAGEMENT ACTIONS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 179

6000 LAND RESOURCES (LR) – RECREATION

Record # Goal/

Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

6075 LR: 11 Continue to allow for all recreation activity types in areas allocated as an SRMA or RMZ unless otherwise specified in this land use plan or

a subsequent activity level plan. In greater sage-grouse Core Area, authorize SRPs that, through mitigation or design, will have neutral or

beneficial impacts to greater sage-grouse.

6076 LR: 12.1,

12.2, 12.3

As funding allows, utilize on the ground monitoring to ensure objectives 8.1-8.3 are achieved. Through an adaptive management approach,

utilize the minimum necessary remedial actions to achieve the stated objective(s).

6077 LR: 12.1,

12.2, 12.3

Apply a 14-day campsite occupancy limit throughout the planning area.

6078 LR: 12.1,

12.2, 12.3

Issue SRPs for commercial, competitive, or organized group activities as tools to achieve area specific planning goals, objectives, and decisions.

6079 LR: 12 Establish new fee sites on a case-by-case basis consistent with the provisions of the REA and as necessary to support management and

maintenance of developed sites and related amenities. Where appropriate to the recreational setting of all CDNST SRMAs and ERMAs,

enhance the availability of dependable non-potable water sources for users.

6080 LR: 13.2 Cooperatively pursue offsite mitigation opportunities and other partnerships to enhance wildlife-dependent recreational access to: (1)

landlocked BLM-administered lands, and (2) voluntary participation of private lands with high wildlife values.

6081 LR: 13.3 Allow any individual possessing a valid disabled hunter permit or disabled hunter companion permit from the WGFD to utilize cross-country

motorized travel (in all areas except those closed to motorized travel) to retrieve big game carcasses. Additionally exempt scooters or

wheelchairs utilized by valid permit holders from travel management restrictions.

6082 LR: 13.4 Several WGFD hunt units managed under special criteria overlap with the landscapes associated with Congressionally Designated Trails and

most ACECs considered in the Special Designations section. Additional management actions and allowable uses associated with WGFD hunt

units managed under special criteria are therefore contained in the Special Designations section.

6083 LR: 11.1 Additional management actions for SRMAs and ERMAs are contained in Appendix C (p. 1453).

MANAGEMENT ACTIONS BY ALTERNATIVE

DEVELOPED SITE MANAGEMENT

6084 LR: 11, 12 Mineral and realty actions

within the following developed

recreation sites (Map 120)

are managed with Category 5

restrictions:

● Castle Gardens Archeology

Site (78 acres)

● Atlantic City Campground

(184 acres)

● Big Atlantic Gulch (181 acres)

● Cottonwood Campground (80

acres)

Same as Alternative A, plus mineral

and realty actions within developed

recreation sites and the following

areas are managed with Category 6

restrictions (Map 120):

● Devils Gate Interpretive Site

(112 acres)

● Martins Cove Trail (927 acres)

● Split Rock Rest Interpretive

Site (242 acres)

The developed recreation sites

identified in Alternative A are

subject to Category 1 restrictions.

Same locations as alternatives

A and B, but mineral and realty

actions in all these areas are

managed as follows (Map 120):

● Open to oil and gas leasing

subject to NSO stipulations

● Closed to geophysical

exploration

● Closed to phosphate leasing

● Closed to pursue withdrawal

from locatable mineral entry

(to the extent the areas are not

February 2013

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource
180 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

6000 LAND RESOURCES (LR) – RECREATION

Record # Goal/

Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

● Lands adjacent to the Fremont

County Campground (20

acres)

● Miners Delight (239 acres)

● Wildhorse Point (20 acres)

● Steamboat Lake Overlook (128

acres)

withdrawn under pre-FLMPA

withdrawals.)

● Closed to mineral materials

disposal

● Excluded to major ROWs

● Excluded to minor ROWs

6085 LR: 11, 12 No similar action. Future developed recreation sites

and future national/regional trails,

local system trails that connect

communities, and trailheads and

interpretive sites with exceptional

recreational values or significant

public interest are managed with

Category 2 restrictions.

Relocate or remove new sites

and trails in the event that

leasable mineral activity cannot be

sufficiently mitigated.

In the Green Mountain ERMA

(129,579 acres) future and existing

recreation sites, national/regional

trails, local system trails, and

trailheads and interpretive sites

with exceptional recreational

values or significant public interest

are managed with Category 2

restrictions.

RECREATION AND VISITOR SERVICES OVERVIEW

6086 LR: 11,

11.1, 13.1,

13.3

Manage the following three

SRMAs for the protection of the

recreation outcomes and setting

prescriptions (Map 90):

● The CDNST SRMA (111,276

acres)

● The Oregon-Mormon Pioneer

NHT SRMA (281,316 acres)

● South Pass Historic Mining

Area SRMA (13,865 acres)

Note: The guidance on SRMA

management has changed

since the 1987 RMP. SRMA

management for the above areas

would resemble the management

detailed for Alternative B.

Administratively recognize

the following SRMAs for the

protection of the recreation

outcomes and setting prescriptions

(Map 91) (66,363 acres) (Appendix

C (p. 1453)):

Lander Valley Community

SRMA (6,892 acres):

The SRMA includes 3 RMZs:

1. Sustain or enhance the

Johnny Behind the Rocks

RMZ (5,594 acres) for

nonmotorized recreationists

to engage in horseback riding,

hiking, trail running, wildlife

viewing, and mountain biking

so that visitors report a higher

than average realization

Administratively recognize one

SRMA for the protection of the

recreation outcomes and setting

prescriptions (Map 92) (Appendix

C (p. 1453)):

Dubois Mill Site Community

SRMA (608 acres):

Sustain or enhance the SRMA

for nonmotorized and motorized

recreationists to engage in hiking,

walking, horseback riding, and

motorized vehicle trail riding so

that visitors report a higher than

average realization of experience

and benefit outcomes listed in

Appendix C (p. 1453).

Administratively recognize the

following SRMAs for the protection

of the recreation outcomes and

setting prescriptions (Map 93)

(Appendix C (p. 1453)):

Lander Valley Community

SRMA (6,126 acres):

The SRMA includes 3 RMZs:

1. Sustain or enhance the

Johnny Behind the Rocks

RMZ (4,828 acres) for

nonmotorized recreationists

to engage in horseback riding,

hiking, trail running, wildlife

viewing, and mountain biking

so that visitors report a higher

than average realization

of experience and benefit

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 181

6000 LAND RESOURCES (LR) – RECREATION

Record # Goal/

Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

of experience and benefit

outcomes listed in Appendix

C (p. 1453).

2. Sustain or enhance The Bus @

Baldwin Creek RMZ (1,159

acres) for nonmotorized

recreationists to engage in

horseback riding, hiking, trail

running, and mountain biking

so that visitors report a higher

than average realization

of experience and benefit

outcomes listed in Appendix

C (p. 1453).

3. Sustain or enhance the Sinks

Canyon Climbing RMZ (139

acres) for muscle-powered

recreationists to engage

in climbing and hiking so

that participants in visitor

assessments/surveys report a

higher than average (average

of 4.0 on a 5 point scale)

realization of experience and

benefit outcomes listed in

Appendix C (p. 1453).

Dubois Mill Site Community

SRMA (608 acres):

Sustain or enhance the SRMA

for nonmotorized recreationists

to engage in hiking, walking,

horseback riding, wildlife viewing,

and hunting so that visitors report a

higher than average realization of

experience and benefit outcomes

listed in Appendix C (p. 1453).

outcomes listed in Appendix

C (p. 1453).

2. Sustain or enhance The Bus @

Baldwin Creek RMZ (1,159

acres) for nonmotorized

recreationists to engage in

horseback riding, hiking, trail

running, and mountain biking

so that visitors report a higher

than average realization

of experience and benefit

outcomes listed in Appendix

C (p. 1453).

3. Sustain or enhance the Sinks

Canyon Climbing RMZ (139

acres) for muscle-powered

recreationists to engage

in climbing and hiking so

that participants in visitor

assessments/surveys report a

higher than average (average

of 4.0 on a 5 point scale)

realization of experience and

benefit outcomes listed in

Appendix C (p. 1453).

Dubois Mill Site Community

SRMA (608 acres):

Sustain or enhance the SRMA

for nonmotorized recreationists

to engage in hiking, walking,

horseback riding, wildlife viewing,

and hunting so that visitors report a

higher than average realization of

experience and benefit outcomes

listed in Appendix C (p. 1453).

February 2013

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource
182 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

6000 LAND RESOURCES (LR) – RECREATION

Record # Goal/

Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

Sweetwater Rocks Undeveloped

SRMA (49,727 acres):

Sustain or enhance the SRMA

for back country enthusiasts to

engage in hiking, backpacking,

climbing, horseback riding,

hunting, and wildlife viewing so

that visitors report a higher than

average realization of experience

and benefit outcomes listed in

Appendix C (p. 1453).

Sweetwater Canyon Undeveloped

SRMA (9,136 acres):

Sustain or enhance the SRMA

for back country enthusiasts to

engage in hiking, backpacking,

fishing, horseback riding, hunting,

and wildlife viewing so that

visitors report a higher than

average realization of experience

and benefit outcomes listed in

Appendix C (p. 1453).

Sweetwater Rocks Undeveloped

SRMA (41,806 acres):

Sustain or enhance the SRMA for

back country enthusiasts to engage

in hiking, backpacking, climbing,

horseback riding, hunting, and

wildlife viewing so that visitors

report a higher than average

realization of experience and

benefit outcomes listed in Appendix

C (p. 1453).

Sweetwater Canyon Undeveloped

SRMA (9,136 acres):

Sustain or enhance the SRMA for

back country enthusiasts to engage

in hiking, backpacking, fishing,

horseback riding, hunting, and

wildlife viewing so that visitors

report a higher than average that

realization of experience and

benefit outcomes listed in Appendix

C (p. 1453).

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 183

6000 LAND RESOURCES (LR) – RECREATION

Record # Goal/

Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

6087 LR: 12.1,

12.2, 12.3,

13.1, 13.3

Manage the following areas as

individual ERMAs to specifically

address local recreation issues

(Map 90):

● Beaver Rim (2,937 acres)

● Castle Gardens (78 acres)

● Copper Mountain (6,936

acres)

● Dubois Badlands (3,499

acres)

● Government Draw (2,988

acres)

● Green Mountain (53,302

acres)

● Lander Slope/Red Canyon

(40,175 acres)

● Lysite Badlands (6,867 acres)

● Sweetwater Canyon (9,135

acres)

● Sweetwater Rocks (34,186

acres)

● Whiskey Mountain/East Fork

(3,084 acres)

Manage BLM-administered lands

not included in separate ERMAs

or SRMAs as part of the Lander

ERMA.

Manage the following areas as

individual ERMAs to specifically

address local recreation issues

(Map 91):

● Agate Flats (444,594 acres)

● Beaver Creek Nordic Ski Area

(64 acres)

● Castle Gardens (78 acres)

● Copper Mountain (6,936 acres)

● Dubois Badlands (4,561 acres)

● Coalmine Draw (2,272 acres)

● Green Mountain (127,458

acres)

● Lander Slope/Red Canyon

(38,874 acres)

● Muskrat Basin (120,120 acres)

● Whiskey Mountain/East Fork

(15,234 acres)

Manage BLM-administered lands

not within ERMAs or SRMAs as

part of the Lander ERMA.

Identify the following areas as

individual ERMAs to specifically

address local recreation issues:

Same as Alternative B with the

following changes (Map 92):

● Agate Flats (497,353 acres)

● Sweetwater Canyon (9,137

acres)

● Sweetwater Rocks (34,156

acres)

● The Coalmine Draw area is

not managed as an ERMA.

Instead, lease the Coalmine

Draw area through a R&PP

Act lease.

Manage BLM-administrated lands

not included in separate ERMAs

(above) or SRMAs as part of the

Lander ERMA.

Manage the following areas as

individual ERMAs to specifically

address local recreation issues (Map

93):

● Beaver Creek Nordic Ski Area

(748 acres)

● Green Mountain (129,579

acres)

● Lander Slope/Red Canyon

(38,876 acres)

● Whiskey Mountain/East Fork

(15,913 acres)

6088 LR: 12.1,

12.2, 12.3

Mineral and realty actions in

the Beaver Creek Ski Area

are managed with Category 1

restrictions.

Mineral and realty actions in the

Beaver Creek Ski Area are managed

with Category 2 restrictions to

protect trail investments and human

health and safety (Map 91).

Same as Alternative A. Manage the Beaver Creek Ski Area

as VRM Class II.

LANDER VALLEY

JOHNNY BEHIND THE ROCKS

February 2013

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource
184 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

6000 LAND RESOURCES (LR) – RECREATION

Record # Goal/

Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

6089 LR: 11.2,

12.1, 12.2,

12.3, 13.1,

13.2, 13.3

Review mineral leases in the

Johnny Behind the Rocks area on

a case-by-case basis and apply

mitigation through activity level

planning. Mineral and realty

actions in the area are managed

with Category 1 restrictions.

Mineral and realty actions in the

Johnny Behind the Rocks RMZ

are managed with Category 4

restrictions.

Mineral and realty actions in the

Johnny Behind the Rocks area

are managed with Category 1

restrictions. Relocate or remove

visitor services and facilities as

necessary to accommodate leasing

actions.

Mineral and realty actions in the

Johnny Behind the Rocks RMZ

are managed with the following

restrictions:

● Oil and gas leasing subject to

NSO.

● Closed to geophysical

exploration.

● Closed to phosphate

exploration.

● Closed in order to pursue

withdrawal from locatable

mineral entry.

● Closed to mineral material

sales.

● Excluded from realty actions.

6090 LR: 11.2,

12.1, 12.2,

12.3, 13.1,

13.2, 13.3

Limit motorized travel in the

Johnny Behind the Rocks area to

existing roads and trails.

Close the Johnny Behind the Rocks

RMZ to motorized travel.

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative B, except with

an allowance for administrative

access agreement with livestock

grazing permittees. Do not close

roads in Blue/Ridge Johnny Spring

Area. Cedar ridge road will be

closed as a result of this decision.

6091 LR: 11.2,

12.1, 12.2,

12.3, 13.1,

13.2, 13.3

Open the Johnny Behind the

Rocks area to cross-country

mechanized travel.

Limit mechanized travel in the

Johnny Behind the Rocks RMZ to

designated routes.

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A.

6092 LR: 11.2,

12.1, 12.2,

12.3, 13.1,

13.2, 13.3

Manage the Johnny Behind the

Rocks area as VRM Class III and

IV.

Manage the Johnny Behind the

Rocks RMZ as VRM Class II.

Manage the Johnny Behind the

Rocks area as VRM Class IV.

Same as Alternative B.

THE BUS @ BALDWIN CREEK AREA

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 185

6000 LAND RESOURCES (LR) – RECREATION

Record # Goal/

Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

6093 LR: 11.2,

12.1, 12.2,

12.3

Mineral and realty actions in

The Bus @ Baldwin Creek area

are managed with Category 3

restrictions.

Mineral and realty actions in

The Bus @ Baldwin Creek RMZ

are managed with Category 6

restrictions.

Mineral and realty actions in

The Bus @ Baldwin Creek area

are managed with Category 1

restrictions. Relocate or remove

visitor services and facilities as

necessary to accommodate leasing

actions.

Mineral and realty actions in The

Bus @ Baldwin Creek RMZ is

within the Lander Slope ACEC;

therefore, the mineral and realty

actions in this area are detailed in

the Special Designations section.

6094 LR: 11.2,

12.1, 12.2,

12.3

Limit motorized travel in The

Bus @ Baldwin Creek Area to

designated roads and trails.

Close The Bus @ Baldwin Creek

RMZ to motorized travel.

Limit motorized travel in The Bus

@ Baldwin Creek area to existing

roads and trails.

Same as Alternative B, plus allow

livestock grazing administrative use

authorization.

6095 LR: 11.2,

12.1, 12.2,

12.3

The Bus @ Baldwin Creek area is

open to cross-country mechanized

travel.

Limit mechanized travel in The

Bus @ Baldwin Creek RMZ to

designated routes.

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A.

6096 LR: 11.2,

12.1, 12.2,

12.3

Manage The Bus @ Baldwin

Creek area as VRM Class III.

Manage The Bus @ Baldwin Creek

RMZ as VRM Class II.

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative B.

SINKS CANYON CLIMBING AREA

6097 LR: 11.2,

12.1, 12.2,

12.3

Mineral and realty actions in

the Sinks Canyon Climbing area

are managed with Category 3

restrictions.

Mineral and realty actions in the

Sinks Canyon Climbing RMZ

are managed with Category 6

restrictions.

Mineral and realty actions in

the Sinks Canyon Climbing area

are managed with Category 1

restrictions.

Mineral and realty actions in the

Sinks Canyon Climbing RMZ

are restricted by the Lander

Slope ACEC. See the Special

Designations alternatives for

applicable management.

6098 LR: 11.2,

12.1, 12.2,

12.3

The Sinks Canyon Climbing

area is open to cross-country

mechanized travel.

Limit mechanized travel in the

Sinks Canyon Climbing RMZ to

designated routes.

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A.

6099 LR: 11.2,

12.1, 12.2,

12.3

Limit motorized travel in the

Sinks Canyon Climbing area to

designated roads and trails. No

designated motorized route exists

within this area.

Close the Sinks Canyon Climbing

RMZ to motorized travel.

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A.

6100 LR: 11.2,

12.1, 12.2,

12.3

Manage the Sinks Canyon

Climbing area as VRM Class II.

Same as Alternative A. Manage the Sinks Canyon

Climbing area as VRM Class III.

Same as Alternative A.

DUBOIS MILL-SITE AREA

February 2013

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource
186 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

6000 LAND RESOURCES (LR) – RECREATION

Record # Goal/

Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

6101 LR: 11.2,

12.1, 12.2,

12.3, 13.1,

13.2, 13.3

Mineral and realty actions

in the Dubois Mill-Site area

are managed with Category 3

restrictions.

Mineral and realty actions in the

Dubois Mill-Site SRMA area

are managed with Category 6

restrictions.

Mineral and realty actions in

the Dubois Mill-Site SRMA

are managed with Category 1

restrictions.

Mineral and realty actions in

the Dubois Mill-Site SRMA

are managed with the following

restriction:

● Closed to oil and gas leasing

● Closed to geophysical

exploration

● Closed to phosphate leasing

● Open to locatable minerals

● Closed to mineral material

disposals

● Excluded to major ROWs

● Avoided for minor ROWs

6102 LR: 11.2,

12.1, 12.2,

12.3, 13.1,

13.2, 13.3

Limit motorized travel in

the Dubois Mill-Site area to

designated roads and trails.

Close the Dubois Mill-Site SRMA

to motorized travel.

Limit motorized travel in the

Dubois Mill-Site SRMA to

existing roads and trails.

Motorized travel in the Dubois

Mill-Site SRMA will be limited

seasonally (closed between

December 1 to May 15) and to

designated roads and trails.

6103 LR: 11.2,

12.1, 12.2,

12.3, 13.1,

13.2, 13.3

Open the Dubois Mill-Site area to

cross-country mechanized travel.

Limit mechanized travel in the

Dubois Mill-Site SRMA to

designated routes.

Same as Alternative A. Mechanized travel in the Dubois

Mill- Site SRMA will be limited

seasonally (closed between

December 1 to May 15) and to

designated roads and trails.

6104 LR: 11.2,

12.1, 12.2,

12.3, 13.1,

13.2, 13.3

Manage the Dubois Mill-Site area

as VRM Class III.

Manage the Dubois Mill-Site

SRMA as VRM Class II.

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative B.

SWEETWATER CANYON

6105 LR: 11.2,

12.1, 12.2,

12.3, 13.1,

13.2, 13.3

The Sweetwater Canyon WSA is

open to livestock grazing.

Note: Livestock grazing in all

WSAs, including the Sweetwater

Canyon WSA, is managed in

accordance with BLM Manual

6330, Management of Wilderness

Study Areas.

The fenced area of the Sweetwater

Canyon SRMA is closed to

livestock grazing in order to

enhance recreation, watershed, and

wilderness values.

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. If grazing

permits in Sweetwater Canyon are

voluntarily relinquished the BLM

will close the area to livestock

grazing.

SWEETWATER ROCKS

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 187

6000 LAND RESOURCES (LR) – RECREATION

Record # Goal/

Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

6106 LR: 11.2,

12.1, 12.2,

12.3, 13.1,

13.2, 13.3

No similar action. Work in cooperation with all

partners to pursue improved

nonmotorized access.

Same as Alternative B. Same as Alternative B.

6107 LR: 11.2,

12.1, 12.2,

12.3, 13.1,

13.2, 13.3

Mineral and realty actions in

the area inside the WSA are

managed under BLM Manual

6330, Management of Wilderness

Study Areas. Mineral and realty

actions in the area outside of the

WSA (15,542 acres) are managed

with Category 1 restrictions.

Mineral and realty actions in

the area inside of the WSA are

managed under BLM Manual 6330,

Management of Wilderness Study

Areas. Mineral and realty actions

in the area outside of the WSA

(15,542 acres) are managed with

Category 5 restrictions.

Mineral and realty actions in

the area inside of the WSA are

managed under BLM Manual

6330, Management of Wilderness

Study Areas. Mineral and realty

actions in the area outside of the

WSA (15,542 acres) are managed

with Category 1 restrictions.

Mineral and realty actions in

the area inside of the WSA are

managed under BLM Manual 6330,

Management of Wilderness Study

Areas. Mineral and realty actions in

the area outside of the WSA (7,622

acres) are managed in the fashion

detailed under the Sweetwater

Rocks special designations section.

6108 LR: 11.2,

12.1, 12.2,

12.3, 13.1,

13.2, 13.3

Limit motorized travel in the area

outside of the WSA to existing

roads and trails.

Limit motorized travel within the

SRMA in the area outside of the

WSA to designated roads and trails.

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A, until

a Travel Management Plan is

completed, at which time motorized

travel will be limited to designated

routes.

6109 LR: 11.2,

12.1, 12.2,

12.3, 13.1,

13.2, 13.3

Open the area outside of the WSA

to cross-country mechanized

travel.

Limit mechanized travel in the area

of the SRMA outside of the WSA

to designated routes.

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A.

6110 LR: 11.2,

12.1, 12.2,

12.3, 13.1,

13.2, 13.3

No similar action. Work in cooperation with all

partners to pursue improved

nonmotorized access.

Same as Alternative B. Same as Alternative B.

6111 LR: 11.2,

12.1, 12.2,

12.3

Manage the area outside of the

WSA as VRM Class II.

Same as Alternative A. Manage the area outside of the

WSA as VRM Class III.

See management in the Sweetwater

Rocks Special Designations section

for VRM management in this area.

COALMINE DRAW AREA

6112 LR: 12.1,

12.2, 12.3

Manage the Coalmine Draw

area as part of the Government

Draw ERMA (Map 90). Focus

visitor management in this area

on resource protection, ensuring

human health and safety, and

reducing resource use/user

conflict.

Same as Alternative A. No similar action (see below). Same as Alternative C.

February 2013

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource
188 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

6000 LAND RESOURCES (LR) – RECREATION

Record # Goal/

Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

6113 LR: 12.1,

12.2, 12.3

Do not lease the Coalmine Draw

area through a R&PP action.

Same as Alternative A. Transfer the Coalmine Draw

area to a private entity through

a R&PP Act action (Map 92).

The purpose of this transfer will

be to provide for a cross-country

OHV and intensive target shooting

area. Prior to the transfer being

executed, establish a fenced

boundary around the area to ensure

impacts associated with such

use do not spread on to adjacent

private and public lands.

Same as Alternative A.

PUBLIC LAND EAST OF DUBOIS RIFLE RANGE ERMA

6114 LR: 12.1,

12.2, 12.3

Manage the BLM-administered

land east of the Dubois Rifle

Range as part of the Lander Field

Office ERMA. Focus visitor

management in this area on

resource protection, ensuring

human health and safety, and

reducing resource use and user

conflict.

Same as Alternative A. No similar action. Same as Alternative C.

6115 LR: 12.1.

12.2, 12.3

Do not lease this land for

recreation.

Same as Alternative A. Transfer the BLM-administered

lands directly east of the Dubois

Rifle Range (Map 92) to a private

entity through a R&PP Act action.

The purpose of this transfer is

to provide for a cross-country

OHV area. Prior to the transfer

being executed, establish a fenced

boundary around the area to ensure

impacts associated with such use

do not spread onto adjacent private

and public lands.

Same as Alternative A.

MUSKRAT BASIN ERMA

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 189

6000 LAND RESOURCES (LR) – RECREATION

Record # Goal/

Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

6116 LR: 13.1,

13.3, 13.4

No similar action. Mineral and

realty actions in the Muskrat

Basin ERMA of Mule Deer Hunt

Area 90 and Antelope Hunt Area

67 are managed with Category 1

restrictions.

Mineral and realty actions in the

Muskrat Basin ERMA of Mule

Deer Hunt Area 90 and Antelope

Hunt Area 67 are managed with

Category 2 restrictions from

September 1 to November 15.

Cooperatively develop mitigation

measures to reduce the impact or

intensity of disruptive activities in

the Muskrat Basin ERMA of Mule

Deer Hunt Area 90 and Antelope

Hunt Area 67. Mineral and realty

actions in these areas are managed

with Category 1 restrictions.

Do not designate this as an

ERMA but cooperatively develop

mitigation measures to reduce the

impact or intensity of disruptive

activities in Mule Deer Hunt

Area 90 and Antelope Hunt Area

67. Mineral and realty actions in

these areas are open with standard

stipulations.

RED CANYON/LANDER SLOPE ERMA. See the ACEC section for additional management actions and allowable use decisions for the Lander Slope/Red

Canyon ERMA.

6117 LR: 13.1,

13.3

No similar action. Increase back country acreage in

the Weiser draw area from 2,487

acres to 4,471 acres.

Maintain existing back country

acreage in the Weiser draw area

(2,487 acres).

Same as Alternative C.

6118 LR: 13.1,

13.3

No similar action. Develop and improve a primitive

motorized loop route system from

Highway 28 to the Limestone

Mountain Road.

Same as Alternative B, except

add the route to the transportation

system and maintain at a standard

that allows the passage of low

clearance vehicles.

Same as Alternative A.

6119 LR: 13.1,

13.3

No similar action. Minimally maintain the Shoshoni

Lake Road to Paradise Creek

to protect resources and ensure

passage of high clearance 4x4

vehicles. The remainder of the

route will be a motorized trail for

OHV use where passage of normal

or stock 4x4 vehicles may not be

ensured.

Same as Alternative B, except

enroll The Shoshoni Lake Road as

a ‘trail’ in the state trails program.

Maintenance will provide a

challenging trail experience while

ensuring safety of users and

resource protection.

Same as Alternative B.

6120 LR: 12.2,

12.3

Open the Baldwin Creek

Climbing trail to forest product

removal.

Close the Baldwin Creek Climbing

area and access trail to forest

product removal.

Same as Alternative A. Commercial timber sales and

harvests in the Baldwin Creek

Unit are subject to VRM Class II

requirements.

AGATE FLATS ERMA

February 2013

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource
190 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

6000 LAND RESOURCES (LR) – RECREATION

Record # Goal/

Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

6121 LR: 13.1,

13.3, 13.4

Mineral and realty actions in the

Agate Flats ERMA of Antelope

Hunt Areas 68, 69, and 106

are managed with Category 1

restrictions.

Mineral and realty actions in the

Agate Flats ERMA of Antelope

Hunt Areas 68, 69, and 106

are managed with Category 3

restrictions from September 1 to

October 22.

Cooperatively develop mitigation

measures to reduce the impact or

intensity of disruptive activities

in the Agate Flats ERMA of

Antelope Hunt Areas 68, 69, and

106.

Do not designate this as an

ERMA but cooperatively develop

mitigation measures to reduce the

impact or intensity of disruptive

activities in Antelope Hunt Areas

68, 69 and 106. Mineral and realty

actions in these areas are open with

standard stipulations.

GREEN MOUNTAIN ERMA. See the Green Mountain ACEC section for additional management actions and allowable use decisions for those portions

of the ERMA within the ACEC.

6122 LR: 13.1,

13.3

No similar action. Increase back country acreage in

the Whiskey Peak area from 10,250

acres to 13,780 acres.

Maintain existing back country

acreage in the Whiskey Peak area

(10,250 acres).

Same as Alternative C.

6123 LR: 13.1,

13.2, 13.3

Maintain the Green Mountain

Loop to provide access and

opportunities for low clearance

vehicles.

Same as Alternative A, plus

enhance wildlife and wild horse

viewing opportunities and consider

additional watchable wildlife

interpretation opportunities.

Same as Alternative B. Same as Alternative B.

6124 LR: 12.1,

12.2, 12.3,

13.1, 13.2,

13.3

Additional management actions

and allowable use decisions for

the Green Mountain ERMA are

contained in the ACEC section.

Same as Alternative A. Do not manage the Green

Mountain area as an ERMA.

Same as Alternative A.

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 191

Table 2.33. 7000 Special Designations (SD) – Congressionally Designated Trails

7000 SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS (SD) – CONGRESSIONALLY DESIGNATED TRAILS

Record # Goal/Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

Goal SD: 1 Provide users with opportunities to view, experience, and appreciate examples of prehistoric and historic human use of the resources along the

Congressionally Designated Trails showing the ways these resources are being managed (1) in harmony with the environment, (2) in support of the nature and purposes

for which the trail was established, and (3) yet do not detract from the overall experience of the trail.

Objectives:

SD: 1.1 VRM Class I Objective: Preserve the existing character of the landscape. Provide for natural ecological changes; however, preserving the landscape will

not preclude very limited management activity. The level of change to the characteristic landscape will be very low and will not attract attention.

SD: 1.2 VRM Class II Objective: Retain the existing character of the landscape. The level of change to the characteristic landscape will be low. Management

activities may be seen, but will 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.

SD: 1.3 VRM Class III Objective: Partially retain the existing character of the landscape. The level of change to the characteristic landscape will be moderate.

Management activities may attract attention but should not dominate the view of the casual observer. Changes will repeat the basic elements found in the

predominant natural features of the characteristic landscape.

SD: 1.4 VRM Class IV Objective: Allow management activities that require major modification to the existing character of the landscape. The level of change

to the characteristic landscape can be high. These management activities may dominate the view and be the major focus of viewer attention. However, every

attempt will be made to minimize the impact of these activities through careful location, minimal disturbance, and repeating the basic elements found in the

predominant natural features of the characteristic landscape.

Goal SD: 2 Maintain the CDNST corridor to provide high-quality scenic, primitive hiking, and horseback riding opportunities, and to conserve natural historic and

cultural resources along the trail.

Goal SD: 3 Use of the CDNST will minimally affect adjacent natural and cultural environments and harmonize with the management objectives of land and resource

uses which are or may be occurring on the lands through which the trail passes.

Goal SD: 4 Preserve and protect the historical remains and historical settings of the Oregon, Mormon Pioneer, California, and Pony Express NHTs and their associated

historic sites for public use and enjoyment.

Objectives:

SD: 4.1 Maintain and enhance the significant qualities of high-potential NHT segments and sites as defined in the National Trails System Act. Avoid adverse effects

(as defined in the NHPA and the BLM/SHPO Wyoming State Protocol) upon intact NHT segments, their settings, and associated sites.

February 2013

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource
192 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

7000 SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS (SD) – CONGRESSIONALLY DESIGNATED TRAILS

Record # Goal/Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

SD: 4.2 Protect remnants, ruts, traces, graves, campsites, landmarks, artifacts, and other remains associated with the NHTs to enhance historical research and

public use and enjoyment.

Goal SD: 5 Provide for the outdoor recreation needs of an expanding population and promote the preservation of public access and enjoyment of the open air, outdoor

areas, and historic resources of the nation, in a manner that supports the nature and purpose of the Congressionally Designated Trails.

Objectives:

SD: 5.1 Manage the landscape (viewshed) associated with the NHTs so that visitors continue to get a sense of how this landscape influenced emigrants along

the trails.

SD: 5.2 Manage SRMAs along Congressionally Designated Trails for specific visitors, affected community residents, local governments and private sector

businesses, or other constituents and the communities or places where these customers originate (recreation-tourism market).

SD: 5.3 Congressionally Designated Trails SRMA Objective: Specific outcome-focused objectives, recreation setting character conditions, and the administrative,

marketing, and monitoring framework can be found in Appendix C (p. 1453).

SD: 5.4 Congressionally Designated Trails visitor Services Resource Protection Objective: Increase awareness, understanding, and a sense of stewardship in

NHTs recreational activity participants so their conduct safeguards cultural and natural resources as defined by Wyoming Standards for Public Land Health and

other resource objectives.

SD: 5.5 Congressionally Designated Trails visitor Health and Safety Objective: Ensure that visitors are not exposed to unhealthy or unsafe human-created

conditions (defined by a repeat incident in the same year, of the same type, in the same location, due to the same cause).

SD: 5.6 Congressionally Designated Trails 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.

MANAGEMENT ACTIONS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

7001 SD: 4.2,

5.1, 5.2,

5.3, 5.6

Continue to allow for all recreation activity types in an area recognized as a SRMA or RMZ along a Congressionally Designated NHT unless

otherwise specified in this Land Use Plan or subsequent activity level plan.

7002 SD: 5.6 The NHTs and CDNST are open to livestock grazing.

MANAGEMENT ACTIONS BY ALTERNATIVE

CONGRESSIONALLY DESIGNATED TRAIL ALLOCATIONS AND DESIGNATIONS

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 193

7000 SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS (SD) – CONGRESSIONALLY DESIGNATED TRAILS

Record # Goal/Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

7003 SD: 1.2, 4,

4.1, 4.2

Designate lands within 1⁄4 mile

of either side of the NHTs as a

27,728 acre ACEC (Map 124).

No portion of the CDNST is

designated as an ACEC but

a portion of the CDNST is

co-located with the Seminoe

Cutoff section of the NHTs

ACEC.

Designate the National Historic

Trails Management Corridor

including the lands within 5 miles

on each side of the NHTs as a

468,183 acre ACEC (Map 125).

Designate the visible area within

5 miles of the CDNST from

Unnamed Spring (out of view of

Happy Springs oil field) northwest

to the Lander Field Office boundary

(near South Pass City) as a 259,380

acre ACEC to protect nationally

important scenic values (Map 121).

Recognize 1⁄4 mile on either side of

the NHT as the NLCS landscape

associated with the NHTs (Map

126).

Recognize 1⁄4 mile on either side

of the CDNST as the NLCS

landscape associated with the trail.

Manage lands associated with the

Congressionally Designated Trails

as the NTMC with the allocations

described below (Map 127, 481,557

acres). Designate the lands in the

western end of the NTMC as the

South Pass Historical Landscape

ACEC (124,229 acres). The

remaining part of the corridor is not

designated as an ACEC.

7004 SD: 2, 3 The 1987 RMP recognizes

the entire CDNST and NHT

as an SRMA (with detailed

management deferred to future

planning). No additional land

use allocations or allowable use

decisions accompany the SRMA

designation.

The following trail related areas and

associated RMZs are recognized

as SRMAs for the protection of

recreation outcomes and settings:

CDNST Destination SRMA

(82,778 acres) (Map 91):

This SRMA includes two RMZs:

1. Alkali Basin RMZ (37,384

acres) is sustained or

enhanced for thru-travelers

and middle-country hunters

to engage in horseback

riding, hiking, hunting, and

mountain biking so that

visitors indicate a higher

than average realization

of experience and benefit

outcomes listed in Appendix

C (p. 1453).

2. Sweetwater Mining RMZ

(45,394 acres) is sustained

or enhanced for day travelers

No CDNST SRMA exists in

this alternative, see ERMA

alternatives below.

Same as Alternative B, except

the National Trails Undeveloped

SRMA is 92,598 acres (Map 93).

February 2013

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource
194 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

7000 SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS (SD) – CONGRESSIONALLY DESIGNATED TRAILS

Record # Goal/Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

and CDNST thru-travelers

to engage in cultural site

visitation, driving for

pleasure, photography,

horseback riding, hiking,

and mountain biking so that

visitors indicate a higher

than average realization

of experience and benefit

outcomes listed in Appendix

C (p. 1453).

National Trails Undeveloped

SRMA (95,711 acres) (Map 91):

This SRMA is sustained or

enhanced for individuals or

small groups of historic trail “rut

buffs,” CDNST thru-hikers, and

middle-country hunters to engage

in cultural site visitation, driving for

pleasure, photography, horseback

riding, hunting, and hiking so

that visitors indicate a higher than

average realization of experience

and benefit outcomes listed in

Appendix C (p. 1453).

NHT Destination SRMA (62,331

acres) (Map 91):

This SRMA includes two RMZs:

1. Auto Tour Route RMZ

(25,098 acres) is sustained

or enhanced for highway

travelers to engage in historic

site visitation/learning,

teaching history, photography,

and driving for pleasure

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 195

7000 SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS (SD) – CONGRESSIONALLY DESIGNATED TRAILS

Record # Goal/Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

visitors indicate a higher

than average realization

of experience and benefit

outcomes.

2. Group Use RMZ (37,233

acres) is 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 visitors

indicate a higher than average

realization of experience and

benefit outcomes.

7005 SD: 2, 3 No similar action. Trail-related ERMAs:

The following trail areas are

recognized as ERMAs where visitor

services are focused on limiting

recreational use impact, ensuring

visitor safety, reducing recreational

conflicts, and supporting the nature

and purpose of the associated

Congressionally Designated Trails.

Recognize lands within 1⁄4 mile of

the CDNST, from Happy Springs

Oil Field east to the Lander Field

Office boundary in the Crooks Gap

area (the CDNST ERMA [4,589

acres]):

Recognize lands within 1⁄4 mile

on either side of the NHT not

encompassed in a SRMA and the

Willow Creek area as ERMAs

(34,724 acres):

Trail-related ERMAs:

The following trail areas are

recognized as ERMAs where

visitor services are focused on

limiting recreational use impact,

ensuring visitor safety, and

reducing recreational conflicts.

CDNST ERMA (14,010 acres):

Recognize 1⁄4 mile on either side

of the CDNST as the CDNST

ERMA.

NHT ERMA (30,436 acres):

Recognize 1⁄4 mile on either side

of the NHT as the NHT ERMA.

Same as Alternative B.

February 2013

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource
196 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

7000 SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS (SD) – CONGRESSIONALLY DESIGNATED TRAILS

Record # Goal/Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

Recognize lands in close proximity

to the NHT not encompassed in a

SRMA as the NHT ERMA (see

Map 91).

7006 SD: 2, 3 Manage 1⁄4 mile on either side of

the NHTs as VRM Classes I and

II.

Since the CDNST was not

designated in the 1987 RMP, the

VRM land use allocations for

the CDNST landscape did not

recognize the need to manage the

visual resources of the trail. VRM

Class designations within 15

miles on each side of the CDNST

are as follows:

● VRM Class I: 2% (11,241

acres)

● VRM Class II: 14% (114,962

acres)

● VRM Class III: 5% (41,494

acres)

● VRM Class IV: 79% (627,569

acres)

Manage the NHT and associated

landscapes as:

● VRM Class II within 15 miles

in all directions

● VRM ClassIII for all designated

NHTs crossings.

In order to maintain the scenic

character of the CDNST, recognize

the sensitive nature of the landscape

as directed by the 2009 CDNST

comprehensive plan and provide for

SRMAs. VRM Class designations

within 15 miles on each side of the

CDNST are as follows:

● VRM Class I: 1% (11,370

acres)

● VRM Class II: 88% (715,468

acres)

● VRM Class III: 6% (45,502

acres)

● VRM Class IV: 5% (42,185

acres)

Manage 1⁄4 mile on either side of

Congressionally Designated Trails

as VRM Class II.

Manage the NTMC Corridor as

VRM Class II. The designated

utility crossings and the CDNST

ERMA are VRM Class III.

● On a case-by-case basis, remove

or reclaim visually intrusive

existing roads, facilities, and

ROWs not necessary to attain

NHT or CDNST management

objectives.

CONGRESSIONALLY DESIGNATED TRAILS ALLOWABLE USES AND MANAGEMENT ACTIONS

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 197

7000 SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS (SD) – CONGRESSIONALLY DESIGNATED TRAILS

Record # Goal/Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

7007 SD: 4.1,

4.2, 5.2,

5.3, 5.6

Range improvement projects and

mineral supplementation and their

associated impacts are subject to

the following restrictions (Map

124):

● Projects are avoided within

1⁄4 mile on each side of

designated portions of the

NHTs or the visible horizon,

whichever is closer.

The area beyond 1⁄4 mile from

the NHTs is subject to standard

Protocol and NHPA measures to

minimize the effects to the NHTs.

Range improvement projects and

mineral supplementation and their

associated impacts are subject to the

following restrictions (Map 125):

● Do not authorize projects within

3 miles on each side of the

NHTs unless the project and

its associated impacts are not

visible from the NHTs.

Do not authorize projects 3 to 5

miles on each side of the NHTs

unless the project and its associated

impacts cause no more than a weak

contrast, as defined in the BLM

Visual Resource Manual.

Same as Alternative A, except

apply the standard NHPA

measures to Condition Class I and

II Historic Trail segments only,

and not to Condition Class III and

IV Historic Trail segments (Map

122).

Range projects and mineral

supplementation and their

associated impacts within the

NTMC are allowed consistent with

VRM Class objectives (Map 78).

7008 SD: 2.2,

3.1, 3.2,

3.3, 4.1,

4.2, 5.1,

5.2, 5.3,

5.5, 5.6

CDNST - Mineral and realty

actions are reviewed on a

case-by-case basis and mitigation

is applied through activity level

planning. Mineral and realty

actions in the CDNST SRMA

area are managed with Category

2 restrictions.

NHTs - Mineral and realty actions

are subject to the following

restrictions (Map 123):

● Mineral and realty actions

within 1⁄4 mile on each side

of designated portions of

the NHTs or the visible

horizon, whichever is closer,

are managed with Category

4 restrictions. A Plan of

Operations is required for

locatable mineral activities.

CDNST - Mineral and realty actions

in the CDNST ACEC are managed

with Category 4 restrictions.

NHTs - Mineral and realty actions,

except for highly visible projects

and/or projects out of scale with

the surrounding environment (e.g.,

wind farms, gas plants, large

transmission lines, and power

plants), are subject to the following

restrictions (Map 125):

● Mineral and realty actions

within 5 miles on each side

of the NHTs are managed

with Category 6 restrictions

unless the proposed project

and its associated impacts are

not visible from the NHTs.

(The historic sites listed under

CDNST - Mineral and realty

actions in the CDNST ERMA

area are managed with Category

1 restrictions. Visitor services

and facilities may be relocated

or removed as necessary to

accommodate BLM-authorized

actions.

NHTs - Same as Alternative A

for the NHTs, except apply the

restrictions for NHTs and sites to

Condition Class I and II Historic

Trail segments only, and not

to Condition Class III and IV

Historic Trail segments.

Mineral and realty actions in the

NTMC are managed with the

following prescriptions:

● Open to oil and gas leasing

subject to NSO stipulations

● Closed to geophysical

exploration within 1 mile of

each trail. All trail-related

SRMAs are closed to

geophysical exploration

between June 1 and October

31 to avoid conflicts during the

heavy recreational use period.

● Closed to phosphate leasing

● Locatable mineral entry:

○ Existing locatable mineral

withdrawals are retained.

These include:

■ Split Rock area (645

acres)

February 2013

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource
198 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

7000 SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS (SD) – CONGRESSIONALLY DESIGNATED TRAILS

Record # Goal/Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

● Mineral and realty actions

in the area from 1⁄4 mile to

5 miles from the NHTs are

managed with Category 2

restrictions.

● Mineral and realty actions in

the Ice Slough area (1,367

acres) are managed with

Category 4 restrictions (Map

123).

● Mineral and realty actions in

the Split Rock area (645 acres)

are managed with Category 5

restrictions (Map 123).

● Mineral and realty actions in

the Rocky Ridge area (833

acres) are managed with

Category 5 restrictions (Map

123).

● Mineral and realty actions

in the Martins Cove area

(603 acres) are managed with

Category 5 restrictions (Map

123).

● Mineral and realty actions

in the other Oregon Trail

withdrawal areas (315 acres)

are managed with Category 5

restrictions.

● Mineral and realty actions in

the Devil’s Gate area (395

acres) are managed with

Category 5 restrictions (Map

123).

Alternative A are within the 0-

to 5-mile zone.)

● Mineral and realty actions

within 5 to 15 miles on each

side of the NHTs are managed

with Category 2 restrictions

unless the proposed project and

its associated impacts are not

visible from the NHTs.

■ Rocky Ridge area (833

acres)

■ Martins Cove area (603

acres)

■ Devil’s Gate area (395

acres)

■ Other Oregon Trail

withdrawals (315 acres)

○ The ruts and swales of

the NHTs and 10 feet

on each side of the

ruts and the following

individual sites are closed

to pursue locatable mineral

withdrawal:

■ Gilespie Place area (41

acres)

■ Rock Creek Hollow (51

acres)

■ Ice Slough (110 acres)

● Realty actions and mineral

material disposals:

○ Except in designated utility

corridors, realty actions and

mineral material disposals

are avoided.

○ Industrial wind-energy

development is excluded.

○ Electrical transmission and

distribution ROWs will be

located only in designated

utility corridors, except to

deliver power to end users.

○ No realty actions and

mineral material disposals

will be authorized if it

is determined by the

Authorized Officer that

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 199

7000 SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS (SD) – CONGRESSIONALLY DESIGNATED TRAILS

Record # Goal/Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

impacts (both direct and

cumulative) associated with

the action will conflict with

the nature and purpose of the

Congressionally Designated

Trails.

○ Realty actions and

mineral material disposals

associated with access and

improvements on private

land will be authorized

if it is determined by the

Authorized Officer that the

following can be achieved:

■ They create no more

than a weak contrast

as viewed from

the Congressionally

Designated Trails; and

■ They meet VRM

designations for the

disturbance area,

as viewed from

Key Observation

Points impacted by

the disturbance.

● Other realty actions and mineral

material disposals will be

authorized if it is determined by

the Authorized Officer that the

following can be achieved:

○ They are hidden from the

Congressionally Designated

Trails; and

○ They meet the VRM

designation for the

disturbance area, as viewed

from Key Observation

February 2013

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource
200 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

7000 SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS (SD) – CONGRESSIONALLY DESIGNATED TRAILS

Record # Goal/Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

Points impacted by the

disturbance.

● Pursue opportunities to acquire

lands within the NTMC to

support the goals and objectives

of the Corridor. Lands within

the Corridor may be disposed

of if subject to an easement

or other restriction on use that

would ensure conformity with

the goals and objectives of the

Corridor and the disposal would

serve important public values.

TRAIL AND SITE-SPECIFIC ALLOWABLE USES AND MANAGEMENT ACTIONS

CONTINENTAL DIVIDE NATIONAL SCENIC TRAIL

7009 SD: 3.2 No allowable use decisions

currently exist for the CDNST

and its surrounding landscape.

Review actions on a case-by-case

basis and apply mitigation

through the activity level

planning process.

At a minimum, apply restrictions

(site-specific relocation) on

developed (and future) recreation

sites and to mapped (and future)

national/regional trails, localsystem

trails that connect communities,

and trailheads and interpretive sites

with exceptional recreation values

or significant public interest.

When a proposed or

BLM-authorized activity is

deemed to threaten the health and

safety of trail users, relocate the

CDNST within the area defined as

the “zone of concern” (50 miles

on either side of the physical

continental divide) as established

by the CDNST advisory council.

In the event the trail cannot be

practically relocated, identify

adequate site-specific mitigation

measures and make trail users

aware of the potential threat or

safety hazard.

Same as Alternative B.

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 201

7000 SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS (SD) – CONGRESSIONALLY DESIGNATED TRAILS

Record # Goal/Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

7010 SD: 3.2 No similar action. No BLM-authorized activity will

expose CDNST trail users to

heavy/frequent motorized traffic,

unless the proposed activity is in an

area of the CDNST that is located

on or near an existing ROW or a

maintained roadway.

Same as Alternative A. Motorized vehicle crossings or

use on the CDNST is managed

in accordance with the 2009

Comprehensive Plan. The BLM

will not authorize activities that

will expose CDNST trail users

to heavy/frequent motorized

traffic along the trail unless the

proposed activity is within a

location that currently experiences

heavy/frequent motorized traffic

(county and BLM-maintained

roads).

NATIONAL HISTORIC TRAILS

7011 SD: 4.1,

4.2, 5.1,

5.2, 5.3,

5.5, 5.6

NHT crossings by ROWs

are subject to the following

restrictions:

● Allow NHT crossings by new

major utility systems in areas

where trail ruts have been

modified by modern uses,

where previous crossings

exist, or where new corridor

crossings would not damage

trail remains. Require that all

crossings avoid fragile trail

resources.

Allow NHT crossings by new

major systems only in designated

utility corridors.

Designate the following route as

a utility corridor across the NHTs

(Map 106):

● The Lost Creek Corridor,

which runs north/south from

Wamsutter to Lysite

Near the crossing of the NHTs:

● 0 to 5 miles north of the NHTs

corridor, the corridor would be

400 feet wide

● 0 to 2 miles south of the NHTs

corridor, the corridor would be

400 feet wide

Same as Alternative A, except

apply the restrictions to Condition

Class I and II Historic Trail

segments only, and not to

Condition Class III and IV

Historic Trail segments (Map

122).

Allow NHT crossings by new major

utility systems only in designated

utility corridors.

Designate the following routes as

utility corridors across the NHTs:

● Lost Creek Corridor (Map 108).

This corridor is for above and

below ground ROW.

● Lost Creek Lateral Corridor

(Map 108). This corridor is for

below ground ROW only.

● Pathfinder Reservoir/Sinclair

Corridor (Map 108). This

corridor is for below ground

ROW only.

● Bison Basin Road Corridor

(Map 108). This corridor is for

below ground lines only, and

must follow the criteria listed in

Appendix E (p. 1483).

● For all of the above designated

corridors, where a proposed

project is close enough to

February 2013

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource
202 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

7000 SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS (SD) – CONGRESSIONALLY DESIGNATED TRAILS

Record # Goal/Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

adversely impact the NHTs,

the project shall employ every

feasible practice to limit

disturbance to as small an area

as possible. These practices

include, but are not limited to:

○ Reducing the amount of

surface disturbance as much

as possible;

○ Co-locating the project

ROW unless the proponent

can clearly demonstrate that

it cannot be co-located;

○ Confining new disturbance

within existing disturbance

areas, unless the proponent

can clearly demonstrate that

it cannot be confined;

○ Locating the new project

within or immediately

adjacent to existing

disturbance zones, unless

the proponent can clearly

demonstrate why it cannot

be done;

○ Bore under high-quality

ruts;

○ Additional mitigation and

BMPs will be developed

in response to site-specific

proposals.

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 203

7000 SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS (SD) – CONGRESSIONALLY DESIGNATED TRAILS

Record # Goal/Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

7012 SD: 4.1,

4.2, 5.1,

5.2, 5.3,

5.5, 5.6

Authorize highly visible projects

and/or projects out of scale with

the surrounding environment

(such as plants and power plants)

on a case-by-case basis avoiding

adverse impacts to the NHTs.

Highly visible projects and/or

projects out of scale with the

surrounding environment are

subject to the following restrictions:

● Mineral and realty actions

within 20 miles on each side

of the NHTs are managed with

Category 5 restrictions unless

the proposed project and its

associated impacts are not

visible from the NHTs.

Same as Alternative A. Highly visible projects and/or

projects out of scale with the

surrounding environment (such as

large wind-energy development

projects, gas plants, power plants,

high voltage transmission lines,

etc.) are subject to the following

restriction:

● Projects of this type outside of

the NTMC are authorized only

if the project causes no more

than a weak contrast, as defined

in the BLM Visual Resource

Manual.

7013 SD: 4.1,

4.2, 5.2,

5.3, 5.6

New audible (noise) and

atmospheric (smoke, dust,

etc.) effects to the NHTs are

subject to NHPA measures to

minimize the impacts to the

NHTs.

New audible and atmospheric

effects will not exceed current

levels existing along the NHT

corridors.

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative B.

February 2013

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource
204 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table 2.34. 7000 Special Designations (SD) – Wilderness Study Areas

7000 SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS (SD) – WILDERNESS STUDY AREAS

Record # Goal/

Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

Goal SD: 6 Manage WSAs so as to not impair the suitability of such areas for preservation as wilderness.

Objectives:

SD: 6.1 Preserve wilderness characteristics in WSAs in accordance with BLM Manual 6330, Management of Wilderness Study Areas, until Congress either

designates these lands as Wilderness or releases them for other purposes.

SD: 6.2 SRMA Objective for the Sweetwater Rocks and Sweetwater Canyon WSAs: See Appendix C (p. 1453) for specific outcome-focused objectives, recreation

setting character conditions, and the administrative, marketing, and monitoring framework.

MANAGEMENT ACTIONS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

7014 SD: 6 Under BLM guidance, the BLM does not have the authority to designate new WSAs nor does BLM have the authority to reverse, repeal, or

amend existing WSAs.

7015 SD: 6.1,

6.2

The following eight WSAs are managed under BLM Manual 6330, Management of Wilderness Study Areas (Map 128):

● Sweetwater Rocks Complex:

○ Split Rock (13,964 acres)

○ Lankin Dome (6,347 acres)

○ Miller Spring (6,697 acres)

○ Savage Peak (7,178 acres)

○ Sweetwater Canyon (9,135 acres)

● Whiskey Mountain (519 acres)

● Copper Mountain (6,936 acres)

● Dubois Badlands (4,561 acres)

7016 SD: 6.1 Manage all WSAs as VRM Class I visual resources (Map 128).

7017 SD: 6.1 Grandfathered uses (as defined in BLM Manual 6330, Management of Wilderness Study Areas) are allowed on lands under Wilderness

review in the manner and degree in which these uses were performed on October 21, 1976, so long as they do not cause unnecessary or

undue degradation of the lands.

7018 SD: 6.1 Non-Grandfathered uses (as defined in BLM Manual 6330, Management of Wilderness Study Areas) are subject to the non-impairment

standard discussed in Objective SD: 6.1.

7019 SD: 6.1 Livestock grazing in all WSAs, including the Sweetwater Canyon WSA, is managed in accordance with BLM Manual 6330, Management of

Wilderness Study Areas. See the Recreation section for management actions associated with the Sweetwater Canyon SRMA.

7020 SD: 6.2 In the event Congress releases any of the Lander Field Office WSAs without management direction, the BLM will continue to manage the

released area(s) under similar direction as detailed in BLM Manual 6330, Management of Wilderness Study Areas until a Land Use Plan

amendment is developed detailing management direction for the area(s). The Land Use Plan amendment process will include updated

inventories, recreational user surveys, community workshops, detailed adjacent land use analysis, etc. in order to ensure management of

released areas is consistent with the existing plan and meets the future needs of the American public.

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 205

7000 SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS (SD) – WILDERNESS STUDY AREAS

Record # Goal/

Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

7021 N/A Additional allocations, allowable uses, and management actions to support recreation in WSAs can be found in the Recreation section.

MANAGEMENT ACTIONS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

7022 SD: 6.1 Close the Dubois Badlands WSA to

motorized travel (Map 128).

Limit motorized travel in the

following WSAs to designated

roads and trails that existed and

were identified before or during the

inventory phase of the wilderness

review (Map 128):

● Sweetwater Rocks Complex:

○ Split Rock (13,964 acres)

○ Lankin Dome (6,347 acres)

○ Miller Spring (6,697 acres)

○ Savage Peak (7,178 acres)

● Sweetwater Canyon (9,135

acres)

● Whiskey Mountain (519 acres)

● Copper Mountain (6,936 acres)

Close all WSAs to motorized and

mechanized travel (Map 128).

Same as Alternative A. The following WSAs with the

same acreage as in Alternative

A are closed to motorized travel

(Map 128):

● Dubois Badlands

● Copper Mountain

● Whiskey Mountain

In the following WSAs motorized

travel is limited to designated

roads and trails that existed and

were identified before or during the

inventory phase of the wilderness

review. Travel systems and linear

features in conflict with wilderness

values will be modified (mitigated

or closed) through implementation

planning (Map 128).

● Sweetwater Rocks Complex:

○ Split Rock

○ Lankin Dome

○ Miller Spring

○ Savage Peak

● Sweetwater Canyon

February 2013

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource
206 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table 2.35. 7000 Special Designations (SD) – Wild and Scenic Rivers

7000 SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS (SD) – WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS

Record # Goal/Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

Goal SD: 7 Protect outstanding remarkable values of eligible and suitable WSR waterway segments recommended for inclusion in the NWSRS.

Objective:

SD: 7.1 Maintain the outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreational, and wild values of all segments of waterways found to be eligible and suitable for inclusion

in the NWSRS.

MANAGEMENT ACTIONS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

7023 SD: 7.1 Do not authorize stream impoundments, channelization, and/or rip-rapping along BLM shorelines of eligible waterways. BLM-administered

lands within 1⁄4 mile on either side of eligible waterways are closed to land disposal actions unless the disposal would be subject to an easement

or other restriction on use that would ensure conformity with the goals and objectives of the waterway management and the disposal would

serve important public values. Exchanges of BLM-administered lands outside of the corridor could be considered for acquiring private or state

lands within the corridor or between public land parcels along the creek; however, BLM-administered lands within the corridor will not be

exchanged unless it benefits the goals and objectives of the management.

7024 SD: 7.1 Any fire suppression activities on BLM-administered lands within 1⁄4 mile on either side of eligible waterways will use ‘light-on-the land’

techniques. No motorized vehicle ground equipment should be used to suppress fires. Air tanker and helicopter bucket drops and the use of

chainsaws may be allowed if no permanent impacts would occur. Evaluate any fire rehabilitation plans to determine whether they comply with

the interim management stipulations for a wild waterway area.

7025 SD: 7.1 Vegetation treatment and manipulation on BLM-administered lands within 1⁄4 mile on either side of eligible waterways must be consistent

with guidance provided for the interim management of wild waterway areas under the Wild and Scenic River Act. Timber sales are not

authorized in the 1⁄4-mile area on either side of eligible waterways.

7026 SD: 7.1 To resist invasion by noxious weeds, manage native plant communities and soils within 1⁄4 mile on either side of eligible waters to maintain an

ecologically healthy and vigorous condition. Control noxious weeds and undesirable invasive species using integrated pest management.

MANAGEMENT ACTIONS BY ALTERNATIVE

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 207

7000 SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS (SD) – WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS

Record # Goal/Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

7027 SD: 7.1 Apply interim management to the

9 eligible waterways to protect

the free-flowing outstandingly

remarkable values and tentative

classification. Eligible waterways

include the following (Map 129):

● Baldwin Creek Unit: 8.1 miles

(Wild, Scenic)

○ Upper Baldwin Creek

Segment: 6.96 miles (Wild,

Scenic)

○ Lower Baldwin Creek

Segment: 1.14 miles

(Wild)

● Sweetwater River Unit: 12.88

miles (Wild)

○ Sweetwater River Segment:

8.64 miles (Wild)

○ Granite Creek Segment:

1.04 miles (Wild)

○ Mormon Creek Segment:

1.08 miles (Wild)

○ Willow Creek Segment:

1.32 miles (Wild)

○ Strawberry Creek Segment:

0.81 miles (Wild)

● Ice Slough Segment: 1.6 miles

(Recreational)

● Little Popo Agie River

Segment: 1.5 miles (Wild)

● North Popo Agie River

Segment: 0.7 miles (Wild)

● Rock Creek Segment: 4.0

miles (Scenic)

● Warm Springs Creek Segment:

1.3 miles (Scenic)

● Willow Creek (South Pass)

Segment: 1.3 miles (Scenic)

Same as Alternative A, plus

recommend all 9 eligible

waterways as suitable for

inclusion in the NWSRS (Map

129). Manage these waterways to

maintain or enhance the suitability.

Recommend none of the 9 eligible

waterways as suitable for inclusion

in the NWSRS. Manage these areas

in accordance with other resource

and use prescriptions.

Recommend the Baldwin Creek

Unit, Warm Springs Segment 1

only (1.3 miles), and Sweetwater

River Unit as identified in

Alternative A as suitable for

inclusion in the NWSRS (Map

129).

Manage these waterways to

maintain or enhance the suitability.

Do not authorize timber sales

upstream of the waterways unless

the waterway would not be

adversely impacted by timber

removal. Work cooperatively with

other land owners and managers

to avoid adverse impacts to the

waterways.

February 2013

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource
208 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

7000 SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS (SD) – WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS

Record # Goal/Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

● Wind River Segment: 0.5 miles

(Scenic)

Manage these waterways to

maintain or enhance the suitability.

Do not authorize timber sales

upstream of the waterways unless

the waterways would not be

adversely impacted by timber

removal. Work cooperatively with

other land owners and managers

to avoid adverse impacts to the

waterways. Chapter 2 of the WSR

report (BLM 2002a) provides a

complete description of the above

waterway segments and interim

management.

INTERIM MANAGEMENT OF IDENTIFIED ELIGIBLE WATERWAYS

7028 SD: 7 Interim management for eligible

waterways will ensure protection

of free-flowing values, documented

outstanding remarkable values, and

ensure maintenance of tentative

river classification. Detailed

interim management for the

Baldwin Creek and Sweetwater

River Unit has been further

developed as discussed below.

Waterways recommended as

suitable for inclusion in the

NWSRS are managed as detailed

below. Management will protect

free-flowing values, outstanding

remarkable values, and ensure

maintenance of eligible and

suitable classifications.

No eligible waterway is

recommended as suitable for

inclusion in the NWSRS; therefore

management of these areas will

not be required to maintain WSR

characteristics.

Same as Alternative B.

7029 SD: 7.1 The Baldwin Creek Unit is

within the Lander Slope ACEC

and managed in accordance

with ACEC prescriptions. The

Sweetwater River Unit is within

the Sweetwater Canyon WSA and

managed in accordance with BLM

Manual 6330, Management of

Wilderness Study Areas. There are

no WSR management prescription.

Prohibit any activities that

diminish the free-flowing character

of the waterway, or outstanding

remarkable values, and/or any

physical or visual intrusions on the

eligible and suitable waterways.

Same as Alternative A for the

Sweetwater Canyon WSA. No

similar action for the Baldwin

Creek Unit.

Same as Alternative B.

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 209

7000 SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS (SD) – WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS

Record # Goal/Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

7030 SD: 7.1 Mineral and realty actions in the

Baldwin Creek Unit are managed

with Category 3 restrictions and

in the Sweetwater Canyon WSA

are managed under BLM Manual

6330, Management of Wilderness

Study Areas.

Mineral and realty actions within

1⁄4 mile of eligible and suitable

waterways are managed with

Category 6 restrictions. Allow

existing mineral leases to expire.

Same as Alternative A, except

mineral and realty actions in the

Baldwin Creek Unit are managed

with Category 1 restrictions.

Same as Alternative A. Mineral

and realty actions in the ACEC are

managed as follows:

● Open to oil and gas leasing

subject to NSO stipulations

● Closed to geophysical

exploration

● Closed to phosphate leasing

● Open to locatable minerals

● Closed to mineral material

sales

● Excluded to major ROWs

● Avoided for minor ROWs

7031 SD: 7.1 Water impoundments, diversions,

or hydroelectric power facilities

are subject to mitigation measures

necessary to maintain free flowing

characteristics.

Prohibit water impoundments,

diversions, or hydroelectric power

facilities in eligible and suitable

WSR waterway segments.

Same as Alternative A for the

Sweetwater Canyon Unit. No

similar action for the Baldwin

Creek Unit.

Same as Alternative B.

7032 SD: 7.1 Limit motorized travel in the

Baldwin Creek Unit and

Sweetwater River Unit to

designated roads and trails.

Close the Baldwin Creek Unit

and the Sweetwater River Unit to

motorized and mechanized travel.

Limit motorized travel in the

Baldwin Creek Unit to existing

roads and trails. Limit motorized

travel in the Sweetwater River Unit

to designated roads and trails.

Close the Baldwin Creek Unit to

motorized travel. Motorized travel

in the Sweetwater River and Warm

Springs Units will be limited to

designated roads and trails.

7033 SD: 7.1 Commercial timber sales and

harvests in the Baldwin Creek

Unit are subject to VRM Class

II requirements. Commercial

timber sales and harvests in the

Sweetwater Canyon Unit are

subject to BLM Manual 6330,

Management of Wilderness Study

Areas.

Close BLM-administered lands

within the Baldwin Creek, Warm

Springs, and Sweetwater River

Units to commercial timber sales

or harvesting. Prohibit cutting or

removal of forest products and

stand conversion type treatments.

Same as Alternative A for the

Sweetwater River Unit. No similar

action for the Baldwin Creek Unit.

Same as Alternative B.

February 2013

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource
210 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

7000 SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS (SD) – WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS

Record # Goal/Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

7034 SD: 7.1 Identification of WSR eligibility

does not change livestock grazing

management.

The Baldwin Creek and

Sweetwater River Units are

closed to livestock grazing.

On a case-by-case basis, allow

construction of new range

improvements that protect or

enhance outstanding remarkable

values and do not result in adverse

impacts to the wild classification.

Same as Alternative A. Manage livestock grazing in the

Units to support the outstanding

remarkable values. Allow

construction of new range

improvements that protect or

enhance outstanding remarkable

values and do not result in adverse

impacts to the wild classification.

7035 SD: 7.1 Manage the Baldwin Creek Unit as

VRM Class II and the Sweetwater

River Units as VRM Class I.

Manage BLM-administered lands

within the Baldwin Creek and

Sweetwater River Units as VRM

Class I.

Same as Alternative A for the

Sweetwater River Unit. Manage

the Baldwin Creek Unit as VRM

Class III.

Same as Alternative B, the Warm

Springs Unit will be managed as

VRM Class II.

7036 SD: 7.1 Manage eligible waterways under

interim management until which

time suitability determinations can

be made.

Manage waterways considered

eligible to improve characteristics

which would facilitate future

suitability classification.

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative B.

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 211

Table 2.36. 7000 Special Designations (SD) – Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

7000 SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS (SD) – AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN

Record # Goal/Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

Goal SD: 8 Maintain, protect and enhance the relevant and important values for each ACEC and provide opportunities for other compatible uses where appropriate.

MANAGEMENT ACTIONS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

7037 SD: 8 Retain lands within the ACECs for long-term management unless the disposal would benefit the goals and objectives of the ACEC such as

blocking up land, improving access, or facilitating ACEC management or would otherwise facilitate important public objectives and values.

Pursue land acquisition within or near the ACEC to benefit the goals and objectives of the ACEC. Manage the federal mineral estate on

split-estate lands located within the boundary of an ACEC consistently with the management of BLM-administered surface lands.

7038 SD: 8 Develop and implement fire and fuels management in consideration of the resource(s) for which the ACEC is designated with consideration

of the WUI, if present.

7039 SD: 8 Management of the NHTs ACEC is discussed in the NHTs section.

MANAGEMENT ACTIONS BY ALTERNATIVE

7040 SD: 8 Retain the ACEC designations in

the following areas (Map 130):

● Lander Slope (25,065 acres)

● Red Canyon (15,109 acres)

● Dubois Badlands (4,903 acres)

● Whiskey Mountain (8,776

acres)

● East Fork (4,431 acres)

● Beaver Rim (6,421 acres)

● Green Mountain (14,612 acres)

● NHTs (27,728 acres): See the

Congressionally Designated

Trails section for management

● South Pass Historic Mining

Area (12,576 acres)

Retain the ACEC designation in

the following areas (Map 131):

● Lander Slope: Same as

Alternative A (25,065 acres)

● Red Canyon: Same as

Alternative A (15,109 acres)

● Dubois Badlands: Same as

Alternative A (4,903 acres)

● Whiskey Mountain: Same as

Alternative A (8,776 acres)

Retain and expand the ACEC

designation in the following areas

(Map 131):

● East Fork: Same as Alternative

A, plus 3,313 acres

● Beaver Rim: Same as

Alternative A, plus 14,111

acres

● Green Mountain: Same as

Alternative A, plus 10,248

acres

● NHTs: Same as Alternative A,

plus 440,455 acres. See the

Do not retain the areas identified

in the 1987 RMP as ACECs.

Retain the ACEC designations in

the following areas (Map 132):

● Lander Slope (25,065 acres)

● Red Canyon (15,109 acres)

● Whiskey Mountain (8,776

acres)

● Beaver Rim (6,421 acres)

Retain and expand the ACEC

designation in the following areas

(Map 132):

● East Fork: Same as Alternative

A, plus 3,314 acres

● Green Mountain: Same as

Alternative A, plus 6,777 acres

Designate the South Pass Historic

Mining Area and a portion of

the CDNST and the NHTs as the

following ACEC (Map 132) (see

the Congressionally Designated

Trails section for management

of trails-related lands outside the

ACEC):

February 2013

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource
212 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

7000 SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS (SD) – AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN

Record # Goal/Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

Congressionally Designated

Trails section for management

● South Pass Historic Mining

Area: Same as Alternative A,

plus 10,863 acres

Designate the following areas as

ACECs (Map 131):

● Continental Divide National

Scenic Trail (259,380 acres):

See the Congressionally

Designated Trails section for

management

● Cedar Ridge (7,039 acres)

● Castle Gardens (8,469 acres)

● Sweetwater Rocks (152,347

acres)

● Regional Historic Trails and

Early Highways (89,016 acres)

● Government Draw/Upper

Sweetwater Sage-Grouse

(1,246,791 acres)

● South Pass Historical

Landscape (124,229 acres)

Designate the following area as an

ACEC in the Hudson to Atlantic

City area (Map 132):

● Twin Creek (35,102 acres)

The WSA portion of the Dubois

Badlands ACEC is not designated

an ACEC. The ACEC lands

outside the WSA (342 acres) are

incorporated into the East Fork

ACEC.

Do not designate the following

areas as ACECs but manage to

protect the identified relevant

and important characteristics.

Management for these areas will

be moved to the appropriate

program:

● Castle Gardens (see the Castle

Gardens ACEC (Proposed)

section for management)

● Cedar Ridge (see the Cedar

Ridge ACEC (Proposed)

section for management)

● Sweetwater Rocks (see the

Sweetwater Rocks ACEC

(Proposed) section for

management)

● CDNST (see the

Congressionally Designated

Trails section for management

within the NTMC)

● Regional Historic Trails

and Early Highways (see

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 213

7000 SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS (SD) – AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN

Record # Goal/Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

the Regional Historic

Trails and Early Highways

ACEC (Proposed) section for

management)

● NHTs (see the Congressionally

Designated Trails section

for management within the

NTMC)

● Government Draw/Upper

Sweetwater Sage-Grouse

(1,246,791 acres) (see the

Government Draw/Upper

Sweetwater Sage-Grouse

ACEC (Proposed) for

management within this

area.)

February 2013

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource
214 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table 2.37. 7000 Special Designations (SD) – The Lander Slope ACEC (Existing)

7000 SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS (SD) – THE LANDER SLOPE ACEC (EXISTING)

Record # Goal/Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

Goal SD: 9 Manage the Lander Slope with the following objectives:

Objectives:

SD: 9.1 Maintain adequate winter forage for elk and mule deer so as to support WGFD herd objectives.

SD: 9.2 Maintain and improve habitat for elk and mule deer and, where appropriate, bighorn sheep so as to support WGFD herd objectives.

SD: 9.3 Maintain and improve the views of the Lander Slope so that no action has more than a “weak contrast” with the characteristic landscape.

SD: 9.4 Maintain or improve the water quality in the watershed of the Middle Fork of the Popo Agie River.

SD: 9.5 Route densities and locations will maintain or enhance the quality of the scenic and wildlife values.

MANAGEMENT ACTIONS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

7041 SD: 9 The ACEC is open to livestock grazing and managed to meet the goals and objectives for the ACEC.

7042 SD: 9 Travel and road density in the ACEC are managed to support ACEC objectives. See the Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management

section for specific management actions.

MANAGEMENT ACTIONS BY ALTERNATIVE

7043 SD: 9 Designate BLM-administered

lands in the Lander Slope area as a

25,065-acre ACEC (Map 130).

Same as Alternative A, but

manage in accordance with the

prescriptions in the following

records.

Do not designate

BLM-administered lands in

the Lander Slope area as an ACEC.

Same as Alternative A.

7044 SD: 9 Manage different parts of the

ACEC as VRM Class II or III.

Manage the ACEC as VRM Class

II.

Manage different parts of the

former ACEC as VRM Class III or

IV.

Same as Alternative B.

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 215

7000 SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS (SD) – THE LANDER SLOPE ACEC (EXISTING)

Record # Goal/Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

7045 SD: 9 Mineral and realty actions in the

ACEC are managed with Category

3 restrictions.

Mineral and realty actions in the

ACEC are managed with Category

6 restrictions.

Mineral and realty actions in the

former ACEC are managed with

Category 1 restrictions.

Mineral and realty actions in the

ACEC are managed as follows:

● Open to oil and gas leasing

subject to NSO stipulations

● Closed to geophysical

exploration

● Closed to phosphate leasing

● Closed to pursue withdrawal

from locatable mineral entry

● Closed to mineral materials

disposal

● Excluded to major ROWs

● Avoided for minor ROWs

7046 SD: 9 Manage plant communities for

rangeland health and to protect

important wildlife habitat primarily

for elk and mule deer and, where

appropriate, bighorn sheep.

Manage plant communities to

provide elk and mule deer and,

where appropriate, bighorn sheep

forage.

Manage plant communities to

maximize production for all

grazing animals.

Same as Alternative A.

7047 SD: 9 Range improvement projects are

constructed on a case-by-case

basis.

Range improvement projects are

prohibited.

Allow range improvement projects. Construct range improvement

projects when the purpose is to

enhance ACEC values.

7048 SD: 9 On a case-by-case basis, determine

management prescriptions

including livestock grazing

management of acquired lands in

the ACEC.

Manage any lands acquired and

added to the ACEC in accordance

with the ACEC management

prescriptions. Forage associated

with newly acquired lands is not

allocated for livestock use.

Acquired landsin the former ACEC

are open to livestock grazing.

Same as Alternative A.

February 2013

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource
216 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table 2.38. 7000 Special Designations (SD) – Red Canyon ACEC (Existing)

7000 SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS (SD) – RED CANYON ACEC (EXISTING)

Record # Goal/Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

Goal SD: 10 Manage Red Canyon with the following objectives:

Objectives:

SD: 10.1 Maintain adequate winter forage for elk, mule deer, and moose so as to support WGFD herd objectives.

SD: 10.2 Maintain and improve winter habitat for elk, mule deer, moose, and elk calving habitat.

SD: 10.3 Maintain the views of Red Canyon from Highway 28 and within the Canyon so that no proposed action has more than a weak contrast with the

characteristic landscape.

SD: 10.4 Route densities and locations will maintain or enhance the scenic and wildlife values.

SD: 10.5 Maintain and improve the habitat for sensitive plant species.

SD: 10.6 Protect significant prehistoric rock art sites and the complex of petroglyph sites that runs along the east flank of the Wind River Mountain Range

that is within the Red Canyon area.

MANAGEMENT ACTIONS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

7049 SD: 10 Manage the NNL portion of Red Canyon as VRM Class I.

7050 SD: 10 The ACEC is open to livestock grazing and managed to meet the goals and objectives for the ACEC. Maintain the 500 AUM forage allocation

for elk.

7051 SD: 10 Travel and road density in the ACEC are managed to support ACEC objectives. See the Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management

section for specific management actions.

MANAGEMENT ACTIONS BY ALTERNATIVE

7052 SD: 10 Designate BLM-administered

lands in the Red Canyon area as a

15,109-acre ACEC (Map 130).

Same as Alternative A, but

manage in accordance with the

prescriptions in the following

records.

Do not designate

BLM-administered lands in

the Red Canyon area as an ACEC.

Same as Alternative A.

7053 SD: 10 Manage the remainder of the

ACEC as VRM Class II.

Same as Alternative A. Manage the remaining areas of the

former ACEC as VRM Class III.

Same as Alternative A.

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 217

7000 SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS (SD) – RED CANYON ACEC (EXISTING)

Record # Goal/Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

7054 SD: 10 Mineral and realty actions in the

ACEC are managed with Category

3 and 4 restrictions.

Mineral and realty actions in the

ACEC are managed with Category

6 restrictions.

Mineral and realty actions in the

former ACEC are managed with

Category 1 restrictions.

Mineral and realty actions in the

ACEC are managed as follows:

● Open to oil and gas leasing

subject to NSO stipulations

● Closed to geophysical

exploration

● Closed to phosphate leasing

● Closed to pursue a withdrawal

from locatable mineral entry

● Closed to mineral material

sales

● Excluded to major ROWs

● Avoided for minor ROWs

7055 SD: 10 Close the ACEC to all winter sport

activities from December 1 to June

15.

Close the ACEC to human presence

from December 1 to June 15.

Do not close the former ACEC to

winter sport activities.

Close the ACEC to human

presence from December 1

through April 30 and motorized

vehicle use from December 1

through June 15.

7056 SD: 10 Manage plant communities

for rangeland health and to

protect important wildlife habitat

primarily for elk, mule deer, and

moose.

Manage plant communities to

provide elk, mule deer, and moose

forage.

Manage plant communities to

maximize production for all

grazing animals.

Same as Alternative A.

7057 SD: 10 On a case-by-case basis, undertake

treatments for invasive species to

protect wildlife and sensitive plant

species habitat.

Develop and implement integrated

pest management to control and

eradicate invasive species to

protect wildlife and sensitive plant

species habitat.

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A.

7058 SD: 10 Range improvement projects are

constructed on a case-by-case

basis.

Range improvement projects are

prohibited.

Allow range improvement projects. Construct range improvement

projects when the purpose is to

enhance ACEC values.

7059 SD: 10 On a case-by-case basis, determine

management prescriptions,

including livestock grazing

management, of acquired lands in

the ACEC.

Manage any lands acquired and

added to the ACEC in accordance

with the ACEC management

prescriptions. Forage associated

with newly acquired lands is not

available for livestock use.

Acquired lands in the former

ACEC are open to livestock

grazing.

Same as Alternative A.

February 2013

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource
218 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table 2.39. 7000 Special Designations (SD) – Dubois Badlands ACEC (Existing)

7000 SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS (SD) – DUBOIS BADLANDS ACEC (EXISTING)

Record # Goal/

Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

Goal SD: 11 Manage Dubois Badlands with the following objectives:

Objectives:

SD: 11.1 Maintain and improve winter habitat for bighorn sheep.

SD: 11.2 Maintain and enhance fragile soils.

SD: 11.3 Maintain the views of the Dubois Badlands from Highway 28/287 and from the town of Dubois so that no proposed action has more than a weak contrast

with the characteristic landscape.

MANAGEMENT ACTIONS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

7060 SD: 11 Management prescriptions that are unique to the portion of the Dubois Badlands ACEC that is a WSA are found primarily in the WSA section.

7061 SD: 11 Manage the Dubois Badlands WSA as VRM Class I.

7062 SD: 11 Travel and road density in the ACEC are managed to support ACEC and WSA objectives. See the Comprehensive Trails and Travel

Management and WSA sections for specific management actions.

MANAGEMENT ACTIONS BY ALTERNATIVE

7063 SD: 11 Designate BLM-administered

lands in the Dubois Badlands area

as a 4,903-acre ACEC (Map 130).

Same as Alternative A, but

manage in accordance with the

prescriptions in the following

records.

Do not designate

BLM-administered lands in

the Dubois Badlands area as an

ACEC.

Same as Alternative C, except that

the non-WSA lands are managed

as part of the East Fork ACEC

(Map 132).

7064 SD: 11 Manage the portion of the Dubois

Badlands ACEC outside of the

WSA as VRM Class II.

Same as Alternative A. Manage the former ACEC lands

outside the WSA as VRM Class

III.

Same as Alternative A. See East

Fork ACEC for visual resources

management for this area.

7065 SD: 11 Manage the WSA portions of the

ACEC in accordance with BLM

Manual 6330, Management of

Wilderness Study Areas (see WSA

section). Mineral and realty actions

on BLM-administered lands

outside the WSA are managed with

Category 3 restrictions.

Manage the WSA portions of the

ACEC in accordance with BLM

Manual 6330, Management of

Wilderness Study Areas. Mineral

and realty actions in the ACEC

are managed with Category 6

restrictions.

Manage the WSA portions of the

former ACEC in accordance with

BLM Manual 6330, Management

of Wilderness Study Areas.

Mineral and realty actions on

former ACEC lands outside the

WSA are managed with Category

1 restrictions.

The WSA is managed in

accordance with BLM Manual

6330, Management of Wilderness

Study Areas. See East Fork ACEC

for mineral and realty management

for the parcels that had been part

of the ACEC in Alternative A that

have been added to the East Fork

ACEC.

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 219

7000 SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS (SD) – DUBOIS BADLANDS ACEC (EXISTING)

Record # Goal/

Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

7066 SD: 11 The ACEC is open to livestock

grazing.

Same as Alternative A, except

that the parcels in the ACEC

outside of the WSA are closed

to livestock grazing to provide

adequate wildlife forage.

The former ACEC is open to

livestock grazing.

The WSA is managed in

accordance with BLM Manual

6330, Management of Wilderness

Study Areas. See East Fork ACEC

for livestock grazing management

for the non-WSA lands.

7067 SD: 11 Range improvement projects are

constructed on a case-by-case

basis.

Range improvement projects are

prohibited.

Allow range improvement projects. Livestock grazing in the WSA is

managed in accordance with BLM

Manual 6330, Management of

Wilderness Study Areas.

See East Fork ACEC for the

management of non-WSA lands in

the ACEC.

7068 SD: 11 On a case-by-case basis, determine

management prescriptions,

including livestock grazing

management, of acquired lands in

the ACEC.

Manage any lands acquired and

added to the ACEC in accordance

with the ACEC management

prescriptions. Forage associated

with newly acquired lands is not

available for livestock use.

Acquired lands in the former

ACEC are open to livestock

grazing.

See East Fork ACEC for the

management of non-WSA lands in

the ACEC.

February 2013

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource
220 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table 2.40. 7000 Special Designations (SD) – Whiskey Mountain ACEC (Existing)

7000 SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS (SD) – WHISKEY MOUNTAIN ACEC (EXISTING)

Record # Goal/

Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

Goal SD: 12 Manage Whiskey Mountain with the following objectives:

Objectives:

SD: 12.1 Maintain adequate winter forage for bighorn sheep so as to support WGFD herd objectives.

SD: 12.2 Maintain and improve winter bighorn sheep habitat.

SD: 12.3 Work cooperatively with the WGFD and the USFS to support joint management objectives.

SD: 12.4 Route densities and locations will maintain or enhance the scenic and wildlife values.

MANAGEMENT ACTIONS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

7069 SD: 12 Manage the Whiskey Mountain WSA as VRM Class I.

7070 SD: 12 Travel and road density in the ACEC are managed to support ACEC objectives. See the Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management

section for specific management actions.

MANAGEMENT ACTIONS BY ALTERNATIVE

7071 SD: 12 Designate BLM-administered

lands in the Whiskey Mountain

area as an 8,776-acre ACEC (Map

130).

Same as Alternative A, but

manage in accordance with the

prescriptions in the following

records.

Do not designate

BLM-administered lands in

the Whiskey Mountain area as an

ACEC.

Same as Alternative A.

7072 SD: 12 Manage the portions of the

Whiskey Mountain ACEC outside

of the WSA as VRM Class II.

Same as Alternative A. Manage the portions of the former

ACEC outside of the WSA as

VRM Class III.

Same as Alternative A.

7073 SD: 12 Mineral and realty actions in the

ACEC are managed with Category

6 restrictions.

Same as Alternative A. Manage the WSA portions of the

former ACEC in accordance with

BLM Manual 6330, Management

of Wilderness Study Areas.

Mineral and realty actions on

former ACEC lands outside the

WSA are managed with Category

1 restrictions.

Mineral and realty actions in the

ACEC are as follows:

● Closed to oil and gas leasing

● Closed to geophysical

exploration

● Closed to phosphate leasing

● Proposed for withdrawal from

locatable minerals

● Closed to mineral material

sales

● Excluded for major ROWs

● Avoided for minor ROWs

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 221

7000 SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS (SD) – WHISKEY MOUNTAIN ACEC (EXISTING)

Record # Goal/

Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

7074 SD: 12 Part of the ACEC (2,670 acres)

is open to livestock grazing (Map

130).

The ACEC is closed to livestock

grazing.

The former ACEC is open to

livestock grazing.

Part of the ACEC (2,670 acres)

is open to livestock grazing (Map

132). (Closure of CM Whiskey

Basin Pasture).

7075 SD: 12 Range improvement projects are

constructed on a case-by-case

basis.

Range improvement projects are

prohibited.

Allow range improvement projects. Construct range improvement

projects when the purpose is to

enhance ACEC values.

7076 SD: 12 On a case-by-case basis, determine

management prescriptions,

including livestock grazing

management, of acquired lands in

the ACEC.

Manage any lands acquired and

added to the ACEC in accordance

with the ACEC management

prescriptions. Forage associated

with newly acquired lands is not

available for livestock use.

Acquired lands in the former

ACEC are open to livestock

grazing.

Same as Alternative A.

February 2013

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource
222 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table 2.41. 7000 Special Designations (SD) – East Fork ACEC (Existing)

7000 SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS (SD) – EAST FORK ACEC (EXISTING)

Record # Goal/

Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

Goal SD: 13 Manage East Fork with the following objectives:

Objectives:

SD: 13.1 Maintain adequate winter forage for elk and bighorn sheep so as to support WGFD herd objectives.

SD: 13.2 Maintain winter habitat for elk and bighorn sheep.

SD: 13.3 Work cooperatively with the WGFD to support joint management objectives.

SD: 13.4 Road densities and locations will maintain scenic and wildlife values.

MANAGEMENT ACTIONS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

7077 SD: 13 Visual resources are managed in accordance with prescriptions in the Visual Resources section.

7078 SD: 13 Travel and road density in the ACEC are managed to support ACEC objectives. See the Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management

section for specific management actions.

MANAGEMENT ACTIONS BY ALTERNATIVE

7079 SD: 13 Designate BLM-administered

lands in East Fork as a 4,431-acre

ACEC (Map 130).

Same as Alternative A, but expand

the ACEC by 3,313 acres for a total

of 7,744 acres (Map 131).

Do not designate

BLM-administered lands in

East Fork as an ACEC.

Same as Alternative B, plus

include 342 acres in the East Fork

ACEC transferred from the Dubois

Badlands ACEC for a total of

7,745 acres.

7080 SD: 13 Mineral and realty actions in the

existing ACEC are managed with

Category 6 restrictions. Mineral

and realty actions on the land within

the proposed expanded ACEC in

Alternative B are managed with

Category 1 restrictions.

Mineral and realty actions in the

expanded ACEC are managed with

Category 6 restrictions.

Mineral and realty actions in the

former ACEC are managed with

Category 1 restrictions.

Mineral and realty actions in the

expanded ACEC are managed as

follows:

● Closed to oil and gas leasing

● Closed to geophysical

exploration

● Closed to phosphate leasing

● Withdrawn from locatable

mineral entry (of the 7,745

acres of surface estate in the

ACEC, there are 1,290 acres

of pre-FLPMA withdrawals

and 6,455 acres proposed for

withdrawal)

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 223

7000 SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS (SD) – EAST FORK ACEC (EXISTING)

Record # Goal/

Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

● Closed to mineral material

sales

● Excluded for major ROWs

● Avoided for minor ROWs

7081 SD: 13 The existing ACEC is closed to

livestock grazing; 691 acres within

the proposed expanded ACEC in

Alternative B are open to livestock

grazing. The remaining 2,281

acres in the expansion area are

not offered for grazing but are not

closed.

The ACEC is closed to livestock

grazing, except for 641 acres which

are open for livestock grazing.

The former ACEC is closed to

livestock grazing; 2,972 acres

within the proposed expanded

ACEC are open to livestock

grazing.

Same as Alternative B.

7082 SD: 13 Range improvement projects are

constructed on a case-by-case

basis.

Range improvement projects are

prohibited.

Allow range improvement projects. Construct range improvement

projects when the purpose is to

enhance ACEC values.

7083 SD: 13 On a case-by-case basis, determine

management prescriptions,

including livestock grazing

management, of acquired lands in

the ACEC.

Manage any lands acquired and

added to the ACEC in accordance

with the ACEC management

prescriptions. Forage associated

with newly acquired lands is not

available for livestock use.

On a case-by-case basis, determine

management prescriptions,

including livestock grazing

management, of acquired lands in

the former ACEC.

Same as Alternative A.

February 2013

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource
224 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table 2.42. 7000 Special Designations (SD) – Beaver Rim ACEC (Existing)

7000 SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS (SD) – BEAVER RIM ACEC (EXISTING)

Record # Goal/Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

Goal SD: 14 Manage Beaver Rim with the following objectives:

Objectives:

SD: 14.1 Maintain wildlife habitat, especially for raptors.

SD: 14.2 Maintain the views of Beaver Rim from Highway 287, views from the areas below the Rim, and the views looking out from the Rim.

SD: 14.3 Maintain the habitat for sensitive plant species and unique plant communities.

SD: 14.4 Protect significant Traditional Cultural Properties associated with the Rim.

SD: 14.5 Protect the geological resources of the Rim.

SD: 14.6 Work cooperatively to improve the educational and recreational values of the Rim.

MANAGEMENT ACTIONS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

7084 SD: 14 Beaver Rim is open to livestock grazing and managed to meet the goals and objectives for the area.

7085 SD: 14 Work cooperatively with partners to develop and implement aggressive plans to control and eradicate invasive species.

7086 SD: 14 Travel and road density in the ACEC are managed to support ACEC objectives. See the Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management

section for specific management actions.

MANAGEMENT ACTIONS BY ALTERNATIVE

7087 SD: 14 Designate BLM-administered lands

in Beaver Rim as a 6,421-acre

ACEC (Map 130).

Same as Alternative A, but expand

the ACEC by 14,111 acres for a

total of 20,254 acres (Map 131).

Do not designate the

BLM-administered lands in

Beaver Rim as an ACEC.

Same as Alternative A.

7088 SD: 14 Manage different parts of the

ACEC as VRM Class II to IV.

(6,421 acres).

Manage different parts of the

ACEC as VRM Class II or III.

Manage different parts of Beaver

Rim as VRM Class III or IV.

Manage the ACEC as VRM Class

II.

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 225

7000 SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS (SD) – BEAVER RIM ACEC (EXISTING)

Record # Goal/Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

7089 SD: 14 Mineral and realty actions in

the ACEC are managed with

Category 3 restrictions in areas

with moderate, low, or no potential

for oil and gas. Areas with

high potential are managed with

Category 1 restrictions. Locatable

minerals are subject to restrictions

in areas where these activities

could cause adverse impacts

to other significant resource

values. Mineral and realty actions

on land within the proposed

expanded ACEC in Alternative

B are managed with Category 1

restrictions.

Mineral and realty actions in the

expanded ACEC are managed with

Category 6 restrictions.

Mineral and realty actions in the

former ACEC are managed with

Category 1 restrictions.

Mineral and realty actions in the

ACEC are managed as follows:

● Open to oil and gas leasing

subject to NSO stipulations

● Oil and gas leasing in the

14,111 acres designated as an

expanded ACEC in Alternative

B is open subject to an MLP

● Closed to geophysical

exploration

● Closed to solid mineral leasing

● Open with a Plan of Operations

to locatable minerals

● Closed to mineral material

disposal

● Excluded for major ROWs

● Avoided for minor ROWs

7090 SD: 14 On a case-by-case basis, protect

sensitive plant species and unique

plant communities and focus

plant community management on

wildlife habitat.

Manage the plant community to

provide wildlife habitat and to

protect sensitive plant species and

unique plant communities.

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative B.

7091 SD: 14 Do not focus management on

developing interpretation.

Cooperate with the State of

Wyoming and others to develop

educational signage, driving loops,

and kiosks regarding unique plant

communities, unique geology, and

visual resources.

Same as Alternative B. Same as Alternative B.

7092 SD: 14 Range improvement projects are

constructed on a case-by-case

basis.

Range improvement projects are

prohibited.

Allow range improvement projects. Construct range improvement

projects when the purpose is to

enhance ACEC values.

7093 SD: 14 On a case-by-case basis, determine

management prescriptions,

including livestock grazing

management, of acquired lands in

the ACEC.

Manage any lands acquired and

added to the ACEC in accordance

with the ACEC management

prescriptions. Forage associated

with newly acquired lands is not

available for livestock use.

Acquired lands in the former ACEC

are open to livestock grazing.

Same as Alternative A.

February 2013

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource
226 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table 2.43. 7000 Special Designations (SD) – Green Mountain ACEC (Existing)

7000 SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS (SD) – GREEN MOUNTAIN ACEC (EXISTING)

Record # Goal/Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

Goal SD: 15 Manage Green Mountain with the following objectives:

Objectives:

SD: 15.1 Maintain adequate forage for elk to support WGFD herd objectives.

SD: 15.2 Maintain or enhance habitat for elk.

SD: 15.3 Road densities and locations will maintain scenic and wildlife values.

SD: 15.4 Protect the historical integrity of Sparhawk Cabin.

MANAGEMENT ACTIONS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

7094 SD: 15 The ACEC is open to livestock grazing and managed to meet the goals and objectives for the ACEC.

7095 SD: 15 Travel and road density in the ACEC are managed to support ACEC objectives. See the Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management

section for specific management actions.

MANAGEMENT ACTIONS BY ALTERNATIVE

7096 SD: 15 Designate BLM-administered

lands in the Green Mountain area

as a 14,612-acre ACEC (Map

130).

Same as Alternative A, but expand

the ACEC by 10,248 acres for a

total of 24,860 acres (Map 131).

Do not designate

BLM-administered lands in

the Green Mountain area as an

ACEC.

Same as Alternative A, but expand

the ACEC by 6,777 acres for a

total of 21,389 acres (Map 132).

7097 SD: 15 Mineral and realty actions in the

ACEC are managed with Category

3 restrictions.

Management of mineral and realty

actions in those portions of the

ACEC that are campgrounds and

picnic sites is addressed in the

Recreation section.

Mineral and realty actions in the

expanded ACEC are managed with

Category 6 restrictions.

Mineral and realty actions in the

former ACEC are managed with

Category 1 restrictions.

Management of mineral and realty

actions in those portions of the

ACEC that are campgrounds and

picnic sites is addressed in the

Recreation section.

Mineral and realty actions in the

expanded ACEC are managed as

follows:

● Open to oil and gas leasing

subject to NSO stipulations

● Closed to geophysical

exploration

● Closed to solid mineral leasing

● Open with a Plan of Operations

to locatable minerals

● Closed to mineral material

disposals

● Excluded for major ROWs

● Avoided for minor ROWs

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 227

7000 SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS (SD) – GREEN MOUNTAIN ACEC (EXISTING)

Record # Goal/Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

The expanded ACEC area

under Alternative B that is not

designated as part of the ACEC

(7,383 acres) is managed with the

same prescriptions as the ACEC

except that no Plan of Operations

is required for locatable mineral

disturbances less than 5 acres.

7098 SD: 15 Manage different parts of the

ACEC as VRM Class II or III

(Map 130).

Same as Alternative A. Manage different parts of the

former ACEC as VRM Class III or

IV.

The ACEC will be managed as

VRM Class II.

7099 SD: 15 The forested areas are available

for commercial timber sales and

managed to promote elk habitat.

Same as Alternative A. Manage forested areas to improve

their potential for salable timber.

Same as Alternative A.

7100 SD: 15 Range improvement projects are

constructed on a case-by-case

basis.

Range improvement projects are

prohibited.

Allow range improvement projects. Construct range improvement

projects when the purpose is

compatible with ACEC values.

7101 SD: 15 On a case-by-case basis, determine

management prescriptions,

including livestock grazing

management, of acquired lands in

the ACEC.

Manage any lands acquired and

added to the ACEC in accordance

with the ACEC management

prescriptions. Forage associated

with newly acquired lands is not

available for livestock use.

Acquired lands in the former ACEC

are open to livestock grazing.

Same as Alternative A.

February 2013

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource
228 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table 2.44. 7000 Special Designations (SD) – South Pass Historic Mining Area ACEC (Existing)

7000 SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS (SD) – SOUTH PASS HISTORIC MINING AREA ACEC (EXISTING)

Record # Goal/Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

Goal SD: 16 Manage the South Pass Historic Mining Area, including the historic sites of Miner’s Delight and South Pass City, with the following objectives:

Objectives:

SD: 16.1 Protect significant historic sites and the intact settings around them.

SD: 16.2 Work cooperatively with the State of Wyoming and others to reduce the hazards from AML.

SD: 16.3 Work cooperatively with the State of Wyoming and others to maintain and enhance the recreational use of the Area.

Goal SD: 17 Maintain the ACEC to provide an opportunity to experience and reflect upon the wide variety of scenic, cultural, historic, and physiographic setting

characteristics of the land.

Goal SD: 18 Use of the ACEC will minimally affect adjacent natural and cultural environments and harmonize with the management objectives of land and resource

uses which are or may be occurring on the lands through which the trail passes.

Goal SD: 19 Preserve and protect the historical remains and historical settings of the Oregon, Mormon Pioneer, California, and Pony Express NHTs and their associated

historic sites for public use and enjoyment.

Goal SD: 20 Provide for the outdoor recreation needs of an expanding population and promote the preservation of public access and enjoyment of the open air,

outdoor areas, and historic resources of the nation.

MANAGEMENT ACTIONS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

7102 SD: 16 Conform to local zoning ordinances that apply to the area around South Pass City.

7103 SD: 16 The area is open to livestock grazing. Fence off historic sites that are adversely impacted by livestock grazing. Make forage associated with

newly acquired lands available for livestock use.

7104 SD: 16 Travel and road density in the ACEC are managed to support ACEC objectives. See the Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management

section for specific management actions.

MANAGEMENT ACTIONS BY ALTERNATIVE

7105 SD: 16 Designate BLM-administered

lands in the South Pass Historic

Mining Area as a 12,576-acre

ACEC (Map 130).

Same as Alternative A, but expand

the ACEC by 10,863 acres for a

total of 23,439 acres (Map 131).

Do not designate

BLM-administered lands in

the South Pass Historic Mining

Area as an ACEC.

Designate the 124,229-acre South

Pass Historical Landscape ACEC,

which includes the 1987 South

Pass Historic Mining Area ACEC

(12,576 acres) (Map 132).

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 229

7000 SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS (SD) – SOUTH PASS HISTORIC MINING AREA ACEC (EXISTING)

Record # Goal/Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

7106 SD: 16 Manage different parts of the

ACEC as VRM Class II to IV

(Map 75).

Manage different parts of the

ACEC as VRM Class II or III

(Map 76).

Manage different parts of the

former ACEC as VRM Class III or

IV (Map 77).

Manage the South Pass Historical

Landscape ACEC as VRM Class

II (Map 78).

On a case-by-case basis, remove

or reclaim visually intrusive

existing roads, facilities, and ROW

not necessary to attain NHT or

CDNST management objectives.

7107 SD: 16 Mineral and realty actions in the

ACEC are managed with Category

3 restrictions. Withdraw a portion

of the ACEC (1,727 acres around

sites such as Miner’s Delight and

South Pass City) (Map 130) except

for casual use.

Mineral and realty actions in the

ACEC are managed with Category

6 restrictions.

Mineral and realty actions in the

former ACEC are managed with

Category 1 restrictions.

Mineral and realty actions, except

for major ROWs, within the South

Pass Historical Landscape ACEC

are managed as follows:

● Open to oil and gas leasing

subject to NSO stipulations

● Closed to geophysical

exploration

● Closed to solid mineral leasing

● Open with a Plan of Operations

unless otherwise withdrawn to

locatable minerals

● Closed to mineral material

disposals

● Excluded for major ROWs

● Avoided for minor ROWs

Portions of the South Pass

Historical Landscape ACEC are

within the Hudson to Atlantic

City mineral withdrawal for the

benefit of wildlife, viewsheds, and

cultural resources. The ACEC is

entirely within the NTMC (see the

Congressionally Designated Trails

section), which is avoided for

major ROWs except in designated

corridors. ACEC management

excludes the South Pass Historical

February 2013

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource
230 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

7000 SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS (SD) – SOUTH PASS HISTORIC MINING AREA ACEC (EXISTING)

Record # Goal/Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

Landscape ACEC for major

ROWs.

7108 SD: 17,

18, 19

No similar action. No similar action. No similar action. Highly visible projects and/or

projects out of scale with the

surrounding environment (such as

large wind-energy development

projects, gas plants, power plants,

transmission lines, etc.) are subject

to the following restriction:

Projects of this type outside of 5

miles on each side of the NHTs

(except within the main Lost Creek

utility corridor) are authorized

only if the project causes no more

than a weak contrast, as defined in

the BLM Visual Resource Manual.

7109 SD: 17,

18, 19

No similar action. No similar action. No similar action. Range projects and mineral

supplementation and their

associated impacts within the new

South Pass Historical Landscape

ACEC: analyze projects on a

case-by-case base and allow those

that conform to the VRM Class for

the area.

7110 SD: 17,

18, 19

No similar action. No similar action. No similar action. 0 to 5 miles on each side of NHTs:

new audible and atmospheric

effects will not exceed current

levels existing along the NHT

corridors.

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 231

7000 SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS (SD) – SOUTH PASS HISTORIC MINING AREA ACEC (EXISTING)

Record # Goal/Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

7111 SD: 16 When possible, implement fire

and fuels management to reduce

dangers from fire in the WUI.

Where appropriate in consideration

of wildlife and visual resources,

develop and implement fire and

fuels management to reduce

dangers from fire in the WUI.

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A.

7112 SD: 16 Develop a cultural resource

management plan for the South

Pass Historic Mining Area.

Develop a cultural resource

protection and management plan

for the South Pass Historic Mining

Area, including stabilization,

recreation, stewardship, and

public education plans for Miner’s

Delight, Lemley Mill, and the

BLM-administered portion of

South Pass City.

No similar action. Same as Alternative B.

February 2013

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource
232 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table 2.45. 7000 Special Designations (SD) – National Historic Trails ACEC (Existing)

7000 SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS (SD) – NATIONAL HISTORIC TRAILS ACEC (EXISTING)

Record # Goal/

Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

Goals and objectives for the National Historic Trails ACEC are contained in the Congressionally Designated Trails section.

MANAGEMENT ACTIONS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

N/A N/A Note: Management actions for the National Historic Trails ACEC are provided in the Congressionally Designated Trails section.

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 233

Table 2.46. 7000 Special Designations (SD) – Continental Divide National Scenic Trail ACEC (Proposed)

7000 SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS (SD) – CONTINENTAL DIVIDE NATIONAL SCENIC TRAIL ACEC (PROPOSED)

Record # Goal/

Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

Goals and objectives for the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail ACEC are contained in the Congressionally Designated Trails section.

MANAGEMENT ACTIONS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

N/A N/A Note: Management actions for the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail ACEC are provided in the Congressionally Designated Trails

section.

February 2013

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource
234 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table 2.47. 7000 Special Designations (SD) – Cedar Ridge ACEC (Proposed)

7000 SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS (SD) – CEDAR RIDGE ACEC (PROPOSED)

Record # Goal/Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

Goal SD: 21 Manage Cedar Ridge with the following objectives:

Objectives:

SD: 21.1 Protect and enhance the site’s traditional cultural importance.

SD: 21.2 Prevent disturbance to the site.

SD: 21.3 Protect and enhance access to the site.

SD: 21.4 Protect archeologically significant properties such as stone alignments, cairns, effigies, and circles.

SD: 21.5 Protect artifacts and evidence of prehistoric activity.

MANAGEMENT ACTIONS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

7113 SD: 21 Travel and road density in the area are managed to support ACEC objectives. (See 6000-Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management for

specific management actions.)

7114 SD: 21 The area is open to livestock grazing and managed to meet the goals and objectives for the cultural property.

MANAGEMENT ACTIONS BY ALTERNATIVE

7115 SD: 21 Manage Cedar Ridge to protect the

area as a TCP subject to standard

Protocol and NHPA measures.

Manage visual effects to the

Traditional Cultural Property on a

case-by-case basis using standard

Protocol and NHPA measures.

Designate BLM-administered

lands in Cedar Ridge area as a

7,039-acre ACEC (Map 131).

Same as Alternative A. Manage the Cedar Ridge TCP

(255 acres) and its periphery

(3,284 acres) to protect its cultural

and sacred resources. Do not

designate the TCP and periphery

as an ACEC.

7116 SD: 21 Manage different parts of Cedar

Ridge as VRM Class II to IV.

Manage the ACEC as VRM Class

II.

Manage different parts of Cedar

Ridge as VRM Class III or IV.

Manage the Cedar Ridge TCP

as VRM Class II. Manage the

periphery area as VRM Class III.

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 235

7000 SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS (SD) – CEDAR RIDGE ACEC (PROPOSED)

Record # Goal/Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

7117 SD: 21 Mineral and realty actions in the

Cedar Ridge area are managed

with Category 2 restrictions.

Mineral and realty actions in the

ACEC are managed with Category

6 restrictions.

Mineral and realty actions in the

Cedar Ridge area are managed with

Category 1 restrictions.

Mineral and realty actions in the

TCP are managed as follows:

● Open to oil and gas leasing

subject to NSO stipulations

● Closed to geophysical

exploration

● Closed to solid minerals

leasing

● Closed to pursue locatable

mineral withdrawal

● Closed to mineral material

disposal

● Excluded to major ROWs

● Avoided for minor ROWs

Mineral and realty actions in the

periphery are managed as follows:

● Open to oil and gas leasing

subject to CSU stipulations

● Open to geophysical

exploration subject to CSU

stipulations

● Open to solid minerals leasing

for 5 acres or less, subject

to limits on surface use

comparable the CSU for oil

and gas.

● Open to mineral material

disposals subject to CSU

stipulations

● Avoided for major ROWs

● Open to minor ROWs subject

to CSU stipulations

February 2013

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource
236 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

7000 SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS (SD) – CEDAR RIDGE ACEC (PROPOSED)

Record # Goal/Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

7118 SD: 21 Range improvement projects are

authorized on a case-by-case basis.

Range improvement projects are

prohibited.

Authorize range improvement

projects.

Do not authorize new range

improvement projects or mineral

supplementation in the TCP.

The periphery is open to range

improvements and mineral

supplementation subject to a CSU

stipulation.

7119 SD: 21 On a case-by-case basis, determine

management prescriptions,

including livestock grazing

management, of acquired lands in

the Cedar Ridge area.

Manage any lands acquired and

added to the ACEC in accordance

with the ACEC management

prescriptions. Forage associated

with newly acquired lands is not

considered for livestock use.

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A.

7120 SD: 21 On a case-by-case basis, manage

to protect archeological values but

do not develop a management and

protection plan or site stewardship

plan.

Complete an archeological

inventory of the ACEC and

develop a management and

protection plan (including a site

stewardship plan) for the ACEC.

Same as Alternative A. In conjunction with the

Casper Field Office, develop

a management and protection plan

(including a site stewardship plan)

for the TCP and periphery.

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 237

Table 2.48. 7000 Special Designations (SD) – Castle Gardens ACEC (Proposed)

7000 SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS (SD) – CASTLE GARDENS ACEC (PROPOSED)

Record # Goal/

Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

Goal SD: 22 Manage Castle Gardens with the following objectives:

Objectives:

SD: 22.1 Establish appropriate management prescriptions to improve the integrity of this site. Utilize public and tribal input to redesign the constructed facilities to

enhance the visitor’s experience. Utilize scientific expertise to repair damage to, reduce vandalism upon, and better preserve the prehistoric rock art.

SD: 22.2 Decrease vandalism, cross-country use, and erosion through better interpretation, removal of existing graffiti where possible, and redesign of constructed

facilities.

SD: 22.3 Make recreation use compatible with cultural and scientific values. Redesign the constructed facilities to reduce erosion and damage to soils, vegetation,

and buried cultural resources.

SD: 22.4 Coordinate with recreation and other programs to improve interpretation of the site’s rock art (i.e., low profile informational signs at selected locations

within the site, incorporating new scientific information about the site); improve public enjoyment and appreciation of the site (i.e., improved barriers, viewing

areas, and paths to the rock art panels).

SD: 22.5 Provide opportunities for appropriate scientific research at the site.

MANAGEMENT ACTIONS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

7121 SD: 22 Travel and road density in the area are managed to support ACEC objectives. (See 6000-Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management for

specific management actions.)

7122 SD: 22 The 78 acre immediate site area is closed to livestock grazing and managed to meet the goals and objectives for the cultural property.

MANAGEMENT ACTIONS BY ALTERNATIVES

7123 SD: 22 Manage BLM-administered

lands immediately around

the Castle Gardens site as a

cultural/recreational site (78 acres).

Designate BLM-administered

lands within a 3-mile radius around

the Castle Gardens site as an

8,469-acre ACEC (Map 131).

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A, plus

manage approximately 1,656 acres

around the periphery of the site

to support cultural values (see

Map 132). (The periphery area

includes the 3 BLM sections to the

northwest, northeast, and southeast

of Castle Gardens minus any

private lands in these sections). Do

not designate the Castle Garden

area or periphery as an ACEC.

February 2013

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource
238 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

7000 SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS (SD) – CASTLE GARDENS ACEC (PROPOSED)

Record # Goal/

Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

7124 SD: 22 Manage different parts of the area

as VRM Class II to IV.

Manage different parts of the

ACEC as VRM Class II or III.

Manage the cultural/recreational

site as a VRM Class III, but

manage the lands around it as

VRM Class IV.

Manage the Castle Gardens site

and periphery as VRM Class II.

7125 SD: 22 Mineral and realty actions in the

78-acre area are managed with

Category 5 restrictions, and outside

the 78 acres are managed with

Category 1 restrictions.

Mineral and realty actions in

the 78-acre area are managed

with Category 5 restrictions.

Mineral and realty actions in the

remainder of the ACEC (8,391

acres) are managed with Category

4 restrictions.

Same as Alternative A. Mineral and realty actions in the

78-acre area are managed with the

following restrictions:

● Open to oil and gas leasing

subject to NSO stipulations

● Closed to geophysical

exploration

● Closed to solid mineral leasing

● Withdrawn from locatable

mineral entry in pre-FLPMA

action

● Closed to mineral material

disposal

● Excluded to major ROWs

● Excluded for minor ROWs

Mineral and realty actions in the

periphery area are managed with

the following restrictions:

● Open to oil and gas leasing

subject to NSO stipulations

● Open to geophysical

exploration

● Closed to solid mineral leasing

● Closed to mineral material

disposal

● Excluded to major ROWs

● Avoided for minor ROWs

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 239

7000 SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS (SD) – CASTLE GARDENS ACEC (PROPOSED)

Record # Goal/

Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

7126 SD: 22 Manage the area to facilitate

recreational use while protecting

resource values.

Develop and implement a new

protection and management

plan, including redesigning the

site stewardship program and

continuing the research program.

Modify access to the ACEC

and manage recreational use to

limit damage to the rock art and

sacred sites. Remove improved

recreational facilities, such as the

picnic area, in the 78-acre area.

Limit road access to outside of the

78-acre core.

Same as Alternative A. Develop and implement a new

protection and management plan,

including redesigning the site,

implementing a stewardship

program, and continuing the

research program.

7127 SD: 22 Range improvement projects in the

periphery area are constructed on a

case-by-case basis.

Do not allow new range

improvement projects, including

mineral supplementation and their

associated impacts, within the

boundaries of the Castle Gardens

ACEC.

Same as Alternative A. Construct range improvement

projects in the periphery only when

compatible with the area’s cultural

values.

7128 SD: 22 On a case-by-case basis, determine

management prescriptions,

including livestock grazing

management, of acquired lands in

the area.

Manage any lands acquired and

added to the ACEC in accordance

with the ACEC management

prescriptions. Forage associated

with newly acquired lands is not

considered for livestock use.

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A.

February 2013

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource
240 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table 2.49. 7000 Special Designations (SD) – Sweetwater Rocks ACEC (Proposed)

7000 SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS (SD) – SWEETWATER ROCKS ACEC (PROPOSED)

Record # Goal/Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

Goal SD: 23 Manage the Sweetwater Rocks with the following objectives:

Objectives:

SD: 23.1 Maintain the views of the Sweetwater Rocks from Wyoming State Highway 220 and U.S. Highway 287 and the viewshed looking out from the Rocks.

SD: 23.2 Route densities and locations will maintain or enhance the scenic and wilderness characteristics.

SD: 23.3 The areas within the Sweetwater Rocks WSAs are managed in accordance with BLM Manual 6330, Management of Wilderness Study Areas.

MANAGEMENT ACTIONS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

7129 SD: 23 Visual resource, livestock grazing, mineral, realty and travel management actions for the WSA portions of the proposed ACEC are found in the

WSA section.

MANAGEMENT ACTIONS BY ALTERNATIVE

7130 SD: 23 Do not designate the Sweetwater

Rocks area as an ACEC.

Designate BLM-administered

lands in the Sweetwater Rocks

area as a 152,347 acre ACEC (Map

131).

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A.

7131 SD: 23 Manage the areas outside of the

WSA as VRM Class II to IV.

Manage the areas outside of the

WSAs as VRM Class II to III.

Manage the areas outside of the

WSAs as VRM Class II to IV.

Manage the area outside of the

WSAs as VRM Class II except

that portion that is within the Lost

Creek ROW corridor which is

managed as Class III.

7132 SD: 23 Mineral and realty actions in

the area outside of the WSAs

are managed with Category 1

restrictions.

Mineral and realty actions in the

ACEC are managed with Category

6 restrictions.

Same as Alternative A. Mineral and realty actions in

the area outside of the WSAs

(118,165 acres) are managed with

the following restrictions:

● Open to oil and gas leasing

subject to CSU stipulations

● Open to geophysical

exploration

● Open to solid mineral leasing

● Closed to mineral material

disposal except for preexisting

sales and free use permits.

● Open to major ROWs

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 241

7000 SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS (SD) – SWEETWATER ROCKS ACEC (PROPOSED)

Record # Goal/Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

● Open to minor ROWs

7133 SD: 23 On a case-by-case basis, determine

management prescriptions,

including livestock grazing

management, of acquired lands in

Sweetwater Rocks.

Manage any lands acquired and

added to the ACEC in accordance

with the ACEC management

prescriptions. Forage associated

with newly acquired lands is not

considered for livestock use.

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A.

February 2013

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource
242 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table 2.50. 7000 Special Designations (SD) – Regional Historic Trails and Early Highways ACEC (Proposed)

7000 SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS (SD) – REGIONAL HISTORIC TRAILS AND EARLY HIGHWAYS ACEC (PROPOSED) (RHT&EHs)

Record # Goal/Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

Goal SD: 24 Manage the RHT&EHs with the following objectives:

Objectives:

SD: 24.1 Maintain and enhance the significant qualities of RHT&EH segments and sites. Avoid adverse effects, as defined in the NHPA and the BLM/SHPO

Wyoming State Protocol, upon intact RHT&EH segments, their settings, and associated sites.

SD: 24.2 Protect remnants, ruts, traces, graves, campsites, landmarks, artifacts, and other remains associated with the RHT&EHs.

The following are RHT&EHs determined Eligible for the NRHP:

● Bridger Trail

● Casper to Lander Road

● Rawlins-Fort Washakie Stage Trail

● Green River to South Pass to Fort Washakie Stage Trail

● Birdseye Pass Stage Trail

● Point of Rocks to South Pass Stage Trail

● Yellowstone/National Park to Park Highway

MANAGEMENT ACTIONS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

7134 SD: 24 Pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 as amended, the National Programmatic Agreement and the

Wyoming State Protocol, case-by-case reviews for specific undertakings require analysis and assessments of effects. Such analysis and

assessment may reveal the need for additional restrictions beyond those specifically described in the RMP.

7135 SD: 24 RHT&EHs and acquired lands added to RHT&EHs are open to livestock grazing.

MANAGEMENT ACTIONS BY ALTERNATIVE

7136 SD: 24 Do not designate the RHT&EH

as an ACEC. Manage RHT&EHs

on a case-by-case basis in

consideration of resource values

and in accordance with the NHPA

(Map 79).

Designate BLM-administered

lands within 1⁄2 mile on each side of

intact segments of each RHT&EH

as a 89,016-acre ACEC (Map 131).

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A.

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 243

7000 SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS (SD) – REGIONAL HISTORIC TRAILS AND EARLY HIGHWAYS ACEC (PROPOSED) (RHT&EHs)

Record # Goal/Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

7137 SD: 24 Mineral and realty actions are

subject to the following restrictions

(Map 79):

● Within 1⁄4 mile on each side

of designated portions of

the RHT&EHs or the visible

horizon, whichever is closer,

are managed with Category 2

restrictions.

● The area beyond 1⁄4 mile from

the RHT&EHs is managed

with Category 1 restrictions

and NHPA measures to

minimize the effects to these

RHT&EHs.

Mineral and realty actions, except

for highly visible projects (e.g.,

wind farms, gas plants, and power

plants), are subject to the following

restrictions (Map 80):

● Within 1⁄2 mile on each side

of intact segments of the

RHT&EHs is managed with

Category 5 restrictions.

● 1⁄2 to 2 miles on each side

of intact segments of the

RHT&EHs are managed with

Category 4 restrictions unless

the proposed project and its

associated impacts are not

visible from the RHT&EHs.

● 2 to 5 miles on each side

of intact segments of the

RHT&EHs are managed with

Category 2 restrictions unless

the proposed project and its

associated impacts are not

visible from the RHT&EHs.

● Outside of 5 miles on each side

of the RHT&EHs are managed

with Category 1 restrictions.

Mineral and realty actions along

the RHT&EHs are managed with

Category 1 restrictions.

Inside of DDAs, maintain and

develop MOAs for RHT&EH

management within DDAs. Where

MOAs are not developed mineral

and realty actions are managed

with standard Protocol and NHPA

measures and (Map 79):

● Open to oil and gas leasing

subject to CSU stipulations

● Open to geophysical

exploration

● Open to solid mineral leasing

● Open to mineral material

disposal subject to CSU

stipulations

● Open to major ROWs

● Open to minor ROWs

Outside of DDAs, protect the

foreground of Historic Trails

(defined in Glossary) up to 2 miles

where setting is an important

aspect of the integrity for the

trail, and use Best Management

Practices (Appendix H (p. 1521))

to avoid or mitigate adverse

effects. Pursue site-specific

protection plans or MOAs for

RHT&EH management.

February 2013

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource
244 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

7000 SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS (SD) – REGIONAL HISTORIC TRAILS AND EARLY HIGHWAYS ACEC (PROPOSED) (RHT&EHs)

Record # Goal/Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

7138 SD: 24 Highly visible projects and/or

projects out of scale with

surrounding environment (e.g.,

wind farms, gas plants, and power

plants) are managed with Category

2 restrictions from 0 to 5 miles

on each side of intact segments

of the RHT&EHs unless the

proposed project and its associated

impacts are not visible from the

RHT&EHs.

Highly visible projects and/or

projects out of scale with

surrounding environment (e.g.,

wind farms, gas plants, and power

plants) are managed with Category

5 restrictions from 0 to 5 miles

on each side of intact segments

of the RHT&EHs unless the

proposed project and its associated

impacts are not visible from the

RHT&EHs.

Areas outside of 5 miles on each

side of the RHT&EHs are managed

with Category 1 restrictions.

Highly visible projects and/or

projects out of scale with

surrounding environment (e.g.,

wind farms, gas plants, and power

plants) are managed with Category

1 restrictions from 0 to 5 miles on

each side of intact segments of the

RHT&EHs unless the proposed

project and its associated impacts

are not visible from the RHT&EHs.

Highly visible projects and/or

projects out of scale with

surrounding environment (e.g.,

wind farms, gas plants, and

power plants) are managed on a

case-by-case basis.

7139 SD: 24 Do not authorize commercial

motorized travel or ROWs on

non-historic existing roads and

trails.

Limit motorized and mechanized

travel to designated roads and

trails.

Limit motorized travel to existing

roads and trails.

Same as Alternative A.

7140 SD: 24 Range improvement projects and

mineral supplementation and their

associated impacts are subject to

the following restrictions (Map

79):

● Avoid within 1⁄4 mile on each

side of designated portions of

the RHT&EHs or the visible

horizon, whichever is closer.

● The area beyond 1⁄4 mile from

the RHT&EHs is open subject

to Standard Protocol and

NHPA measures to minimize

the effects to the RHT&EHs.

Range improvement projects and

mineral supplementation and their

associated impacts are subject to

the following restrictions (Map

80):

● Do not authorize within 2 miles

on each side of the RHT&EHs

unless these actions and their

associated impacts are not

visible from the RHT&EHs.

● Authorize from 2 to 5 miles

on each side of the RHT&EHs

only if these actions and their

associated impacts cause no

more than a weak contrast,

as defined in the BLM Visual

Resource Manual.

Same as Alternative A. Range projects (including mineral

supplementation) and their

associated impacts are subject to

the following restrictions within 1⁄2

mile of the trail (Map 79):

● Projects and their associated

impacts are considered on a

case-by-case basis to ensure

that they are either hidden from

the trails, are too far away to

be seen, or are designed or

camouflaged to cause no

more than a weak contrast,

as defined in the BLM Visual

Resource Manual.

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 245

Table 2.51. 7000 Special Designations (SD) – Government Draw/Upper Sweetwater Sage-Grouse ACEC (Proposed)

7000 SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS (SD) – GOVERNMENT DRAW/UPPER SWEETWATER SAGE-GROUSE ACEC (PROPOSED)

Record # Goal/

Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

Goal SD: 25 Manage the Government Draw/Upper Sweetwater Sage-Grouse area with the following objectives:

Objectives:

SD: 25.1 Maintain and improve forage and cover for greater sage-grouse.

SD: 25.2 Maintain and improve leks, brood-rearing, and winter habitats for greater sage-grouse.

SD: 25.3 Protect water sources for greater sage-grouse.

SD: 25.4 Consider greater sage-grouse needs and protections in permitting activities on BLM-administered land.

SD: 25.5 Route densities and locations will maintain or enhance greater sage-grouse habitat.

MANAGEMENT ACTIONS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

7141 SD: 25 VRM prescriptions are contained in the Visual Resources section.

7142 SD: 25 Travel management for the area is in the Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management section.

7143 SD: 25 The area is open to livestock grazing.

MANAGEMENT ACTIONS BY ALTERNATIVE

7144 SD: 25 Do not designate the Government

Draw/Upper Sweetwater

Sage-Grouse area as an ACEC.

Designate BLM-administered

lands in the Government

Draw/Upper Sweetwater

Sage-Grouse area as an ACEC

(1,246,791 acres) (Map 131).

Same as Alternative A. Designate 35,102 acres in the

Hudson to Atlantic City area as the

Twin Creek ACEC (Map 132).

February 2013

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource
246 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

7000 SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS (SD) – GOVERNMENT DRAW/UPPER SWEETWATER SAGE-GROUSE ACEC (PROPOSED)

Record # Goal/

Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

7145 SD: 25 Mineral and realty actions in the

area are managed with Category 1

restrictions.

Mineral and realty actions in the

ACEC are managed with Category

6 restrictions.

Do not re-offer for lease expired

existing oil and gas leases, except

as necessary to provide drainage

protection.

Mineral and realty actions in the

area are managed with Category 1

restrictions.

Mineral and realty actions on

306,360 acres of land in the

Hudson to Atlantic City area

(including the Twin Creek ACEC)

are managed as follows to protect

multiple resource values:

● Open to oil and gas leasing

subject to NSO stipulations

● Closed to geophysical

exploration

● Closed to solid mineral leasing

● Withdrawn from locatable

mineral entry. Conduct

validity exams as staffing

allows. Evaluate opportunities,

including working with

partners to buy out valid claims

beneficial to resource values.

Encourage buy-out of valid

claims for offsite mitigation

of surface disturbance in

important wildlife habitat,

including Core Area.

● Closed to new mineral material

disposals

● Avoided for major ROWs

except for designated corridors

● Avoided for minor ROWs

7146 SD: 25 No similar action. Actively pursue opportunities to

reclaim existing roads and trails

and ROWs not necessary to attain

management objectives in order

to protect greater sage-grouse and

their habitat.

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative B, except

as opportunities arise. (See the

Recreation section for motorized

travel in Johnny Behind the

Rocks.)

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 247

7000 SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS (SD) – GOVERNMENT DRAW/UPPER SWEETWATER SAGE-GROUSE ACEC (PROPOSED)

Record # Goal/

Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

7147 SD: 25 The area is open to livestock

grazing.

The area is open to livestock

grazing and managed to maintain

or enhance greater sage-grouse

habitat. (See the Vegetation

and Grazing sections for

additional management for greater

sage-grouse habitat objectives.)

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative B.

7148 SD: 25 Range improvement projects are

constructed on a case-by-case

basis.

Range improvement projects are

prohibited.

Allow range improvement projects. Construct range improvement

projects when the purpose is

compatible with Area values.

7149 SD: 25 Consider greater sage-grouse

habitat when authorizing

vegetation treatments.

Limit vegetation treatments to

those that improve and enhance

sagebrush steppe habitat.

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative B, plus only

allow vegetation treatments if they

will maintain or enhance greater

sage-grouse habitat. See additional

management actions in the Fire

and Fuels Management section.

7150 SD: 25 On a case-by-case basis, determine

management prescriptions,

including livestock grazing

management, of acquired lands in

the area.

Manage any lands acquired and

added to the ACEC in accordance

with the ACEC management

prescriptions. Forage associated

with newly acquired lands is not

available for livestock use.

Same as Alternative A. Same of Alternative A.

February 2013

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource
248 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table 2.52. 8000 Socioeconomic Resources (SR) and Health and Safety

8000 SOCIOECONOMIC RESOURCES (SR) and HEALTH AND SAFETY

Record # Goal/Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

Goal SR: 1 Provide sustainable economic development opportunities for a diversity of resources including energy, grazing and other agricultural activities, recreation,

wildlife, fisheries, tourism, and others.

Objective:

SR: 1.1 Provide resources and necessary access, consistent with multiple and sustainable use, for economic, cultural, and social viability at the national, regional,

and local levels.

Goal SR: 2 Consider local and regional economic development and land use plans in BLM decision making. Provide opportunities for economic and social

sustainability at the national, regional and local level.

Objective:

SR: 2.1 Consider the impact of BLM management actions on community health, welfare, infrastructure, services, housing, employment, custom, and culture.

Goal SR: 3 Respect, recognize, and support public health and safety needs.

Objectives:

SR: 3.1 Reduce potential threats to public health and safety on BLM-administered lands.

SR: 3.2 On a case-by-case basis, permit commercial use of BLM-administered lands with a requirement to submit a safety plan prior to use of the area.

SR: 3.3 Reduce or minimize risk to humans and the environment from hazardous materials on BLM-administered lands in the planning area where possible.

Goal SR: 4 Reduce risk to health and safety from geologic hazards on BLM-administered lands within the planning area.

Objectives:

SR: 4.1 Avoid geologic hazards on BLM-administered lands within the planning area, where possible.

SR: 4.2 Inventory, assess, and manage geologic hazards on BLM-administered lands within the planning area.

SR: 4.3 Reduce or eliminate hazards from abandoned mines on BLM-administered lands within the planning area, where possible.

MANAGEMENT ACTIONS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

8001 SR: 2 Consider local county and community plans regarding socioeconomic conditions during the decision making process.

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 249

8000 SOCIOECONOMIC RESOURCES (SR) and HEALTH AND SAFETY

Record # Goal/Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

8002 SR: 3 Manage hazardous materials to reduce health and safety risks to the public, to restore contaminated lands, and to carry out emergency

response activities, per appropriate laws, policies, and regulations.

8003 SR: 3 In emergency situations, protect the health and safety of the public first and stabilize the situation with regard to the BLM's responsibilities

and decision-making authority second.

8004 SR: 2.1 Use partners to effectively leverage funding and facilitate AML projects. Prioritize AML projects with greater weight given to national

evaluation criteria than to risk-based criteria.

8005 SR: 4.3 Cooperate with the State of Wyoming on its AML program.

8006 SR: 4.3 Identify locations of AML projects in the planning area and erect warning fencing and signing as funding allows.

8007 SR: 3.1,

3.3, 4.2,

4.3

Reclaim AML to productive uses including, but not limited to, grazing, recreation, fish and wildlife habitat, and preservation of

historical/cultural resources. Monitor success of AML reclamation projects and maintain reclamation and shaft/adit closures where needed.

8008 SR: 3.3 Bond amounts for uranium and other surface-disturbing and disruptive activities will be adequate to ensure reclamation of project areas to

prevent any potential impacts to the health and safety of the public.

8009 SR: 3.2 Require that all new major ROWs, pipelines, and trenches across roads be closed as soon as possible to reduce hazards to the public, livestock,

and wildlife after initial surface disturbance.

8010 SR: 3.2 Require pipeline gates with soft plugs every 1⁄4 mile along an open trench.

8011 SR: 3.1,

3.2

Prohibit channel-disturbing activities on Rock Creek and Willow Creek in the Upper Sweetwater river drainage to avoid the mobilization of

mercury.

8012 SR: 3.1,

3.2

Comply with Onshore Oil and Gas Order #6 (43 CFR 3160) for drilling operations conducted in areas which are known or could reasonably be

expected to contain H2S.

MANAGEMENT ACTIONS BY ALTERNATIVE

8013 SR: 2.1 Analyze impacts on socioeconomic

resources from the implementation

of projects in the planning through

the NEPA process.

Minimize adverse socioeconomic

impacts associated with permitted

actions such as boom and bust

economies, and adverse impacts to

community infrastructure.

Encourage a balanced approach to

economic diversity and enhance

the local economy by providing

opportunities for grazing, the

development of recreational

opportunities (e.g., fishing,

hunting, and wildlife viewing), and

renewable energy.

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A.

February 2013

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource
250 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

8000 SOCIOECONOMIC RESOURCES (SR) and HEALTH AND SAFETY

Record # Goal/Obj.

Alternative A

(Current Management)

Alternative B

(Most Resource Conservation)

Alternative C

(Most Resource Utilization)

Alternative D

(Proposed RMP)

8014 SR: 2.1 No similar action. Consider paced development

options for mineral and energy

development projects in the

planning area to avoid adverse

impacts to socioeconomic

conditions.

Minimize constraints on the

pace of development for large

development projects.

Same as Alternative B.

8015 SR: 3.1,

4.1

Consider landslide potential when

authorizing activities.

Avoid construction activities on

unstable soils, landslide deposits,

and in subsidence areas.

Allow BLM-authorized

construction activities within

areas of known landslide hazard.

Same as Alternative A.

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 251

ACEC Area of Critical Environmental Concern

AML Abandoned Mine Lands

AMP Allotment Management Plan

APHIS Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

AQD Air Quality Division

AQRV Air Quality Related Values

ARPA Archeological Resources Protection Act

AUM Animal Unit Month

BLM Bureau of Land Management

BMP Best Management Practice

CDC Continental Divide-Creston

CDNST Continental Divide National Scenic Trail

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CSU Controlled Surface Use

CWA Clean Water Act

dBA Decibels with an A-weighted scale

DDA Designated Development Area

DEQ Department of Environmental Quality

DOE Department of Energy

EA Environmental Assessment

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

ERMA Extensive Recreation Management Area

ESA Endangered Species Act

FLPMA Federal Land Policy and Management Act

FR Federal Register

FRCC Fire Regime Condition Class

GIS Geographic Information System

H2S Hydrogen Sulfide

HMA Herd Management Area

HMAP Herd Management Area Plan

IM Instruction Memorandum

INNS Invasive Nonnative Species

LRP Limited Reclamation Potential

MLP Master Leasing Plan

MMBF Million Board Feet

MOA Memorandum of Agreement

MOU Memorandum of Understanding

N/A Not Applicable

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NHL National Historic Landmark

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

NHT National Historic Trail

NLCS National Landscape Conservation System

NNL National Natural Landmark

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service

NRHP National Register of Historic Places

NSO No Surface Occupancy

NTMC National Trails Management Corridor

NWSRS National Wild and Scenic River System

OHV Off-Highway Vehicle

PEIS Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

PFC Proper Functioning Condition

PFYC Potential Fossil Yield Classification

PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration

R&PP Recreation and Public Purposes

REA Recreation Enhancement Act

RMP Resource Management Plan

RMZ Recreation Management Zone

ROD Record of Decision

ROW Right-Of-Way

RHT&EH Regional Historic Trails and Early

Highways

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office

SRMA Special Recreation Management Area

SRP Special Recreation Permit

TCP Traditional Cultural Property

TLS Timing Limitation Stipulation

TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load

USDA United States Department of Agriculture

USFS United States Forest Service

USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service

VRM Visual Resource Management

WAFWA Western Association of Fish and Wildlife

Agencies

WGFD Wyoming Game and Fish Department

WHMA Wildlife Habitat Management Area

WSA Wilderness Study Area

WSR Wild and Scenic River

WUI Wildland-Urban Interface

WYPDES Wyoming Pollutant Discharge Elimination

System

February 2013

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource
252 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

2.11. Summary of Environmental Consequences by Alternative

Table 2.53, “Summary of Environmental Consequences by Alternative” (p. 253) summarizes

potential impacts under alternatives A through D. Where appropriate, the table quantifies potential

impacts anticipated from BLM-authorized actions. Table 2.53, “Summary of Environmental

Consequences by Alternative” (p. 253) summarizes impacts under the four alternatives in acres

(e.g., more acreage implies more impact, either beneficial or adverse) or qualitative descriptions

comparing the impact potential among the alternatives (e.g., highest potential, lowest potential, or

moderate potential) with brief descriptions of the qualifying rational. The Summary of Impacts

section for each resource in Chapter 4 provides a more detailed comparison of impacts between

alternatives. Chapter 4 describes cumulative impacts from non-BLM actions; Table 2.53,

“Summary of Environmental Consequences by Alternative” (p. 253) does not include cumulative

impacts.

The environmental consequences of alternatives are not anticipated to exceed known legal

thresholds or standards over the life of this RMP. Standard practices, BMPs, and guidelines

for surface-disturbing activities are built into each alternative to avoid and minimize potential

impacts. The BLM would consider mitigation of residual impacts during subsequent

implementation-level projects and any associated environmental analyses performed at that time.

All alternatives include reclamation of surface disturbance to reduce long-term impacts.

Chapter 2 Resource Management Alternatives

Summary of Environmental Consequences by

Alternative February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 253

Table 2.53. Summary of Environmental Consequences by Alternative

Resources Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Air Quality

NAAQS Not anticipated to exceed. Not anticipated to exceed. Not anticipated to exceed. Not anticipated to exceed.

WAAQS Not anticipated to exceed. Not anticipated to exceed. Not anticipated to exceed. Not anticipated to exceed.

Visibility Impacts Moderate Potential.

Moderate amount of projected

VOC and particulate matter

emissions.

Lowest Potential.

Least amount of projected VOC

and particulate matter emissions.

Highest Potential.

Greatest amount of projected

VOC and particulate matter

emissions.

Moderate Potential.

Moderate amount of projected

VOC and particulate matter

emissions.

Projected Greenhouse

Gas Emissions

1.17 million metric tons of CO2

equivalents for 2018.

0.81 million metric tons of CO2

equivalents for 2018.

1.19 metric tons of CO2

equivalents for 2018.

1.11 metric tons of CO2

equivalents for 2018.

Soil and Water

Acres of Surface

Disturbance Anticipated

from BLM Actions

52,591 short-term/

12,439 long-term

74,689 short-term/

7,502 long-term

160,065 short-term/

60,631 long-term

53,894 short-term/

11,453 long-term

Impacts from Long-term

Erosion

Moderate Potential.

2,777,334 acres available

for locatable mineral entry.

Soil-disturbing activities allowed

in areas with LRP with mitigation

on a project-by-project basis.

Lowest Potential.

1,167,862 acres available

for locatable mineral entry.

Soil-disturbing and disruptive

activities prohibited in areas with

LRP.

Highest Potential.

2,800,467 acres available

for locatable mineral entry.

Soil-disturbing activities allowed

in areas with LRP with mitigation

on a project-by-project basis.

Moderate Potential.

2,351,399 acres available

for locatable mineral entry.

Soil-disturbing activities allowed

in areas with LRP with mitigation

on a project-by-project basis.

Groundwater Impacts Moderate Potential.

Mineral and realty actions

in groundwater recharge areas are

subject to standard stipulations.

2,274 new federal oil and gas and

CBNG wells are projected.

Lowest Potential.

Mineral and realty actions in

areas underlain by a sole source

aquifer are managed with moderate

restrictions. 1,528 new federal

oil and gas and CBNG wells are

projected.

Highest Potential.

Mineral and realty actions in

groundwater recharge areas

are managed with standard

stipulations. 2,284 new federal

oil and gas and CBNG wells are

projected.

Lowest Potential.

Mineral and realty actions in

areas underlain by a sole source

aquifer are managed with moderate

restrictions. 2,125 new federal

oil and gas and CBNG wells are

projected.

Potential for Produced

Water To Impact Soils

Moderate Potential.

Impacts to soils are considered

on a case-by-case basis when

managing produced water. This

alternative is projected to result

in the second-most new federal

oil and gas and CBNG wells.

Lowest Potential.

Impacts to soils are considered

on a case-by-case basis when

managing produced water. This

alternative is projected to result

in the least new federal oil and

gas and CBNG wells. Surface

discharge of produced water in

all new oil and gas development

projects is avoided.

Highest Potential.

Impacts to soils are considered

on a case-by-case basis when

managing produced water. This

alternative is projected to result in

the most new federal oil and gas

and CBNG wells.

Moderate Potential.

Impacts to soils are considered

in coordination with the State

of Wyoming. This alternative

is projected to result in the

second-least new federal oil and

gas and CBNG wells.

Exceed Water Quality

Standards

Not anticipated. Not anticipated. Not anticipated. Not anticipated.

February 2013

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Summary of Environmental

by

Consequences

Alternative
254 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Resources Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Potential to Impact

Lands with Wilderness

Characteristics

Moderate Potential.

No management actions are

prescribed to enhance wilderness

character of the Little Red Creek

Complex. Resource uses are

limited in this area by ACEC

management.

Lowest Potential.

The Little Red Creek Complex

(5,490 acres) is managed as

non-WSA land with wilderness

characteristics to protect wilderness

values.

Highest Potential.

No management actions are

prescribed to enhance wilderness

character of the Little Red Creek

Complex. ACEC and travel

management designations are

removed from the area.

Lowest Potential.

4,954 acres of the Little Red

Creek Complex are managed as

non-WSA land with wilderness

characteristics to protect

wilderness values. 536 fewer

acres are managed to protect

wilderness values compared to

Alternative B.

Minerals

Acres Proposed for

Withdrawal with High

Potential for Locatable

Minerals

0 278,906 0 0

Percent of Federal

Mineral Estate Pursued

for Withdrawal from

Locatable Mineral Entry

<1% 58.1% <1% 16%

Percent of Federal

Mineral Estate Closed to

Oil and Gas Leasing

<1% 81% <1% 4%

Percent of Federal

Mineral Estate Closed

to Mineral Material

Disposals

11.2% 92.5% 6.7% 34%

Total Projected New

Federal Oil and Gas and

CBNG Wells

2,274 1,528 2,284 2,125

Acres of BLMadministered Mineral

Estate with Phosphate

Potential Closed to

Leasing

10,047 39,592 1,721 42,164

Fire and Fuels Management

Acres of Short-term

Surface Disturbance

from Prescribed Fire

6,000 20,000 6,000 10,000

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Summary of Environmental Consequences by

Alternative February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 255

Resources Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Acres of Short-term

Surface Disturbance

from Mechanical Fuels

Treatment

10,000 30,000 10,000 10,000

Potential for

Fire Suppression

Strategies To Limit

Landscape-level

Wildfires outside of

greater sage-grouse Core

Area

Moderate Potential.

Full suppression of wildland

fire used on a case-by-case basis.

Lowest Potential.

Full suppression of wildland

fire used only within the WUI,

and other areas of critical resource

values, with other suppression

strategies used on a case-by-case

basis, with emphasis in sagebrush

areas including unplanned ignition

to achieve resource benefit.

Highest Potential.

Full suppression of wildland

fire is the most likely response

throughout the planning area.

Moderate Potential.

Full suite of suppression tactics

used across the planning area, with

opportunities for use of wildland

fire and full suppression tactics

used on a case-by-case basis with

emphasis in sagebrush areas.

Vegetation

Acres of Projected

Short-term Surface

Disturbance Per Year

from Forest and

Woodland Management

to Provide Forest

Products and Improve

Forest Health

375. (Overall forest health

is balanced with sustainably

providing commercial forest

products.)

550. (Natural processes are

emphasized to achieve forest health

objectives.)

550. (All available tools and

silvicultural techniques are

allowed to provide forest products

and maintain forest health.)

600. (All available tools and

silvicultural techniques are

allowed to provide forest products

and maintain forest health.)

Potential to Fragment

Vegetation Communities

Moderate Potential.

12,439 acres of long-term

surface disturbance would affect

vegetation communities.

Lowest Potential.

7,502 acres of long-term surface

disturbance would affect vegetation

communities.

Highest Potential.

60,631 acres of long-term

surface disturbance would affect

vegetation communities.

Moderate Potential.

11,453 acres of long-term

surface disturbance would affect

vegetation communities.

Potential Impact of

Surface Disturbance

on Riparian-Wetland

Resources

Moderate Potential.

Surface-disturbing activities

are prohibited within 500

feet of surface water and

riparian-wetland areas. Mineral

and realty actions managed with

moderate restrictions.

Lowest Potential.

Surface-disturbing activities

are prohibited within 1,320 feet

of surface water, riparian-wetland

areas, playas, and 100-year

floodplains where mapped (except

for areas of high and moderate oil

and gas potential). Mineral and

realty actions are managed with

moderate restrictions.

Highest potential.

Surface-disturbing activities

are allowed on a case-by-case

basis in riparian-wetland areas and

floodplains.

Moderate Potential.

Surface-disturbing activities

are prohibited within 500 feet of

surface water and riparian-wetland

areas except in DDAs. More

restrictions are applied to mineral

and realty actions outside of

DDAs. Implementation of

Required Design Features to

minimize surface disturbance and

protect other resources.

Invasive Species and Pest Management

February 2013

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Summary of Environmental

by

Consequences

Alternative
256 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Resources Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Potential To Spread

Invasive and Nonnative

Species.

Moderate Potential.

52,591 acres of total short-term

surface disturbance contributes to

the spread of INNS. Reclamation

plans are required in LRP

areas. 5,923 acres are closed

to motorized travel. Livestock

flushing is not required.

Lowest Potential.

74,689 acres of total surface

disturbance contributes to the

spread of INNS. Soil disturbing

activities are prohibited in LRP

areas. 71,761 acres are closed to

motorized travel. The Authorized

Officer may require livestock

flushing for a period of 72 hours.

Highest Potential.

160,065 acres of total surface

disturbance contributes to the

spread of INNS. Reclamation

plans are required in LRP areas.

5,472 acres are closed to motorized

vehicle use. Livestock flushing is

not required.

Moderate Potential.

53,894 acres of total surface

disturbance contributes to the

spread of INNS. Reclamation

plans are required in LRP areas.

26,357 acres are closed to

motorized travel. The Authorized

Officer may require livestock

flushing for a period of 72 hours.

Use of Required Design Features

will further reduce potential for

INNS spread.

Fish and Wildlife

Impacts to Water Quality

and Fish Habitat

Moderate potential.

12,439 acres of long-term

surface disturbance contributes

to sedimentation and alters flow

regimes. Surface-disturbing

activities and placement of

salt and mineral supplements

are prohibited within 500

feet and 1⁄4 mile of surface

water, respectively. Forage

utilization levels for livestock

are established on a case-by-case

basis.

Lowest Potential.

7,502 acres of long-term

surface disturbance contributes

to sedimentation and alters flow

regimes. Surface-disturbing

activities and placement of salt and

mineral supplements are prohibited

within 1,320 feet and 1⁄2 mile of

surface water, respectively. Forage

utilization established at 21-40%

in livestock-preferred areas on a

case-by-case basis.

Highest Potential.

60,631 acres of long-term

surface disturbance contributes

to sedimentation and alters flow

regimes. Surface-disturbing

activities and placement of salt

and mineral supplements are

prohibited on a site-specific basis

near and within 1⁄4 mile of surface

water, respectively. Forage

utilization established at 41-60%

in livestock-preferred areas on a

case-by-case basis.

Moderate Potential.

11,453 acres of long-term

surface disturbance contributes

to sedimentation and alters flow

regimes. Surface-disturbing

activities and placement of

salt and mineral supplements

are prohibited within 500

feet and 1⁄2 mile of surface

water, respectively. Forage

utilization levels established

in livestock-preferred areas to

achieve resource objectives.

Indirect benefit from Required

Design Features.

Acres of Elk and Bighorn

Sheep Parturition Areas

Closed to Mineral

Leasing

237 23,055 0 7,942

Acres/Percent of Big

Game Crucial Winter

Range Managed as

ROW Exclusion

102,461/

16.9%

518,163/

85.5%

58,270/

9.6%

238,472/

38.6%

Potential Impact of

Motorized Vehicle Use

on Wildlife

Moderate Potential.

Motorized travel is limited to

existing roads and trails in 93%

of the planning area. 111,002

acres are closed seasonally.

Lowest Potential.

Motorized travel is limited to

existing roads and trails on 89% of

the planning area. 116,805 acres

are closed seasonally.

Highest Potential.

Motorized travel is limited to

existing roads and trails on 98%

of the planning area. No areas are

closed seasonally.

Moderate Potential.

Motorized travel is limited to

existing roads and trails on 92% of

the planning area. 110,530 acres

are closed seasonally.

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Summary of Environmental Consequences by

Alternative February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 257

Resources Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Special Status Species

Adverse Impacts to

Special Status Species

within the Planning Area

Moderate Potential.

In general, this alternative

applies moderate restrictions

to surface-disturbing activities

that will destroy or degrade

habitat. Second-most (2,274)

projected new federal oil and gas

and CBNG wells may fragment

habitat.

Lowest Potential.

In general, this alternative

applies the most restrictions

to surface-disturbing activities.

Fewest (1,528) projected new

federal oil and gas and CBNG wells

would limit habitat fragmentation.

Highest Potential.

In general, this alternative

applies the least restrictions to

surface-disturbing activities. Most

(2,284) projected new federal

oil and gas and CBNG wells

may result in the most habitat

fragmentation.

Moderate Potential.

In general, this alternative

applies moderate restrictions

to surface-disturbing activities,

but is more restrictive than

Alternative A in important habitat,

particularly Special Designation

areas. Second-fewest (2,125)

projected new federal oil and gas

and CBNG wells would limit

habitat fragmentation. Inclusion

of Required Design Features to

reduce adverse impacts.

Acres of Protective

Buffer around Occupied

Greater Sage-grouse

Leks to Prohibit

Surface-disturbing

Activities

16,283 93,411 16,283 122,890

Acres of Greater

Sage-grouse Core Area

Open to Locatable

Mineral Entry

1,720,190 458,112 1,720,542 1,358,699

Acres of Raptor Nesting

Areas in Phosphate

Potential Areas Open to

Mineral Leasing

1,002 836 1,367 589

Potential for Density of

Development to Affect

Greater Sage-grouse

Habitat

Highest Potential.

The density of disturbances

and cumulative acres of

disturbance are not limited

in identified breeding, nesting,

and brood-rearing habitat.

Lowest Potential.

In identified breeding, nesting, and

brood-rearing habitat, the density

of disturbances is limited to 1

per 640 acres and the cumulative

surface disturbance is limited to

2.5% of the sagebrush habitat in

the same 640 acres.

Highest Potential.

The density of disturbances and

cumulative acres of disturbance are

not limited in identified breeding,

nesting, and brood-rearing habitat.

Low Potential.

In Core Area, the density of

disturbances is limited to 1 per 640

acres and the cumulative surface

disturbance is limited to 5% of

the sagebrush habitat in the same

640 acres. Inclusion of Required

Design Features.

Wild Horses

February 2013

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Summary of Environmental

by

Consequences

Alternative
258 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Resources Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Potential To Impact the

Free-roaming Nature of

Wild Horses

Highest Potential.

125,098 acres in HMAs with

high wind potential are open to

wind-energy development. ROW

development in HMAs is allowed

on a case-by-case basis.

Lowest Potential.

Wind-energy development is

excluded in HMAs. Most area

in HMAs is managed as ROW

avoidance or exclusion.

Highest Potential.

125,098 acres in HMAs with

high wind potential are open to

wind-energy development. Least

area in HMAs managed as ROW

avoidance or exclusion.

Moderate Potential.

23,365 acres in HMAs with

high wind potential are open

to wind-energy development.

Portions of HMAs managed as

ROW avoidance or exclusion.

Heritage Resources

Potential to Impact

Eligible/Listed Cultural

Sites and Paleontological

Localities

Moderate Potential.

Proactive management used

to preserve known sites of

importance. Recovery of

scientific data or detailed

documentation required for

threatened significant cultural

resources.

Lowest Potential.

Avoidance of eligible/listed

cultural sites and fossil localities

is emphasized. This alternative

contains the most extensive

proactive management to better

preserve the setting of cultural sites

and spiritual/sacred/traditional

sites. Important paleontological

areas are closed to mineral leasing.

Highest Potential.

Minimum restrictions required

by regulation are imposed

on activities that could cause

adverse impacts to National

Register-eligible properties. This

alternative contains the least

proactive management to preserve

eligible/listed cultural sites and

fossil localities.

Low Potential.

Significant cultural resources

are avoided whenever possible

and scientific data recovery

or detailed documentation is

required if avoidance is not

possible. This alternative

contains more extensive proactive

management to better preserve

the setting of cultural sites and

spiritual/sacred/traditional sites

than Alternative A.

Visual Resources

Acres Managed as VRM

Class I-III

482,349 1,636,329 803,446 1,698,904

Inventory Class I/VRM

Class I (percent of

planning area)1

2.3%/

2.4%

2.3%/

2.5%

2.3%/

2.3%

2.3%/

2.5%

Inventory Class II/VRM

Class II (percent of

planning area)1

23.8%/

8.5%

23.8%/

53.6%

23.8%/

1.1%

23.8%/

32.6%

Inventory Class III/VRM

Class III (percent of

planning area)1

35.5%/

9.3%

35.5%/

12.2%

35.5%/

30.2%

35.5%/

35.8%

Inventory ClassIV/VRM

Class IV (percent of

planning area)1

38.3%/

77.4%

38.3%/

31.6%

38.3%/

66.4%

38.3%/

29.0%

Potential To Impact

Areas with Unique

Scenic Features

Moderate Potential.

Sensitive and unique scenic

features managed to partially

retain the existing character of the

landscape, frequently allowing

major modifications.

Lowest Potential.

Sensitive and unique scenic

features managed to retain the

existing character of the landscape.

Highest Potential.

Sensitive and unique scenic

features managed to more

frequently allow major

modifications to the landscape.

Moderate Potential.

Sensitive and unique scenic

features managed to retain

characteristics of the landscape,

infrequently allowing major

modifications.

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Summary of Environmental Consequences by

Alternative February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 259

Resources Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Renewable Energy

Acres Open to

Renewable Energy

Development in Areas

with High Wind Potential

283,647 867 321,870 9,998

Rights-of-Way and Corridors

Potential To Limit the

Development of ROWs

Low Potential.

66,099 acres avoidance

205,916 acres exclusion

Highest Potential.

315,219 acres avoidance

1,919,029 acres exclusion

Lowest Potential.

11,714 acres avoidance

147,053 acres exclusion

Moderate Potential.

1,369,300 acres avoidance

417,426 acres exclusion

Acres of Designated

Right-of-Way Corridors

4,892 15,364 660,908 103,646

Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management

Acres of Disturbance

from New Roads and

Trails Due to ROW

Authorizations

231.8 36.36 237.93 115.5

Potential To Limit

Over-snow Travel

Moderate Potential.

14,729 acres closed to over-snow

travel.

Highest Potential.

181,173 acres closed to over-snow

travel.

Lowest Potential.

The entire planning area is

open to over-snow travel.

Moderate Potential.

70,425 acres closed to over-snow

travel.

Livestock Grazing

Total Permitted

AUMs2 Lost from

Adjustments to Meet

Rangeland Health

Standards, Closures,

and Surface-disturbing

Activity

1,414 152,054 30,322 51,808

Total Actual AUMs3

Lost from Adjustments

to Meet Rangeland

Health Standards,

Closures, and

Surface-disturbing

Activity

1,031 82,672 22,135 37,820

122,321

40%

Actual AUMs3 Projected

at the End of the Planning

Cycle/Percent Reduction

from Baseline (204,993)

203,962

<1%

AUMs under Alternative B are

projected to be reduced over time

in order to meet rangeland health

standards without infrastructure.

182,858

11%

167,173

18%

February 2013

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Summary of Environmental

by

Consequences

Alternative
260 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Resources Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Potential To Limit New

Range Improvement

Projects

Moderate Potential.

Range improvement projects

are designed to meet allotment

management objectives on a

case-by-case basis.

Highest Potential.

Range improvement projects

are prohibited if they would cause

adverse impacts to other resource

values.

Lowest Potential.

Range improvement projects are

designed to maximize livestock

forage and distribution.

Moderate Potential.

Range improvement projects

implemented as part of

comprehensive grazing strategies

to improve rangeland health.

Recreation

Acres of Recreation

Setting Trending Toward

Primitive

5,923 71,761 5,472 26,357

Acres of Recreation

Setting Maintained at

Existing Condition

146,717 1,739,972 16,330 714,824

Acres of Recreation

Setting Trending Toward

Urban/Industrialized

2,241,570 582,477 2,372,408 1,653,961

Number/Total Acres of

SRMAs

3/406,457 7/307,183 1/608 7/293,774

Special Designations

Total Acres of Special

Designations (ACECs,

WSR-eligible waterways

managed as suitable,

WSAs)

184,8794 1,558,247 55,338 646,543

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

Number/Total Acres of

ACECs

9/119,622 15/1,492,990 0/0 8/243,838

Congressionally Designated Trails

Recreation Specific

Beneficial Outcomes

of Congressionally

Designated Trails

Lowest Potential.

No allowable use decisions

or management actions to protect

important recreation areas or the

recreation setting.

Highest Potential.

Allowable use decisions and

management actions within

SRMAs designed to meet visitor

demand and sustain and/or enhance

the recreation setting.

Moderate Potential.

No allowable use decisions

or management actions to protect

important recreation areas or

meet visitor demand. Limited

protection for the recreation

setting.

Highest Potential.

Allowable use decisions and

management actions within

SRMAs designed to meet visitor

demand and sustain and/or

enhance the recreation setting.

Implementation of the NTMC.

Effect on Visual

Resource within

Congressionally

Designated Trail

Landscapes

Highest Potential.

15% of the corridor5area

managed as VRM Classes I-II.

85% managed as VRM Class

III-IV.

Low Potential.

94% of the corridor area managed

as VRM Classes I-II. 6% managed

as VRM Class III-IV.

Moderate Potential.

5% of the corridor5area managed

as VRM Classes I-II. 95%

managed as VRM Class III-IV.

Low Potential.

97% of the NTMC is managed as

VRM Classes I-II. 3% managed as

VRM Class III-IV.

Socioeconomics

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Summary of Environmental Consequences by

Alternative February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 261

Resources Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Effect on Planning Area

Population

Lowest Potential.

Activities related to oil and

gas, livestock grazing, and

recreation will support 2.9% of

employment in the planning area.

BLM-authorized activities are

not anticipated to alter historical

population trends in the planning

area.

Highest Potential.

Activities related to oil and gas,

livestock grazing, and recreation

will support 2.1% of employment

in the planning area. The decrease

in employment opportunities may

decrease the population in the

planning area.

Lowest Potential.

Activities related to oil and

gas, livestock grazing, and

recreation will support 2.9% of

employment in the planning area.

BLM-authorized activities are

not anticipated to alter historical

population trends in the planning

area.

Low Potential.

Activities related to oil and

gas, livestock grazing, and

recreation will support 2.8% of

employment in the planning area.

BLM-authorized activities are

not anticipated to alter historical

population trends in the planning

area.

Effect on Housing and

Community Services

Lowest Potential.

Alternative A is not anticipated

to result in a change in the

total demand for housing or its

geographical distribution.

Highest Potential.

Alternative B may result in

the greatest decrease in population

and, therefore, a decreased demand

for housing and community

services as well as a reduced tax

base for providing community

services.

Lowest Potential.

Alternative C will result in

approximately the same population

and, therefore, the same demand

for housing and community

services compared to Alternative

A.

Moderate Potential.

Alternative D will result in

similar demands for housing and

community services as Alternative

A, but a slightly smaller tax base

for providing these services.

Impacts on Quality of

Life and Local Culture

Lowest Potential.

As Alternative A continues

existing BLM policies in their

current state, quality of life and

local culture will be impacted

minimally. Alternative A will

have relatively little impact on

the economics of ranching.

Highest Potential.

Economic opportunities are

reduced but impacts to air quality

and other nonmarket values

will be less than historic trends.

Subdivision of ranch land may

be more intense than historic

trends as ranching becomes less

economically viable.

Moderate Potential.

Alternative C will result in

similar economic opportunities as

Alternative A, but greater adverse

impacts to air quality, wildlife, and

other resources. Alternative C will

have relatively little impact on the

economics of ranching.

Moderate Potential.

Economic opportunities are

slightly reduced, as are adverse

impacts to air quality, wildlife, and

other resources related to natural

characteristics. Alternative D will

have relatively little impact on the

economics of ranching.

Forecasted annual

earnings (millions

of 2007 dollars)

due to activities on

BLM-administered

surface6

195.6 138.8 195.9 184.2

Forecasted annual

employment due

to activities on

BLM-administered

surface6

3,622 2,621 3,617 3,424

February 2013

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives

Summary of Environmental

by

Consequences

Alternative
262 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Resources Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

1 The visual resourcesinventory is used to classify the aesthetic value of BLM-administered lands based on scenic quality, visualsensitivity, and distance from travel or observation points. VRM Classes establish a measurable standard for the amount of change allowed to a specific area’s visual resource. For example, under Alternative A, 8.5

percent of the planning area is managed as VRM Class II, yet 23.5 percent is rated as Class II, suggesting a high potential for impacts to visual resources in these areas.

2 Permitted AUMs are AUMs that are allowed on a permit/lease that can be used on any given year provided the forage is available.

3 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. 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 Appendix L (p. 1583) and the Livestock Grazing section of Chapter 4 for further discussion regarding reductions in AUMs.

4 All eligible waterways under Alternative A are managed to protect the free-flowing outstandingly remarkable values and tentative classification.

5 The trail corridor encompasses 1⁄4 mile on either side of the trails.

6 Estimate of annual earnings and employment includes direct, indirect, and induced economic activity (the “multiplier effect”).

ACEC Area of Critical Environmental Concern

AUM animal unit month

BLM Bureau of Land Management

CBNG coalbed natural gas

CO2 carbon dioxide

DDA Designated Development Area

HMA Herd Management Area

INNS invasive nonnative species

LRP Limited Reclamation Potential

NTMC National Trails Management Corridor

MIST Minimum Impact Suppression Tactics

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

ROW right-of-way

SRMA Special Recreation Management Area

VRM Visual Resource Management

VOC Volatile Organic Compound

WAAQS Wyoming Ambient Air Quality Standards

WSA Wilderness Study Area

WSR Wild and Scenic River

WUI Wildland Urban Interface

< less than

% percent

Chapter

2 Resource Management Alternatives February 2013
Chapter 3. Affected Environment
This page intentionally

left blank
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 265

Introduction

This chapter describes existing conditions for Bureau of Land Management (BLM) resource

programs, resource uses, special designations, and the socioeconomic environment in the Lander

Field Office planning area. This description of the affected environment uses the best and most

recent data available. This chapter does not provide detail about environmental components that

would not be affected or that are not essential to the resolution of planning issues.

In addition to describing existing conditions, where appropriate, this chapter identifies

management challenges for resource programs and resource uses on BLM-administered land.

The BLM Analysis of the Management Situation (AMS) and the scoping process for revising the

1987 Lander Resource Management Plan (RMP) (existing plan) identified these management

challenges. By describing existing conditions for resource programs in the planning area, this

chapter serves as the baseline against which Chapter 4 analyzes and compares potential impacts

of the alternatives.

A variety of laws, regulations, policies, and other requirements direct management of resources

and resource uses on BLM-administered public lands. The Lander Field Office operates under

applicable requirements and guidance provided in Appendix A (p. 1427). The Lander Field Office

also requires management practices as design features to minimize environmental impact in the

management of resources and resource uses on BLM-administered lands (Appendix H (p. 1521)).

Acreage and Geographic Information System Calculations

The majority of acreage and miles in this document are calculated using Geographic

Information Systems (GIS). The use of GIS spatial analysis can provide precise acreage

calculations. However, the acreage values are only as accurate as the data that is entered. Various

factors can affect the accuracy of data including data collection and entry, scale, and

timeframe. Until these calculations are confirmed through field surveys using a Global

Positioning System, all GIS calculations in this document should be considered approximate.

Overview of the Lander Field Office Planning Area

The Lander Field Office planning area covers approximately 6,487,464 acres of federal, state,

tribal, and private land in Carbon, Fremont, Hot Springs, Natrona, and Sweetwater Counties,

Wyoming. A small portion of Teton County is within the planning area; however, there are

no BLM-administered lands within Teton County in the planning area and the RMP makes no

management decisions for Teton County lands. Public land in the planning area includes most

of Fremont County, the southwest corner of Natrona Country, and small portions of Carbon,

Sweetwater, and Hot Springs Counties. There are many isolated parcels of state and private

land dispersed throughout the planning area intermingled with public land. Management

decisions and prescriptions in this document apply only to BLM-administered surface lands

(BLM-administered surface) and federal mineral estate in the planning area. Of the total planning

area, approximately 2,394,210 acres are BLM‐administered surface (Map 1) and 2,809,101 acres

are BLM-administered federal mineral estate (Map 2). Approximately 2.2 million acres of the

planning area are within the Wind River Indian Reservation (WRIR). Various locations referred to

throughout this document are displayed on Map 3.

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Introduction
266 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

The BLM has a fiduciary trust responsibility for the management of minerals on the WRIR. The

BLM does not make land management decisions for the WRIR, and duties associated with trust

responsibilities are performed independent of the provisions of the Lander RMP. Information the

BLM obtained and used pursuant to its exercise of duties associated with trust responsibility is

considered proprietary to the WRIR and the BLM treats this information as confidential.

The geologic setting in the planning area is one of basins, separated and surrounded by mountain

ranges, including the Owl Creek, Bridger, Bighorn, Ferris, Washakie, Absaroka, Wind River,

Granite, and Rattlesnake Ranges. Most of the planning area is in the Wind River Basin;

approximately one-third of the planning area is within the Granite Mountain Range landform, and

fewer than 150,000 acres in the southern part of the planning area are in the Great Divide Basin.

There are two main hydrologic basins in the planning area: the Wind River and Popo Agie

River basins, which drain most of the area north of Beaver Rim, and North Platte River Basin of

which its tributary, the Sweetwater River drains the area south of Beaver Rim. There is a minor

acreage drained directly to the North Platte River in the far eastern portion of the planning area in

southeast Natrona County. Roughly 150,000 acres of the Great Divide Basin, a hydrologically

closed basin with no external drainage, is found along the far southern boundary of the planning

area; most of this basin occurs in a 7 to 9 inch annual precipitation zone.

Elevations in the planning area range from 4,750 feet to 10,400 feet, which support habitats

including coniferous forests, juniper woodlands, aspen stands, mountain shrub, canyons and

rim rock, badlands, sagebrush‐steppe shrublands, grasslands, and riparian-wetland areas. The

dominant vegetation type in the planning area is sagebrush, which is found throughout the

planning area and occupies valleys and basins. Juniper and limber pine occur on slopes and in

mountainous areas, and lodgepole/limber pine mixed with aspen occur in higher elevations.

BLM-administered public lands in the planning area support a variety of game and nongame

wildlife species, including several special status species. These lands contain a variety of habitats

that possess the biological and physical attributes important in the life-cycles of many wildlife

species. The diversity of habitats and landscapes provides important areas for wildlife breeding,

birthing, foraging, wintering, and migration.

The soils of the planning area are typical for arid and semiarid, cold deserts and sub-humid

mountainous areas of the world that have a continental climate. Summers are generally short and

hot and winters long and cold. Annual precipitation ranges from 5 to 9 inches in the Wind River

Basin and 15 to 19 inches in the foothills of the Wind River Mountains. The mountain areas have

a sub‐humid, continental climate. Drought is common in the planning area. With drought comes

increased risk of fire, decreased vegetation for forage and soil cover, accelerated soil erosion by

wind, and decreased air quality from additional particulate matter (PM) in the air.

The soils in the Wind River and Great Divide Basins are typical for those of high, semiarid, cold

deserts. Soils of the planning area vary greatly in potential and capability for any given use. Some

soils produce abundant vegetation, other soils do not. Some soils support winter habitat for

wildlife, others support summer habitat. Some soils are easier to rehabilitate after disturbance

than other soils.

Economic development in the planning area has been based on resource extraction, tourism, and

agriculture. Oil and gas development is an important economic component of public land use in

the planning area. Tourism has historically been a substantial economic generator, primarily in the

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Overview of the Lander Field Office Planning Area February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 267

Dubois and Lander areas. Agriculture, particularly cattle and sheep ranching, has also contributed

to the economy and the social fabric of communities in the planning area.

The availability of a wide spectrum of recreational opportunities on public lands is an important

component of public land use, lifestyles, and communities in the planning area. Many towns in

the planning area serve as “gateway cities” for recreation activities in Yellowstone and Teton

National Parks and their own recreation destinations. Recreation resources in the planning area

include both developed and undeveloped opportunities.

Fremont County

The Wyoming Territorial Legislature established Fremont County in 1884, and named Lander the

county seat. The earliest historic records indicate that the Shoshone and Crow bands originally

occupied Fremont County. In the 1820s and 1830s, fur traders explored much of Fremont

County and John C. Fremont explored and mapped southern Fremont County along the Oregon

Trail in 1842 and 1843. The South Pass gold rush of 1867 brought an influx of thousands of

people, which accelerated the settlement of Fremont County and the development of early farms

and villages. The creation of the WRIR in 1868 was another important event that accelerated

the settlement of the county.

Fremont County is the second largest county in land size (after Sweetwater County, Wyoming) in

the six Rocky Mountain states. The Oregon, Mormon, California, and Pony Express Trails cross

the southern portion of the county, and Dubois, a gateway town for Yellowstone National Park

and Grand Teton National Park, lies in the northwest corner of the county. Lander is home to the

Wyoming State Life Resource Center and several non-profit organizations including the National

Outdoor Leadership School (NOLS), The Nature Conservancy, and the Wyoming Outdoor

Council. The largest community in the county is Riverton, home of Central Wyoming College. A

large portion of the western edge of the county follows the Continental Divide at the crest of the

Wind River Range of the Rocky Mountains. U.S. Highway 287 crosses the southern and western

portions of Fremont County, and intersects Highway 28 just south of Lander. The Sweetwater

River, the second largest river in the planning area, runs east-west in the southern portion of the

planning area. The southern boundary of Fremont County is south of the Sweetwater River, more

or less along the northern edge of the Great Divide Basin.

Fremont County comprises 2,751,355 acres of surface area in the central portion of the planning

area, of which the BLM administers approximately 1,933,364 acres. In addition, the Lander Field

Office administers approximately 2,281,159 acres of federal mineral estate in the county. The

WRIR, the historical home of the Eastern Shoshone and the Northern Arapaho Native American

tribes, occupies approximately one-third of Fremont County. Parts of five counties are included

within the planning area. Of these, Fremont County encompasses the largest amount of surface

area.

Natrona County

Natrona County was officially established in 1890 after originally being a part of Carbon County.

Casper, Wyoming, was designated as the county seat in 1890. Pioneers traveling west in the mid

to late 1800s followed both the Mormon and Oregon Trails, which cross present-day Natrona

County. Early pioneers established homesteads in the late 1800s and settlers used the open

rangelands for cattle and sheep ranching.

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Overview of the Lander Field Office Planning Area
268 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Oil and gas prospecting began in Natrona County in the 1870s and accelerated economic

and population growth in the county. Oil and gas development continues to be an important

contributor to the local economy in the county. The important historical sites of Split Rock,

Martin’s Cove, and Devil’s Gate are along portions of the Mormon and Oregon Trails in the

planning area. Wyoming Highway 220 runs in a northeast-southwest direction in the southwestern

portion of the county.

Natrona County covers approximately 422,519 acres of surface area in the easternmost portion

of the planning area, of which the BLM administers approximately 297,991 acres. In addition,

the Lander Field Office administers approximately 364,256 acres of federal mineral estate in

the county.

Carbon County

Carbon County was originally established in 1868 as a county in the Dakota Territory. Rawlins,

Wyoming, was later named the county seat. Carbon County has a rich history of ranching,

mining, and railroad development and use. Highway 287 runs through the northwestern portion

of the county in the planning area.

Carbon County covers approximately 45,434 acres of surface area in the southeastern portion

of the planning area, of which the BLM administers approximately 38,406 acres. In addition,

the Lander Field Office administers approximately 41,482 acres of federal mineral estate in the

county. Carbon County has the second least amount of BLM-administered surface area of the

five counties in the planning area.

Sweetwater County

Sweetwater County was established in 1867, the same year Green River, Wyoming, was named

the county seat. Several emigrant trails, which are now historic trails, pass through the county,

including the Oregon, California, Mormon, Overland, and Pony Express Trails. Construction

of the transcontinental railroad in 1868 accelerated development in the county’s two major

population centers, Green River and Rock Springs.

Highway 28 parallels the Oregon, Mormon, California, and Pony Express Trails. Interstate 80

crosses the southern portion of Sweetwater County in an east-west direction. Along with mineral

commodities, agriculture is an important commodity and economic contributor in the county.

Sweetwater County covers approximately 128,335 acres of surface area in the southernmost

portion of the planning area, of which the BLM administers approximately 122,670 acres. In

addition, the Lander Field Office administers approximately 119,407 acres of federal mineral

estate in the county.

Hot Springs County

Hot Springs County was established in 1911, with Thermopolis serving as the county seat. Oil

and gas, as well as coal extraction, helped accelerate the growth of the county in the early 1900s.

Hot Springs County is home to reputedly the world’s largest mineral hot springs, located near

Thermopolis in Hot Springs State Park. Hot Springs County contains a relatively large amount of

paleontological resources, including dinosaur fossils. Important recreational opportunities in the

county include rafting and fishing in Wind River Canyon and on the Bighorn River.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Overview of the Lander Field Office Planning Area February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 269

Hot Springs County covers approximately 3,244 acres of surface area in the north-central portion

of the planning area, of which the BLM administers approximately 1,779 acres. In addition,

the Lander Field Office administers approximately 2,796 acres of federal mineral estate in the

county. Hot Springs County has the least amount of BLM-administered surface area of the five

counties in the planning area.

Wind River Indian Reservation

The Bridger-Teton Treaty with the federal government in 1868 established the WRIR. In 1868,

Chief Washakie signed a treaty making the WRIR home to the Eastern Shoshone. A band of

Northern Arapaho moved from Colorado to the WRIR in 1868. Today the Eastern Shoshone and

the Northern Arapaho share the reservation and govern it jointly, with each tribe holding 50

percent interest in the land, water, and other natural resources. Fort Washakie, the only military

fort named for an American Indian chief, is now the headquarters of the Eastern Shoshone

government and the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) Bureau of Indian Affairs.

The WRIR includes approximately one-third of Fremont County and approximately one-fifth of

Hot Springs County. Encompassing approximately 2.2 million acres, the WRIR is the seventh

largest Indian reservation in the United States. Within the Lander Field Office boundaries, the

WRIR occupies 2,253,375 acres.

3.1. Physical Resources

This section describes the current condition of air quality, geologic resources, soil, water, cave

and karst resources and lands with wilderness characteristics. Each of the resource sections

includes a definition and description of the resource, the current condition of the resource, and

management challenges for the resource.

3.1.1. Air Quality

This section describes the climate and existing air quality in the region potentially affected by

the alternatives described in Chapter 2. Air pollutants addressed include criteria pollutants,

hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), and compounds that could impair visibility or contribute

to atmospheric deposition.

Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands apply to all activities authorized by the Lander Field

Office. Standard 6 states that air quality will meet state standards (Appendix J (p. 1537)). Standard

6 identifies the BLM’s role in complying with all federal, state and other applicable regulations

regarding air quality and clarifies that the State of Wyoming administers the Clean Air Act (CAA).

Air Quality Indicators

Air pollutants addressed in this section include criteria air pollutants, HAPs, and sulfur and

nitrogen compounds, which could impair visibility and contribute to atmospheric deposition,

including acid rain. State and National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) set the

maximum thresholds for criteria air pollutants. The Wyoming Prevention of Significant

Deterioration (PSD) program establishes allowable increases of a given pollutant for a particular

area from specific sources. These standards and programs typically affect Class I or Sensitive

Class II Wilderness Areas.

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Physical Resources
270 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Criteria Air Pollutants

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established air quality standards for criteria

pollutants (the NAAQS). Concentrations of air pollutants greater than the national standards

represent a risk to human health. Criteria pollutants include carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen

dioxide (NO2), ozone (O3), sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), and lead

(Pb).

Hazardous Air Pollutants

There is a wide variety of HAPs, including benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene (also referred

to as BTEX), N-hexane, and formaldehyde. Although HAPs do not have federal air quality

standards, the EPA has issued reference concentrations for evaluating the inhalation risk for

cancerous and noncancerous health impacts, known as reference concentrations for chronic

inhalation.

Wyoming and National Ambient Air Quality Standards

Wyoming Ambient Air Quality Standards (WAAQS) and NAAQS identify maximum limits for

criteria air pollutant concentrations at all locations to which the public has access. The WAAQS

and NAAQS are legally enforceable standards. Concentrations above the WAAQS and NAAQS

represent a risk to human health that by law, require public safeguards be implemented. State

standards must be at least as protective of human health as federal standards, and may be more

restrictive than the federal standards as allowed by the CAA.

Visibility

Visibility can be expressed in terms of deciviews, a measure of perceived changes in visibility.

One deciview is a change in visibility just perceptible to an average person, which is

approximately a 10 percent change in light extinction. To estimate potential visibility impairment,

monitored aerosol concentrations are used to reconstruct visibility conditions for each day

monitored. These daily values are then ranked from clearest to haziest and divided into three

categories to indicate the mean visibility for all days (average), the 20 percent of days with the

clearest visibility (20 percent clearest), and the 20 percent of days with the worst visibility (20

percent haziest). Visibility can also be defined by standard visual range (SVR) measured in miles,

and is the farthest distance at which an observer can see a black object viewed against the sky

above the horizon; the larger the SVR, the cleaner the air.

Since 1980, the Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) network

has measured visibility in national parks and wilderness areas. The CAA amendments of 1977

designated 156 areas (primarily national parks and wilderness) as federally mandated Class I

areas and are accorded strict levels of air quality protection. There are six IMPROVE stations

in Wyoming, but none in the planning area. One of the monitors is the North Absaroka site in

the Bighorn Basin planning area to the north, and another is the Pinedale site in the Pinedale

planning area to the west.

Atmospheric Deposition

Atmospheric deposition refers to processes in which air pollutants are removed from the

atmosphere and deposited into terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Air pollutants can be deposited

by either wet precipitation (via rain or snow) or dry (gravitational) settling of particles and

adherence of gaseous pollutants to soil, water, and vegetation. Much of the concern about

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Air Quality February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 271

deposition surrounds the secondary formation of acids and other compounds from emitted

nitrogen and sulfur species such as nitrogen oxides (NOx) and SO2, which can contribute to

acidification of lakes, streams, and soils and affect other ecosystem characteristics, including

nutrient cycling and biological diversity.

Substances deposited include:

● Acids, such as sulfuric (H2SO4) and nitric (HNO3), sometimes referred to as acid rain

● Air toxics, such as pesticides, herbicides, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs)

● Heavy metals, such as mercury

● Nutrients, such as nitrates (NO3-) and ammonium (NH4+)

Rain, snow, cloud water, particle settling, and gaseous pollutants complicate the accurate

measurement of atmospheric deposition. Deposition varies with precipitation and other

meteorological variables (such as temperature, humidity, winds, and atmospheric stability),

which in turn, vary with elevation and time.

Air Quality Monitoring, Visibility, and Deposition in the Lander Planning Area

Various state and federal agencies monitor air pollutant concentrations, visibility, and atmospheric

deposition throughout Wyoming, and there are four monitors in the planning area (Lander, South

Pass, South Pass City, and Sinks Canyon). Table 3.1, “Air Quality Monitoring Sites In or Near

the Planning Area” (p. 272) lists the available air quality monitoring sites in the planning area

and in other nearby planning areas. The Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)

operates a PM2.5 monitor as part of the State and Local Air Monitoring Stations (SLAMS)

network in Lander. The Special Purpose Monitoring (SPM) site at South Pass measures O3,

nitrous oxides (N2O), PM10, and SO2. A new air quality monitoring station has been established

in the Frenchie Creek area by an oil and gas operator but the Wyoming DEQ has no administrative

oversight of the station. A new SLAMS air quality monitoring station was established by

Wyoming DEQ in January 2010 at the Juel Spring site, which is located 20 miles northwest of

Farson in Sublette County.

The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) operates an IMPROVE monitor in the North Absaroka

Wilderness Area in Park County (in the Bighorn Basin planning area) and another IMPROVE

monitor is operated at Pinedale in neighboring Sublette County. The Sinks Canyon and South Pass

City monitors, which the BLM operate as part of the National Atmospheric Deposition Program

(NADP), measure atmospheric deposition (wet) of NH4+, sulfate (SO4), and various metals.

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Air Quality
272 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table 3.1. Air Quality Monitoring Sites In or Near the Planning Area

Location

County Site Name

Type of

Monitor

Parameter Operating

Schedule Longitude Latitude

Fremont Lander SLAMS PM2.5 Once every 3

days

-108.733 42.833

South Pass SPM O3, NOx, PM10,

SO2

Hourly & once

every 3 days

(PM10)

-108.431 42.315

South Pass City NADP NH4, NO3, SO4

wet deposition,

precipitation

Daily

precipitation,

weekly

concentrations

-108.832 42.494

Sinks Canyon NADP NH4, NO3, SO4

wet deposition,

precipitation

Daily

precipitation,

weekly

concentrations

-108.850 42.734

Park North

Absaroka

IMPROVE PM2.5, NO3,

NH4, HNO3,

SO4, SO2, and

meteorology

Once every 3

days

-109.382 44.745

Sublette Bridger

Wilderness

IMPROVE PM2.5, NO3,

NH4, HNO3,

SO4, SO2, and

meteorology

Once every 3

days

-109.758 42.975

Uinta Murphy Ridge SLAMS CO Hourly -111.042 41.373

Sources: EPA 2009a; IMPROVE Data 2009; NADP 2009

CO Carbon Monoxide

HNO3 Nitric Acid

IMPROVE Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments

NADP National Acid Deposition Program

NH4 Ammonium

NOx Nitrogen Oxides

NO3 Nitrate

O3 Ozone

PM2.5 Particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter

PM10 Particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter

SLAMS State and Local Air Monitoring Stations

SPM Special Purpose Monitoring

SO2 Sulfur Dioxide

SO4 Sulfate

Climate in the Planning Area

The climate in the planning area is designated as a combination of Intermountain Semi-Desert and

Southern Rocky Mountain Steppe. Summers are generally short and hot and winters long and

cold. Precipitation has historically been low, though greater at higher elevations, and distributed

across the year, with the exception of the drier summer months. Wind speeds are variable but

strong, which helps disperse airborne pollutants.

Table 3.2, “Summary of Climate in the Planning Area” (p. 273) lists temperature, precipitation,

and wind speed data for the planning area. This information is derived from daily ambient

measurements at the Lander monitor from 1971 through 2000.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Air Quality February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 273

Figure 3.1, “Average Monthly Temperature and Precipitation for Lander, Wyoming,

1971-2000” (p. 273) illustrates the general climate in Lander, Wyoming, showing long-term

monthly averages of temperature and precipitation as recorded at the Lander Airport. While there

is considerable variation in temperature and precipitation throughout the planning area, the relative

relationships of temperature and precipitation throughout the year are similar in most areas.

Table 3.2. Summary of Climate in the Planning Area

Climate Component Description

Temperature Daily maximum summer temperature: 86.3°F

Daily minimum winter temperature: 8.7°F

Mean annual temperature: 45°F

Precipitation Mean annual precipitation: 13.4 inches

Mean annual snowfall: 103.6 inches

Mean winter snow depth: 4.25 inches (November

through February)

Winds Mean annual wind speed: 6.8 mph

Prevailing wind direction: southwesterly

Source: Western Regional Climate Center Data 2009

°F degrees Fahrenheit

mph miles per hour

Source: BLM 2009a

AP Airport

°F degrees Fahrenheit

in inches

WSO Bureau of Land Management Wyoming State Office

Data are smoothed using a 29-day running average.

Figure 3.1. Average Monthly Temperature and Precipitation for Lander, Wyoming,

1971-2000

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Air Quality
274 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Long-term average annual precipitation varies from less than 6 inches in the area north of the

town of Shoshoni, to 20 inches or more in the mountainous area near Dubois (Map 9). Away from

the truly arid area north of Shoshoni, most annual precipitation occurs as snow. As a rule, the

highest elevations in the mountains receive the most precipitation and the lowest elevations the

least. Table 3.3, “Average Annual Precipitation for Locations in the Planning Area” (p. 274) lists

average annual precipitation data for representative locations derived from various monitors, as

archived by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Table 3.3. Average Annual Precipitation for Locations in the Planning Area

Location Inches of Total Precipitation (inches of snow)

South Pass 13.3 (119.4)

Muddy Gap 9.9 (50.8)

Sand Draw 9.6 (52.7)

Dubois 8.8 (41.7)

Boysen Dam 9.0 (13.7)

Lander 13.4 (98.8)

Source: BLM 2009a

In most areas, there is a peak period of precipitation in the spring and a secondary peak

in the fall. Figure 3.2, “Average Monthly Total Precipitation for Lander, Wyoming,

1948-2007” (p. 274) depicts Lander’s monthly average precipitation and shows the

April-May-June and mid-September to mid-November peaks.

Source: BLM 2009a

in. inches

Figure 3.2. Average Monthly Total Precipitation for Lander, Wyoming, 1948-2007

The planning area receives a high amount of sunshine, from 60 percent of the possible amount

during winter to approximately 75 percent during the summer. Mountain areas receive less

sunshine, and in winter the estimated amount over the mountains is approximately 45 percent.

Because the altitude provides less atmosphere for the sun’s rays to penetrate and because of the

small amount of fog, haze, and smoke, the intensity of sunshine is especially high. The average

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Air Quality February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 275

relative humidity is low, which, with the high percentage of sunshine and rather high winds, all

contribute to a high rate of evaporation. The overall average amount of evaporation ranges from

30 to approximately 50 inches (Curtis and Grimes 2004).

Although Wyoming is windy and ranks first in the United States with an annual average wind

speed of 12.9 miles per hour, Lander and much of the Wind River Basin have average daily

wind speeds of about half the state average.

Figure 3.3, “Average Annual Temperature (°F) for Hunt Field, Lander, Wyoming,

1979-2008” (p. 275) and Figure 3.4, “Average Annual Precipitation (inches) for Hunt Field,

Lander, Wyoming, 1979-2008” (p. 275) show 30-year trends in annual average temperature and

precipitation for the Hunt Field site in Lander. The figures indicate a slight increase in average

temperature over the 30-year period and a decrease in annual average precipitation over this

period. The below average precipitation during the last 10 years is a reflection of drought

conditions that have been pervasive throughout the western United States.

Source: NOAA 2009

°F degrees Fahrenheit

Figure 3.3. Average Annual Temperature (°F) for Hunt Field, Lander, Wyoming, 1979-2008

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Air Quality
276 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Source: NOAA 2009

Figure 3.4. Average Annual Precipitation (inches) for Hunt Field, Lander, Wyoming,

1979-2008

Air Quality

With a limited number of air quality monitors in the planning area, it is difficult to accurately

assess existing air quality conditions throughout the area. As previously noted, a new SLAMS

monitoring station was established in January 2010 at the Juel Spring site in Sublette County.

However, air quality, visibility, and atmospheric deposition are monitored throughout Wyoming,

including adjacent planning areas. Therefore, the assessment of recent air quality conditions in

the Lander planning area has been conducted by examining data collected at the monitors within

the area supplemented by various monitors in neighboring planning areas, as summarized in

Table 3.4, “Applicable National and State Primary Air Quality Standards for Criteria Pollutants

and Existing Representative Concentrations for the Planning Area” (p. 277). The examination

of these data indicates that the current air quality for criteria pollutants in the planning area is

considered good overall. Based on measurements within the area, visibility in the planning

area is considered excellent.

Table 3.4, “Applicable National and State Primary Air Quality Standards for Criteria Pollutants

and Existing Representative Concentrations for the Planning Area” (p. 277) provides an overview

of applicable primary WAAQS and NAAQS and recent representative pollutant concentrations

measured in the planning area and at nearby sites.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Air Quality February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 277

Table 3.4. Applicable National and State Primary Air Quality Standards for Criteria

Pollutants and Existing Representative Concentrations for the Planning Area

National Ambient Air

Quality Standards

(NAAQS)

Wyoming Ambient

Air Quality Standards

(WAAQS)

Representative

Pollutant Concentrations Averaging

Time

(ppm) (ppb) (μg/m3) (ppm) (ppb) (μg/m3) (ppm) (ppb) (μg/m3)

1 hour1 35 35,000 40,000 35 35,000

40 (mg/

m3)

0.7 700 801

Carbon

Monoxide

8 hour1 9 9,000 10,000 9 9,000

10 (mg/

m3)

0.9 900 1,029

1 hour2 0.1 100 189 --- --- --- --- --- ---

Nitrogen

Dioxide

Annual

(Arithmetic

Mean)

0.053 53 100 0.05 50 100 0.002 2 3.4

24 hour3 --- --- 150 --- --- 150 --- --- 78

PM10

Annual

(Arithmetic

Mean)

None --- --- 50 --- --- ---

24 hour4 --- --- 35 --- --- 35 --- --- 24.2

PM2.5

Annual

(Arithmetic

Mean)5

--- --- 15.0 --- --- 15.0 --- --- 7.6

Ozone 8 hour6 0.075 75 147 0.08 80 157 0.066 66 129

1 hour7 0.075 75 197 --- --- --- --- --- ---

3 hour1 None 0.50 500 1,300 --- --- ---

24 hour Sulfur 8 None 0.10 100 260 0.001 0.57 1.48

Dioxide Annual

(Arithmetic

Mean)

None 0.02 20 60 0.0003 0.25 0.66

Note: Bold indicates the standard as written in the corresponding regulation. Other values are conversions.

Source: BLM 2009a

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

PM2.5 particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter

PM10 particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter

ppm parts per million

ppb parts per billion

μg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter

mg/m3 milligrams per cubic meter

SLAMS State and Local Air Monitoring Stations

WAAQS Wyoming Ambient Air Quality Standards

WARMS Wyoming Air Resource Monitoring System

1Not to be exceeded more than once per year. Data collected at Murphy Ridge in 2008.

2To 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. Data collected at Thunder Basin in 2008.

3Not to be exceeded more than once per year on average over three years. Maximum 24-hour

average for 2008 at the South Pass site.

4To attain this standard, the three-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations at each population-oriented monitor in an area must not exceed 35 μg/m3

. Maximum 24-hour average for 2006 for the Lander SLAMS site.

5To attain this standard, the three-year average of the weighted annual mean PM2.5 concentrations from single or multiple community-oriented monitors must not exceed 15.0 μg/m3Annual average for 2008 for the Lander SLAMS site.

6To attain this standard, the three-year average of the fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour

average ozone concentrations measured at each monitor in an area over each year must not

exceed 75 ppb. Measured fourth highest concentration for 2008 for the South Pass site.

7To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the 99th percentile of the daily maximum 1-hour

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Air Quality
278 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

National Ambient Air

Quality Standards

(NAAQS)

Wyoming Ambient

Air Quality Standards

(WAAQS)

Representative

Pollutant Concentrations Averaging

Time

(ppm) (ppb) (μg/m3) (ppm) (ppb) (μg/m3) (ppm) (ppb) (μg/m3)

average at each monitor within an area must not exceed 75 ppb.

8Not to be exceeded more than once per year. Maximum 24-hour and annual averages for 2008 for the Sheridan

WARMS site.

Trends in Air Quality

This section evaluates recent trends in air quality by examining data collected at the Lander, South

Pass, South Pass City, and Sinks Canyon monitors in the Lander planning area, and as best as

can be inferred by examining criteria pollutant, visibility, and deposition data collected at other

monitoring sites in adjacent planning areas.

Air Pollutant Concentrations

Air quality data collected at the various monitors in and near the Lander planning area (Table 3.4,

“Applicable National and State Primary Air Quality Standards for Criteria Pollutants and Existing

Representative Concentrations for the Planning Area” (p. 277)) are presented for PM10, PM2.5,

SO2, and O3. Figure 3.5, “Peak 24-Hour Average PM10 Concentrations (μg/m3) at the South Pass,

Wyoming Site” (p. 278) shows annual peak 24-hour average PM10 concentrations at the South

Pass site for 2007 and 2008. For these years, peak 24-hour average measurements of PM10 are

well below the standard (150 micrograms per cubic meter [μg/m3)]), and no real trend can be

discerned.

Source: EPA 2009a

PM10 Particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter

μg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter

Figure 3.5. Peak 24-Hour Average PM10 Concentrations (μg/m3) at the South Pass,

Wyoming Site

Figure 3.6, “Annual Average PM2.5 Concentrations (μg/m3) at the Lander, Wyoming

Site” (p. 279) shows annual average PM2.5 data collected at the Lander monitor from 2000

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Air Quality February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 279

through 2008. The data indicate that annual average PM2.5 concentrations in the Lander area are

well below the NAAQS, and trends are relatively flat during the last four years.

Source: EPA 2009a

PM2.5 Particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter

μg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter

Figure 3.6. Annual Average PM2.5 Concentrations (μg/m3) at the Lander, Wyoming Site

Figure 3.7, “98th Percentile Concentrations of 24-hour Average PM2.5 Concentrations (μg/m3) at

the Lander, Wyoming Site” (p. 279) shows 24-hour average PM2.5 data collected at the Lander

monitor from 2007 through 2011. The new 24-hour PM2.5 standard, promulgated in 2005, requires

that the three-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations at each monitor in an

area must not exceed 35 μg/m3. The 2007 through 2011 Lander data show that this monitor is

currently in compliance of the new 24-hour average PM2.5 standard.

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Air Quality
280 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Source: EPA 2012a

PM2.5 Particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter

μg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter

Figure 3.7. 98th Percentile Concentrations of 24-hour Average PM2.5 Concentrations

(μg/m3) at the Lander, Wyoming Site

Figure 3.8, “Fourth Highest Eight-Hour Average Ozone Concentrations (ppb) at the South Pass,

Wyoming SPM Site” (p. 280) shows the fourth highest 8-hour average O3 data for the South Pass

site for 2007 and 2008. These data are used to determine the area’s O3 “design value,” which is

calculated as the three-year average of the fourth highest observed concentration. The design

value is used to assess compliance with the national standard. Given that there are only two years

of available data, it is not possible to properly calculate the design value. However, given these

measurements, the estimated (two-year) design value is less than 70 parts per billion (ppb), which

is below the 8-hour average O3 standard of 75 ppb.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Air Quality February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 281

Source: Wyoming DEQ 2009

ppb parts per billion

SPM Special Purpose Monitoring

Figure 3.8. Fourth Highest Eight-Hour Average Ozone Concentrations (ppb) at the South

Pass, Wyoming SPM Site

Although not in the planning area, monitoring data from the Buffalo site (in the Buffalo planning

area) as part of the Wyoming Air Resource Monitoring System (WARMS) network provides a

summary of observed concentrations of SO2. Figure 3.9, “Weekly SO2 Concentration in Buffalo

WARMS site” (p. 281) shows weekly average concentrations of SO2 for the Buffalo site from

2003 to 2008. Although there are missing data for a number of weeks throughout this period,

especially in 2008, the data show weekly and seasonal variations in SO2, with no discernable

long-term trend over this period. Also, given its location and distance in relation to the Lander

planning area, these data might not accurately reflect SO2 concentrations in the Lander planning

area.

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Air Quality
282 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Source: WARMS 2009

μg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter

SO2 sulfur dioxide

WARMS Wyoming Air Resource Monitoring System

Figure 3.9. Weekly SO2 Concentration in Buffalo WARMS site

Visibility

An environmental concern in the United States is the improvement and/or maintenance of

visibility conditions, especially in national parks, recreation areas, wilderness areas, and national

forests. There are several such areas in the vicinity of the planning area. The WRIR is within the

Lander Field Office boundaries and although the WRIR has not yet chosen to identify itself as a

PSD Class I area, it is considering doing so. A list of these areas, which are designated either

Class I or Class II areas, is presented in Table 3.5, “Class I and Class II Areas in the Vicinity of

the Planning Area” (p. 283).

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Air Quality February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 283

Table 3.5. 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

Because there are no IMPROVE monitors in the Lander planning area, estimates of visibility

in the area are primarily derived from air quality and meteorological measurements from the

Bridger Wilderness IMPROVE monitor to the west in the adjacent Pinedale planning area and

the North Absaroka IMPROVE monitor to the north in the Bighorn Basin planning area. This

document includes data from these IMPROVE monitors to provide the most available data for

visibility in areas close to the Lander planning area.

Figure 3.10, “Annual Visibility (SVR) at the Bridger Wilderness Wyoming IMPROVE

Site” (p. 283) shows visibility estimates for the Bridger Wilderness IMPROVE site for the

period 2000-2007. The data indicate excellent visibility conditions with no real trend in this

period. Figure 3.11, “Annual Visibility (SVR) at the North Absaroka Wyoming IMPROVE

Site” (p. 284) presents visibility estimates for the North Absaroka site for 2002 through 2006.

These data also indicate excellent visibility conditions to the north of the area and no real trends

in this limited period.

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Air Quality
284 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Source: IMPROVE Data 2009

IMPROVE Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments

SVR Standard Visual Range

Figure 3.10. Annual Visibility (SVR) at the Bridger Wilderness Wyoming IMPROVE Site

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Air Quality February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 285

Source: IMPROVE Data 2009

IMPROVE Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments

SVR standard visual range

Figure 3.11. Annual Visibility (SVR) at the North Absaroka Wyoming IMPROVE Site

Atmospheric Deposition

There are two NADP stations located within the planning area, one at Sinks Canyon and one at

South Pass City. Figure 3.12, “Total Annual Wet Deposition (kilograms per hectare per year) at

the Sinks Canyon Wyoming NADP Site” (p. 285) and Figure 3.13, “Total Annual Wet Deposition

(kilograms per hectare per year) at the South Pass City Wyoming NADP Site” (p. 286) show total

annual wet deposition for NH4, NO3, and SO4 for 2000 through 2008 for the Sinks Canyon and

South Pass sites. There are no discernable trends in these measurements over this period.

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Air Quality
286 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Source: NADP 2009

Kg/ha/year kilograms per hectare per year

NADP National Acid Deposition Program

NH4 ammonium

NO3 nitrate

SO4 sulfate

Figure 3.12. Total Annual Wet Deposition (kilograms per hectare per year) at the Sinks

Canyon Wyoming NADP Site

Source: NADP 2009

Kg/ha/year kilograms per hectare per year

NADP National Acid Deposition Program

NH4 ammonium

NO3 nitrate

SO4 sulfate

Figure 3.13. Total Annual Wet Deposition (kilograms per hectare per year) at the South

Pass City Wyoming NADP Site

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Air Quality February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 287

Sources of Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) and Criteria Pollutants

Existing sources of HAPs, criteria pollutants and Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) in the planning area

include fossil-fuel combustion that emits HAPs; oil, gas, and coal development operations that

emit VOCs; NOX; and hydrogen sulfide (H2S). In addition, large fires are a source of HAPs

emissions. The growth in resource development and accompanying increases in emissions from

these types of sources will depend on a number of external factors that make it difficult to estimate

actual trends in concentrations of these pollutants in the planning area.

Summary of Air Quality Trends

Available air quality data for a number of criteria pollutants that were examined at various

monitors in and near the planning area do not show any major upward or downward trends over

the various periods of record. With only two years of available data at the South Pass site for

PM10, it is not possible to identify trends. Concentrations of PM2.5 at the Lander site show a

relatively flat trend during the last four years of record (2005 through 2008). For the South Pass

site, the fourth highest 8-hour average O3 concentrations for 2007 and 2008 are below the national

standard; however, it is not possible to identify trends using only two data points. Visibility data

collected at the Bridger Wilderness site show very good to excellent visibility, even for the 20

percent haziest days. Wet deposition data for NH4, NO3, and SO4 from the Sinks Canyon and

South Pass City sites also show no distinct trend in deposition over the nine-year period of record

(2000 through 2008) examined in this analysis.

Greenhouse Gases

Refer to the Climate Change section at the end of this chapter for information on historical and

projected climate change in the planning area, potential impacts of climate change in the planning

area, and activities in the planning area that may be contributing to climate change.

Management Challenges for Air Quality

Limited air quality data for the planning area makes it difficult to fully assess air quality

conditions. Except for ozone, the limited monitoring data available from the few sites in the

planning area and data collected at monitors in nearby areas reflect good to excellent air quality

and visibility. With only 2 years of 8-hour ozone data at the South Pass site (2007 and 2008),

it is not possible to calculate the design value, which is used to assess compliance with the

NAAQS. The estimated design value for South Pass using the 2 available years of data is 68

ppb, which is below the current level of the standard (75 ppb). As part of EPA’s normal 5-year

cycle of reviewing air quality standards, in 2013 the EPA will be reviewing the current level of

the 8-hour ozone standard and might reduce the standard below 75 ppb. If the EPA reduces the

standard, the observed design value at that time, computed from measurement data taken in the

planning area in 2011, 2012, and 2013, will be used to show compliance or non-compliance with

the revised standard. One of the management challenges for the planning area is related to the

accuracy of characterization of air quality conditions based only on limited data. Given this,

continued maintenance of the applicable federal and state air quality standards is an issue. As

additional resource development scenarios are considered for the planning area, it would be

important to evaluate the impacts that emissions from development sources will have on criteria

pollutants, visibility, and atmospheric deposition. The BLM expects to work cooperatively with

the Wyoming DEQ, the EPA, and other federal agencies such as the National Park Service (NPS)

and USFS to address these issues.

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Air Quality
288 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Additional challenges for the planning area will be to continue to characterize air quality

conditions and track trends using limited monitoring data. Because of the limited data available to

properly characterize air quality in the planning area, it would be prudent to establish additional

monitoring sites throughout the planning area. Other challenges include developing effective rules

and management actions aimed to maintain compliance with standards and improve air quality.

3.1.2. Geologic Resources

Regional Context

The planning area is in the regional geologic provinces of the Wyoming plains and the Rocky

Mountains. Igneous, metamorphic, and sedimentary rocks of all geologic periods, except the

Silurian, are present and represent a span from 3 billion years ago to the very recent – 10,000

years ago. The geologic setting consists of basins separated and surrounded by mountain ranges,

including the Owl Creek, Washakie, Absaroka, Wind River, Granite, and Rattlesnake. Basins

include most of the Wind River and the northern portion of the Great Divide Basin. Most of the

planning area is in the Wind River Basin, with less than 150,000 acres in the Great Divide Basin.

The geologic setting contributes to the formation of numerous important geologic resources

such as Red Canyon, Beaver Rim, Lander Slope and Table Mountain, Sweetwater Canyon,

and Sweetwater Rocks. There also are unique geologic settings responsible for hosting certain

mineral resource types and occurrences such as oil and gas, hard rock and placer gold, uranium,

phosphate, and bentonite.

Several geologic features in the planning area are of special interest because of their unusual

characteristics. These features include, but are not limited to the following:

● The Red Canyon Area approximately 24 miles south of Lander on Highway 28 offers one

of the most accessible and dramatic examples of Laramide-age range-front structures in the

Rocky Mountains. The canyon is an erosional feature, sited on the flank of the Wind River

Range, which were uplifted during the Laramide Orogeny between 90 and 50 million years

ago. Subsequent erosion and exposure beginning primarily in the Neogene (about 23 million

years ago) and continuing to the present has created the landscape as viewed today.

● The Beaver Rim is a scenic feature that was formed by the continuing erosion and excavation

of sediments from the Wind River Basin by the Wind River. This feature is geologically

important because it represents an unusually complete sequence of Tertiary deposits that are

exposed along the slopes of the rim. This sequence includes representative exposures of

virtually complete Early Eocene Epoch (approximately 53 million years ago) through Middle

Miocene Epoch (approximately 10 million years ago) stratigraphy. This nearly complete

sequence is rarely exposed as a unit and is important to the understanding of Wyoming

Tertiary geology. Its significance is increased by its proximity to U.S. Highway 287, where

travelers can easily view the most intact section, which occurs near Green Cove.

● The Dubois Badlands area consists of approximately 4,903 acres of BLM-administered

surface with badlands characterized by extensive erosion patterns and colorful soil banding,

starting two miles north of Dubois and extending to the east.

Physiography

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Geologic Resources February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 289

The planning area is generally contained within the boundary of the larger Wind River basin,

a representative example of the numerous structural and sedimentary basins that formed in the

Rocky Mountain region in response to Laramide-age tectonic activity (Keefer 1965). The

Wind River Basin is also a physiographic basin, with drainage primarily out of the basin to

the north and southeast and with most of the streamflow originating in the high country of the

Wind River Range. Streams flowing out of the planning area actually contribute to two major

drainages: the Missouri River drainage, which flows into the Gulf of Mexico, and much less

significantly, the Snake River drainage, a tributary to the Columbia River system, which flows

into the Pacific Ocean.

The major streams of the Missouri River drainage basin which drain the planning area include the

Wind River system (Wind River, Little Wind River, north, south and middle forks of the Popo

Agie River) and the Sweetwater River. The Wind River flows north out of the Wind River Basin

and through the Owl Creek Mountains, where it is renamed the Bighorn River as it emerges from

the north side of the canyon. The Bighorn River continues to flow north and eventually connects

to the Yellowstone River, which is tributary to the Missouri River. The Sweetwater River drains

the southern portion of the planning area from South Pass east to Pathfinder Reservoir, where

it meets the North Platte River, a tributary to the Missouri River. Beaver Divide separates

surface water that flows into the Wind River watershed from surface water that flows into the

Sweetwater River watershed.

Near Dubois, Fish Creek drains approximately 30 square miles of the planning area to the

west. The waters of Fish Creek flow to the Gros Ventre River, which in turn, makes confluence

with the Snake River near Jackson, Wyoming. There is also a small portion of the planning

area near a half-mile stretch of Wallace Creek in the Rattlesnake Hills that drains north to the

Powder River Basin. The Powder River is a tributary to the Yellowstone River which drains to

the Missouri River.

Structural Geology

The configuration of structural geologic features of the Wind River Basin that impact the nature

and occurrence of mineral resources presently found in the planning area is closely controlled by

events dating back to the Laramide orogeny. During the late Cretaceous Period, tectonic activity

that represented the initial stages of the Laramide orogeny began in the form of down warping of

the basin and broad doming of other areas peripheral to the basin (Keefer 1970). These structural

events and those occurring during the bulk of the Laramide event exerted substantial influence on

the style and pattern of sedimentation during all subsequent Tertiary time (Keefer 1965).

A major feature of the Laramide-age deformation is the Wind River uplift. This uplift is

responsible for the Wind River Range and started as a large fold. As movement progressed,

deformation continued as faulting where the upper crust acted as a rigid slab and the lower crust

behaved more fluidly (Smithson et al. 1979). Predominately horizontal movement caused crustal

shortening. This compression and resulting shortening along moderately dipping thrust faults can

be related to plate movements during the Laramide orogeny (Brewer et al. 1980). The modern

topographic Wind River Range resulted from the uplift and subsequent erosion of a doubly

plunging, asymmetrical anticline cored by Archean-age crystalline rocks. The axis of this folded

belt of rocks was breached by erosion, which exposed the crystalline core of the uplifted block,

present at surface in the central part of the Wind River Range.

Parallel to and toward the center of the basin from the mountain uplifts there are many smaller

structures such as the asymmetrical syncline in which the city of Lander is sited. On the west

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Geologic Resources
290 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

margin of the basin, the Sheep Mountain anticline, Lander-Hudson anticline, Derby Dome, and

Dallas Dome are examples of smaller anticlinal features from which oil and gas are produced.

In fact, the first commercial oil well in Wyoming was at Dallas Dome on the western edge of

the Wind River Basin approximately 8 miles south of Lander. Many structural features are

unconformably covered with several hundred feet of younger, flat-lying sediments, generally of

Tertiary age. Numerous faults of all variations are found in the planning area. Over-thrusting

along major faults throughout the planning area represents good prospects for future oil and

gas exploration.

Geologic Formations

Rocks can be roughly grouped into two main categories based on their presumed ages: the

pre-Cambrian eon and the later Phanerozoic eon, which contains the eon corresponding to the

present timeframe in the geologic timescale. Phanerozoic time began 542 million years before

present (BP) and is the eon during which abundant vertebrate animal life has existed. This

document employs the term pre-Cambrian to describe the age of all rocks originating before

Phanerozoic time.

Rocks in the planning area range in age from pre-Cambrian to recent (see Figure 3.14,

“Generalized Stratigraphic Column for the Planning Area” (p. 290)). Rocks from practically

every Phanerozoic period except the Silurian (408 to 438 million years ago) are present in the

planning area. Pre-Cambrian rocks generally consist of crystalline and metamorphic rocks

exposed mostly in the core of uplifted areas, usually near the periphery of the basin, while

Phanerozoic rocks include various kinds of sandstones, siltstones, carbonates, shales, and

mudstones. In the Wind River Basin, the thickest accumulation of Phanerozoic sedimentary rocks

is generally in the range of 20,000 to 30,000 feet. Tertiary-age sediments, generally of Eocene

age, cover most of the central basin floor and in places abut crystalline rock exposures, as in the

Granite Mountains area. Paleozoic and Mesozoic sedimentary rocks are exposed most often

where structural conditions permit (for example, along mountain fronts, uplifts, and eroded

canyons). For a more detailed description of the formations in the planning area, see the Final

Mineral Occurrence and Development Potential Report (BLM 2009b).

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Geologic Resources February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 291

Source: Love et al. 1993

Figure 3.14. Generalized Stratigraphic Column for the Planning Area

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Geologic Resources
292 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

3.1.3. Soil

Soils in the planning area are highly variable. Soil characteristics can differ over relatively short

distances, reflecting differences in parent material, position on the landscape, elevation, aspect,

and local variation in precipitation and temperature.

Reconnaissance level soil surveys cover most of the planning area. These soil surveys include

the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)

Cooperative Soil Surveys of Fremont County East and the Dubois Area Soil Survey of 1993;

Natrona County Soil Survey of 1997; and Lander Area Soil Survey of 1981, which is in the

process of being updated. There is no NRCS soil survey coverage for those portions of the

planning area in Sweetwater and Carbon Counties.

General Description of Soils in the Planning Area

The planning area includes soils typical of cold, mountainous continental areas with arid,

semi-arid, and sub-humid climates.

Soils in the arid, cold desert portions of the planning area can be found in the lowest parts of the

Wind River Basin and in a second area known as the Great Divide Basin, most of which is

in the Sweetwater County portion of the planning area. These soils receive the least annual

precipitation, less than 10 inches and in some locations less than 5 inches. This area begins a few

miles west of Dubois, follows the Wind River to Boysen Reservoir, and continues east to about

Waltman in Natrona County. The northern boundary is the footslope of the Bridger Mountain

Range and southern Big Horn Mountains, and the southern boundary is formed by the base of

the Beaver Rim escarpment. Most of the badland, rock outcrop, and sand dune areas occur in

arid areas. Topsoils in arid areas are thin and organic matter content is typically less than 1

percent in the surface horizon.

Soils in the semiarid portions of the planning area most commonly formed in mixed alluvium,

primarily derived from sedimentary rock. The Split Rock Formation and the Wind River

Formation are the source sedimentary rocks for much of this alluvium. The Amsden and

Chugwater Formations, with their distinctive reddish sandstones, provide parent material for soils

in certain locales such as scenic Sinks Canyon. There are also soils derived from granitic rock

associated with the Louis Lake Batholith (Lewiston Lakes area), some of the upper slopes of the

Wind River Mountains, as well as, the Bridger, Green, and Granite Mountains/Sweetwater Rocks

and the Rattlesnake Hills. There are limited areas of badlands, rock outcrops, and sand dunes in

the semiarid portions of the planning area. Topsoils in semiarid areas are thin and organic content

is low, typically ranging from 1 to 2 percent in the surface horizon.

In both arid and semiarid environments, soils on stable land surfaces outside stream depositional

areas commonly contain a horizon of clay accumulation immediately beneath the topsoil,

underlain in turn by a zone of carbonate accumulation.

Arid and semiarid riparian-wetland soils are generally young and undeveloped, lacking developed

subsoils, with similar organic matter levels in the topsoil as the upland soils. Some of the

planning area’s low swales, nivation hollows, and wet meadow/spring areas have developed soils

with organic matter in the topsoil averaging from 2 to 5 percent.

Generally, soils above 8,000 feet in open meadows and areas where the climax vegetation is aspen

have a thick topsoil horizon with high organic matter content, typically from 2 to 5 percent. These

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Soil February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 293

soils occur on slopes ranging from nearly level to very steep. Coarse fragment content varies

greatly. Soils above 8,000 feet range from well drained as in the dry meadows, to somewhat

poorly drained as in some aspen stands, or poorly drained as in wet meadows.

Evergreen forested areas are typically composed of lodgepole pine, with minor amounts of

Engelmann spruce and Douglas-fir found primarily in drainages. The thin topsoils that support

forest commonly contain organic matter averaging from 1 to 4 percent, and soil drainage varies

from well drained to poorly drained. Aspen is often a pioneer species that is transitional to

a climax lodgepole pine community on these sites. Soil slope ranges from nearly level to very

steep, and coarse fragment content can vary from none to being extremely (more than 60 percent

by weight course fragments) gravelly, cobbly, stony, or bouldery. These mountain soils are found

in areas that receive 15 or more inches of annual precipitation. Giant boulder conglomerate forms

the parent material for the forest soils on the Green Mountains. Parent material for the mountain

soils on the slopes of the Wind River Mountains is typically alluvium, colluvium, residuum, and

glacial deposits most commonly derived from igneous granitic and mafic rocks, and metamorphic

such as gneiss and schist. The parent material for soils of the higher foothills and low mountain

slopes of the Wind River Mountains on the Lander Slope are formed largely in sedimentary rocks

of the Phosphoria Formation, Madison Limestone, and Ten Sleep Sandstone. Topsoils are thicker

here than those of forest soils but not as thick as the wet meadow/aspen pocket soils. These

topsoils typically average from 2 to 4 percent in the surface horizon.

Resource Condition

There has not been a comprehensive survey of soil/site stability and health in the planning area.

Published reconnaissance-level soil surveys do not routinely map or note eroded phases of soil

series. The BLM does some limited soil health monitoring including proper functioning condition

(PFC) inventories, project inspection reports, and analysis of reclamation success to release bonds.

The BLM does perform qualitative soil assessments by evaluating livestock grazing allotment

compliance with the Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands (Appendix J (p. 1537)).

Standard 1 provides that, “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” (BLM 1997b). The BLM evaluates rangelands for compliance

with Standard 1 by measuring appropriate indicators such as plant community composition and

distribution in relation to infiltration and runoff; litter amount; functional/structural groups; plant

mortality and decadence; vegetative annual production; invasive plants; soil compaction; erosion;

and soil microorganisms. Standard 1 assessments provide the BLM with an overall picture of soil

health for individual grazing allotments. Refer to the Livestock Grazing Management section of

this chapter for additional information on the Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands.

The existing condition of soil resources in the planning area varies greatly. There are still

relatively undisturbed areas. These are typically areas livestock lightly use because of slope

steepness or distance from water. Many of the soils types in the planning area are in good

condition and capable of producing forage for wildlife and livestock, maintaining watershed

integrity, and recovering from impacts associated with surface-disturbing activities. However,

historic improper livestock grazing management, drought, extensive soil erosion, mineral

development activities, rights-of-way (ROWs), off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and other

recreational activities, timber harvesting, rangeland improvements, and other activities have

affected localized areas in the planning area. Soil compaction resulting from surface-disturbing

activities and associated development can reduce infiltration, increase runoff, and hamper

reclamation. Reclamation of areas affected by surface disturbance can ensure that the Wyoming

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Soil
294 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Standards for Healthy Rangelands are met. In the planning area, there are mining exploration

roads that have not been reclaimed, which could be contributing to continued soil impacts that

lead to a failure in meeting Standard 2 of the Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands.

Livestock grazing is a major source of soil compaction around range improvement projects

in the planning area. Ninety-seven percent of the planning area is open to grazing, and areas

of high-density grazing such as around water developments are subject to soil compaction.

Typically, affected areas range in size from one-half acre to approximately 5 acres (University of

Wyoming 2008). Heavy utilization of vegetation by livestock in riparian-wetland zones has also

resulted in soil compaction in the nearby transition zones to the uplands, and in the formation

of hummocks within the riparian-wetland zone. Studies have shown that soil compaction from

grazing can have the effect of reducing water infiltration, thereby limiting the growth of rangeland

vegetation (Castellano and Valone 2007).

One of the primary regional and national demands placed on soils in the planning area is mineral

development and exploration. Well pad construction, road building, pipeline installation, and the

discharge of produced water all have the potential to lead to soil degradation. The discharge of

produced water can cause increased erosion and salinization. The Wyoming Pollutant Discharge

Elimination System (WYPDES), operated by Wyoming DEQ, regulates the release of produced

water, and imposes requirements for sediment control, spill containment planning, monitoring,

and eventual reclamation of disturbed areas. In the last few years, the storm water discharge

requirements have been imposed for most surface-disturbing activities that would affect one acre

or more. Storm water discharge permit requirements have substantially reduced impacts from

erosion from major surface-disturbing activities.

Other land uses, such as recreation and ROW development, also have the potential to affect

soils. Motorized travel that does not follow travel management designations appears to be on

the increase in certain areas in the planning area, including Government Draw and the Dubois

Badlands. Increased interest in communication site ROW permits and renewable energy

development also has the potential to lead to soil degradation. Conversely, timber harvesting

activity is decreasing in the planning area due to decreased economic demand; therefore both

short-term and long-term adverse impacts associated with this resource use have also decreased.

Invasive plant infestations in the planning area are expected to increase, which can alter soil

health, although this depends on other factors such as soil disturbance and climatic conditions.

Invasive plant infestations can force out native vegetation and replace it with weedy plants that

provide inferior protection to the soil surface. Invasive plant species typically do not have root

systems adequate to stabilize soils and sites dominated with invasive plants are often subject to

accelerated erosion.

On a landscape scale, vegetation cover has undergone a net decrease in the last decade due to a

prolonged drought. Vegetative cover is one of the most critical variables affecting soil erosion

that land managers can control. Soil erosion accelerates substantially once a threshold of loss

of healthy vegetative cover is exceeded. Generally, rangeland soils have thin topsoil and little

organic matter, and are susceptible to accelerated erosion with a loss of vegetative cover. This can

result in reduced fertility, invasive plant invasion, and excessive amounts of bare ground.

Wildland fires are increasing in size, intensity, and frequency. All indications are that this trend

will continue. Larger fires lead to increased soil erosion and a shifting from native herbaceous

communities to communities dominated by cheatgrass and annual invasive plant species. Species

such as cheatgrass and Russian thistle are known to change the fire regime to favor a fire cycle

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Soil February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 295

of more frequent and intense fires. If this trend continues, these plant communities would

facilitate further soil loss.

Soil Erosion Potential

Soil landscape position, steepness of slope, physical properties (including texture and structure),

and chemical properties contribute to susceptibility to wind and water erosion. Soils in the

planning area with slight, moderate, and severe erosion potential have been identified where

county soil survey data are available. On BLM-administered surface within the planning area,

approximately 889,612 acres of soils have severe wind erosion potential and 1,229,683 acres have

severe water erosion potential. Map 7 and Map 8 show wind and water erosion potential in the

planning area; Table 3.6, “Soils with Slight, Moderate, and Severe Wind and Water Erosion

Potential in the Planning Area” (p. 295) summarizes this information by land ownership. Maps 7

and 8 use the most restrictive rating for the soil component; for example, if a soil map unit

contains 50 percent of a soil rated as slight for wind erosion and 35 percent of another soil rated

as severe, the whole map unit is rated as severe. Thus, these maps provide only a general guide

to soil erosion potential. Soil conditions for BLM-authorized activities must be considered on

a site-specific basis.

Table 3.6. Soils with Slight, Moderate, and Severe Wind and Water Erosion Potential in

the Planning Area

BLM-administered Surface Federal Mineral Estate All Land Ownership

Erosion Type

Acres

Percent

of BLMadministered

Surface

Acres

Percent of

Federal

Mineral

Estate

Acres

Percent

of Lands

within

Planning

Area

Wind Slight 171,202 7 199,879 7 239,132 7

Moderate 648,789 27 769,984 27 1,394,641 42

Severe 1,229,683 51 1,411,830 50 1,605,774 48

Water Slight 585,804 24 702,894 25 876,634 26

Moderate 565,770 24 661,391 24 770,738 23

Severe 889,612 37 1,021,449 36 1,149,815 34

Source: BLM 2012a

BLM Bureau of Land Management

Management Challenges for Soils

Successful reclamation after surface-disturbing activities is a management challenge in the

planning area based on regional factors such as climate and topography. Even with these

constraints, most landscapes in the planning area can be reclaimed using locally established

conventional reclamation methods. However, some areas have unique characteristics that make

achieving reclamation requirements extremely difficult. These landscapes are defined as Limited

Reclamation Potential (LRP) areas. LRP areas for this planning area are characterized by highly

sensitive and/or erosive soils, with severe physical or chemical limitations, and landforms with

steep slopes over 25 percent.

Limiting physical or chemical factors include soils that possess textures prone to excessive

amounts of erosion by wind or water; high levels of salts that interfere with plant growth; soil

textures with poor water holding capacity; coarse fragments that limit common rehabilitation

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Soil
296 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

practices and equipment; soil profiles that limit water-holding capacity and/or create rooting-zone

limitations; and soils with elevated levels of salts that interfere with plant growth.

Using these criteria, it is estimated that approximately 801,476 acres of the planning area result in

LRP. The LRP areas have been identified on Map 11 to show the extent of these landforms and

provide a better understanding of the impacts of surface-disturbing activities on these sensitive

areas. Site-specific management of the LRP areas will be critical to evaluate and implement

construction methods and reclamation and monitoring measures to achieve the greatest beneficial

outcome. Reclamation success will be measured by the Reclamation Standards in Appendix

D (p. 1477) for LRP areas.

Soil erosion potential was noted during the evaluation for each map unit but was not a determining

factor used to identify LRP. Evaluating the soil and site characteristics that influence soil erosion

factors were used instead. Potential soil erosion levels as identified in the surveys provide a

general guide, but key soil and landform characteristics are the primary driver to determine

LRP areas.

To make an LRP determination for each map unit, the BLM performed an initial assessment for

physical and chemical limiting soil factors. This assessment identified map units of which at least

50 percent or greater of the total major soil series contain a soil characteristic that would limit

the potential to reclaim a disturbed area. If a map unit met the minimal requirement, then it was

considered, and additional evaluations were used to make a final determination.

This next evaluation looked at singular limitation versus multiple limitations. Map units with

multiple limitations were automatically identified as LRP. Map units with a single limiting factor

were identified as LRP only where the factor included more than 60 percent of the map unit and

the factor was considered to be very limiting, such as highly saline or very shallow.

To determine the map units with slopes that exceed 25 percent, the initial criteria identified only

the units where the entire slope for most of the soil series exceeded 25 percent. These were

considered “steep” units, which is typically reflected in unit names.

To identify LRP map units with moderate to steep slopes, the BLM identified the high-end

percentage in the slope ranges that exceeded 25 percent for most of the units. These map units

generally have soil series that fall below 25 percent on the low end and exceed 25 percent on

the high end. To better define these map units, the soil series were then evaluated for other soil

physical and chemical limiting factors, such as shallow soils (less than 20 inches in depth to a

root-restrictive layer) and/or high percentage of coarse fragments (boulder and/or cobble size).

Only the map units that included both slopes in excess of 25 percent and soils with additional

limiting factors were identified as LRP.

Singular landforms, such as rock outcrops, badlands, and dunes were also identified. These

landforms usually prohibit surface-disturbing activities, so reclamation is not normally necessary.

However, these landforms typically are surrounded by LRP soils, and as such were included to

avoid “donut holes,” which could be misinterpreted.

Another factor that influences management challenges of soils is drought events, which lead to

increased susceptibility to erosion. With arid and semiarid moisture regimes covering much of the

planning area, minor changes in precipitation during winter and spring seasons can affect plant

growth and seedling establishment. However, drought conditions that persist over consecutive

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Soil February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 297

years can cause a reduction in plant cover and an increase in topsoil exposure to the elements.

This results in accelerated soil loss and can lead to an irretrievable impact on soil fertility.

Major erosive events that often occur during and after droughts can be difficult to mitigate due to

a lack of vegetative cover and loss of soil fertility. In the absence of plant cover, soils tend to

dry hard and form a crust at the surface, which leads to reduced infiltration rates, surface runoff,

and exposure to the abrasive effects of wind. In addition, reduction in the amount of plant cover

reduces soil’s ability to resist the dispersive action caused by water and wind processes. The

result is detachment of soil particles and an increase in sediment transportation. Thus, runoff from

average precipitation events or typical wind forces creates abnormal increases in soil loss and

sediment transportation. This can perpetuate an increase in the frequency of flooding events and

soil creep, which result in more soil erosion.

3.1.4. Water

This section characterizes surface water and groundwater resources and describes existing water

use and water management practices in the planning area.

Surface Water

Watersheds in the planning area consist almost entirely of semiarid rangelands with small areas of

alpine and high elevation forest. Because annual evaporation rates exceed annual precipitation,

there is a water deficit on these rangelands. There are few perennial streams, and discharge from

many streams is largely intermittent or ephemeral. Most of the precipitation is lost through

evapotranspiration and sublimation instead of creating runoff or recharging groundwater aquifers

(BLM 2009a).

There are two major hydrologic basins and one minor basin in the planning area (Map 4):

● The largest hydrologic basin in the planning area is the Wind River Basin, a subdivision of the

Yellowstone River Basin, which is a subdivision of the Missouri River Basin.

● The second largest hydrologic basin is the North Platte River, of which the Sweetwater River

is a tributary. This watershed covers most of the area on top of the Beaver Rim escarpment; it

flows east to Pathfinder Reservoir on the North Platte River. A minor area in Natrona County

drains directly to the North Platte River, which ultimately flows east to the Missouri River.

● The Great Divide Basin is a smaller hydrologic basin in the southern part of the planning area.

This is a hydrologically closed basin in Wyoming’s Red Desert region that does not drain

to either the Pacific or the Atlantic Ocean.

In addition, a half-mile stretch of Wallace Creek in the Rattlesnake Hills drains to the Powder

River, a tributary to the Yellowstone River, which flows to the Missouri River. Also, near Dubois,

Fish Creek drains approximately 30 square miles of non-BLM-administered lands in the planning

area to the west. Fish Creek flows to the Gros Ventre River, which meets the Snake River near

Jackson; the Snake River flows to the Columbia River and into the Pacific Ocean.

Table 3.7, “Sub-basins in the Planning Area” (p. 298) summarizes the sub-basins and some of

their associated water quality issues with information from the Wyoming DEQ 2006 305(b)

report (Wyoming DEQ 2006).

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Water
298 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table 3.7. Sub-basins in the Planning Area

Sub-basin Location Uses Status Plan

Upper Wind

Sub-basin (HUC10080001)

Shoshone National

Forest in the Dubois

area.

Livestock grazing,

irrigated agriculture,

recreation, limited

logging.

Fecal coliform;

erosion; needed

improvement for

recreation and fishing;

habitat degradation of

Brooks Lake Creek.

Shoshone National

Forest and DCCD

have watershed

improvement plans;

DCCD will do further

monitoring.

Little Wind Sub-basin

(HUC 10080002)

Drainage into Little

Wind River.

Livestock grazing,

irrigated agriculture,

oil and gas.

Degradation along

Beaver Creek and

fecal coliform.

Wyoming DEQ

is monitoring;

BLM data shows

improvement.

Popo Agie Sub-basin

(HUC 10080003)

Headwaters in

Shoshone National

Forest.

Agriculture (96%

of use), livestock

grazing, recreation,

residential. Lander

municipal water

source.

Fecal coliform

(livestock grazing,

septic systems).

Popo Agie

Conservation District

has a watershed plan

to identify pollution

sources and remedy.

Squaw and Baldwin

Creek drainage

rehabilitation

successful.

Muskrat Creek

Sub-basin (HUC

10080004)

South Gas Hills east

of Riverton.

Livestock grazing, oil

and gas, uranium.

AML remediation. Lower Wind River

Conservation District

has established a

monitoring location

and plan.

Lower Wind

Sub-basin (HUC

10080005)

Wing shaped with

Muddy and Fivemile

Creeks on the west

side of Boysen

Reservoir and Poison

Creek on east.

Livestock grazing, oil

and gas.

Fecal coliform. Lower Wind River

Conservation District

has submitted data to

Wyoming DEQ and is

awaiting a plan.

Badwater Creek

Sub-basin (HUC

10080006)

Northeast side of

Boysen Reservoir.

Livestock grazing

and oil and gas in

Lysite/Lost Cabin

area.

AML remediation;

limited water data.

It appears that large

amounts of sediment

are transported to

Boysen during runoff

events.

Nowood Sub-basin

(HUC 10080008)

Headwaters are on

southwestern side

of the Big Horn

Mountains.

Livestock grazing,

irrigated agriculture

and oil and gas. Small

amount of bentonite.

Fecal coliform,

including untreated

human sewage.

Washakie County

Conservation District

is monitoring

and remediating.

South Big Horn

Conservation District

is monitoring

Paintrock Creek.

Sweetwater Sub-basin

(HUC 10180006)

Headwaters in the

South Pass area

draining to the Platte.

Livestock grazing,

irrigated hay, mining

including uranium,

oil and gas and

recreation.

More than 100 AML

sites have been

remediated; more

remain. Mercury in

Willow Creek, oil in

Crooks Creek.

Additional monitoring

and TMDLs.

South Fork Powder

Sub-basin (HUC

10090203)

Natrona County,

extending to the

Waltman area.

Grazing and oil and

gas (and possibly

other minerals).

BLM manages less

than 300 acres in this

basin.

-

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Water February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 299

Sub-basin Location Uses Status Plan

Great Divide Basin

(HUC 10)

Red Desert in south of

planning area.

Mostly intermittent

and ephemeral

reaches.

None identified. Impacts from uranium

and oil and gas need

to be considered.

Sources: Wyoming DEQ 2006; DCCD 2004; Lower Wind River Conservation District 2010; BLM 2009a

AML Abandoned Mine Land

BLM Bureau of Land Management

DCCD Dubois-Crowheart Conservation District

DEQ Department of Environmental Quality

HUC Hydrologic Unit Code

TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load

Reductions in annual streamflow throughout the planning area due to drought have affected

water quality parameters such as water temperature, total dissolved solids (TDS), dissolved

oxygen, and other factors. As precipitation patterns change (below normal snowfall, earlier snow

melts, substantial losses from sublimation before melting, etc.) and as glaciers in the Wind River

Mountains recede, annual spring runoff would occur sooner and have smaller discharges. This

would result in lower, or in some cases no, natural flows in late spring, summer, and fall (Rice et

al. 2012). Lower levels of water could result in degradation of water quality, including warming,

loss of high flows needed to flush pollutants, and degradation or loss of habitats. Reductions in

runoff also impact water use for summer irrigation in the planning area. These water quantity

and quality impacts reflect potential impacts of climate change in the planning area. Refer to the

Climate Change section at the end of this chapter for additional information on climate change.

Water Quality

Water quality is strongly influenced by geology and terrain. Natural water quality characteristics

of streams coming off the Wind River Range are generally good, but because natural erosion and

stream processes increase sediment and TDS loads, water quality can change as streams flow

across the basin. Accelerated erosion, runoff from irrigated agriculture, produced water discharge

from oil and gas development, and discharges from other human activities have the potential to

further degrade water quality (Colby et al. 1956, USGS 1999).

Erosion occurs naturally in many places in the planning area. Particularly in soils with little

stabilizing vegetation as is common in many areas, bank erosion and gullying naturally occurs

without human-caused disturbance. Many watersheds in Wyoming, including throughout the

Wind River Basin, naturally contribute extremely high sediment loads to the watersheds. This

is demonstrated by the sediment transport of creeks and rivers during spring runoff and after

substantial precipitation events. The BLM lacks the ability to quantify the amount of natural

erosion and sedimentation. However, given the amount of surface disturbance associated with

BLM-authorized activities compared to the extensive area over which natural erosion occurs, it is

likely that these natural events contribute much more erosion and soil transport than activities

associated with energy development. Modeling of likely erosion associated with energy

development, as BLM applies this requirement as part of site-specific analysis, could provide

additional information.

The Sweetwater Sub-basin headwaters are in the South Pass area of the southern Wind River

Mountains. Land uses in this sub-basin include grazing, irrigated hay production, and mineral

development.

Natural processes and human actions influence the chemical, physical, and biological

characteristics of water. Indicators of water quality include:

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Water
300 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

● 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)

The Wyoming DEQ, in compliance with the federal Clean Water Act (33 United States Code

[U.S.C.] 1215 et seq.), requires that water quality be maintained or improved for outstanding

(Class 1) and most of the high-quality (Class 2) waters. All other waters must be maintained

against degradation and are assessed by Wyoming DEQ to determine if water quality meets the

requirements for the class into which Wyoming has assigned the waterbody. For example, Class

2AB waters support game fish (Wyoming DEQ 2008a). Water quality is evaluated to see if it

supports the use identified for that class of water. Meeting this “use support” is an indicator

of water quality.

The Sweetwater River is the only waterbody Wyoming DEQ classifies as a Class 1 water quality

stream that flows through BLM-administered public lands in the planning area. This designation

begins at the Sweetwater River’s confluence with Alkali Creek south of Sweetwater Station, and

proceeds upstream to its source on the western slope of the southern Wind River Mountains.

Point source and nonpoint source pollution affect water quality. Point source pollution is

conveyed from a discrete location such as a pipe, tank, pit, or ditch. Discharge of produced water,

which contains high levels of salt, can cause water quality problems and soil salinization from

the deposition of salts. Nonpoint source pollution is from a diffuse source, such as runoff from

cultivated fields or grazed land. Section 502(14) of the Clean Water Act defines any source of

water pollution that does not meet the legal definition of “point source.” Nationally, agricultural

nonpoint source pollution is the leading source of water quality impacts to surveyed rivers

and lakes, and is a major contributor to groundwater contamination and wetlands degradation

(EPA 2005). Polluted runoff is caused by rainfall or snowmelt moving over and through the

ground. As the runoff moves, it picks up and carries away natural and human-made pollutants,

finally depositing them into watersheds through lakes, rivers, wetlands, coastal waters, and even

underground sources of drinking water. Of the three waters identified in the planning area as

requiring management (discussed in the next paragraph), two are for fecal coliform from nonpoint

source pollution and one is for oil and grease with an unknown origin.

Clean Water Act Section 305(b) requires a biennial report from the state that presents a summary

of water quality conditions. This report includes the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List,

which identifies waters of the state that have been found to have impaired water quality and

require a total maximum daily load (TMDL) allocation. Table 3.8, “Waters Requiring TMDLs

on BLM-Administered Land in the Planning Area” (p. 301) lists the waters in the planning

area requiring TMDLs.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Water February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 301

Table 3.8. Waters Requiring TMDLs on BLM-Administered Land in the Planning Area

Waterbody Name Location Use Not Supported Cause of Impairment

Popo Agie Middle Fork

(TMDL Date – 2010)

Undetermined distances

upstream and 4 miles

downstream of Lander.

Recreation Fecal coliform

Poison Creek

(TMDL Date Priority

– Low) This rating

indicates TMDLs will

not be completed within the

next four years.

From Boysen Reservoir

upstream an undetermined

distance.

Recreation Fecal coliform

Crooks Creek

(TMDL Date – 2008)

From T28N, R92W Sec.

18 SWNE undetermined

distance downstream.

Aquatic life, cold-water fish Oil and grease

Source: Wyoming DEQ 2006

E East

N North

R Range

S South

T Township

TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load

W West

The goal of the development and application of the Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands

(Appendix J (p. 1537)) is to achieve the four fundamentals of rangeland health: 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. As identified in the

fundamentals above, water is an important factor in meeting rangeland health. Standard 5

identifies the BLM’s role in complying with all federal, state and other applicable regulations

regarding water quality and clarifies that the State of Wyoming administers the Clean Water Act

(with the EPA administering the Clean Water Act on the WRIR). Standard 5 recognizes the

impacts of natural processes and human actions on water quality and the variations in water

quality based on seasons, climate, and the substrate through which water moves. Wyoming

BLM evaluates rangelands for compliance with Standard 5 as per guidance given in Wyoming

Instruction Memorandum (IM) WY-98-061 that outlines a determination process. This process

requires consulting the Wyoming DEQ’s impaired waterbody list, also called the 303(d) list

after that part of the 1977 Clean Water Act. Also, if a stream is delisted that too is noted, as

now it has been demonstrated to meet state, and federal, water quality standards. For all other

waterbodies Standard 5 is considered to be “Unknown” and all available information such as PFC

inventory, fisheries inventory, and other agency data are consulted to determine if there might be

suspected water quality impairments that we must bring to the attention of the Wyoming DEQ for

them to include such waterbodies in their scheduled monitoring. Refer to the Livestock Grazing

Management section of this chapter for additional information on the Wyoming Standards for

Healthy Rangelands.

Surface Water Trends

The sub-basin summaries in Table 3.7, “Sub-basins in the Planning Area” (p. 298) provide trend

information where it is available. In general, as water levels have dropped due to the drought

this decade, such parameters as water temperature, TDS, dissolved oxygen, and other factors

have typically become unfavorable to supporting the designated biological and recreational

uses assigned. Drought impacts, whenever they occur, will be considered as BLM authorizes

activities by specifying specific project design features including appropriate WYPDES

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Water
302 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Stormwater Discharge Permitting, Pollution Prevention Plans, and best management practice

(BMP) application; stipulations; mitigation; and through the remediation of known water quality

impairments. BLM will protect, maintain, or enhance water quality and quantity as necessary to

the mission of our agency and to comply with federal and state statutes.

Cities such as Lander that rely on surface water for a substantial percentage of domestic water

also face increasing water demands that correspond to increases in local urban populations and

industrial development. The fastest growing population segment locally is that of the small

acreage (2 to 40 acres) rural ranchette, or ex-urban, landowner. The development of subdivisions

on former ranch land, especially in the Dubois area and on the Lander Slope, is at historically

high levels. Small subdivision water systems, cisterns, and individual wells supply domestic

water in these areas.

Because the major consumer of water is irrigated agriculture on privately owned lands, population

increase is not expected to be a major factor in changing water usage. The BLM does not

authorize irrigated agriculture use of public lands in the planning area. Trends in irrigated

agriculture are generally limited to the water rights attached to property or those perfected through

the current state process. Surface water is the source for the majority of irrigated acres. Annual

agricultural water supplies can be highly variable if local streams are the sources of water.

Water quality is expected to decrease due to increased development of all types. Development

almost always results in soil disturbance, which can cause erosion and loss of fertility necessary

to sustain vegetative cover. As invasive species become established and outcompete native

vegetation, water infiltration into the soil is reduced.

The term "point source" means any discernible, confined, and discrete conveyance, including

but not limited to any pipe, ditch, channel, tunnel, conduit, well, discrete fissure, container,

rolling stock, concentrated animal feeding operation, or vessel or other floating craft, from

which pollutants are or may be discharged. This term does not include agricultural storm water

discharges and return flows from irrigated agriculture (EPA 2012b).

Point source discharge can contribute to erosion even where a WYPDES permit is in place.

Oil and Gas Onshore Order No. 7 identifies re-injection as the preferred method of disposal

of produced water; however, this is not always technically feasible. An appropriate receiving

formation that has the same or lower quality as the produced water is required, and the amount of

transporting pipe and/or roads needs to be evaluated.

Adverse impacts to soil and vegetation resources are likely to result in reduced water quality.

Maintaining proper vegetative cover and sustaining healthy root systems optimizes a soil’s

water infiltration capability. Improved water disposal, riparian-wetland exclosures, aggressive

reclamation activities, diligent compliance with Wyoming DEQ storm water permitting

requirements, and grazing systems designed for light use and the incorporation of rest help

to mitigate adverse impacts to water quality, as would mitigation projects that improve

riparian-wetlands degraded by earlier activities.

Early in the management of BLM-administered lands, riparian-wetland areas were not valued for

their non-agricultural and non-industrial values. Prior to the 1980s year-long and season-long

grazing systems, that allow livestock to spend a maximum amount of time loitering in

riparian-wetland areas, were common in the planning area. However, with increased knowledge

of the value of riparian-wetland areas for other uses, such grazing systems were revised in favor of

rotation systems that allow for rest for at least part of the year and shift livestock use to different

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Water February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 303

time periods from one year to the next to improve plant health. In some cases riparian-wetland

pastures, exclosures, and spring source protection fencing has been created to more rapidly

restore specific areas. There are still many season-long grazing systems in the planning area, and

riparian-wetland areas in these grazing allotments still exhibit impacts expected of continuous

grazing pressure. The Lander Field Office continues to revise the grazing management in these

areas in an effort to facilitate riparian-wetland recovery and achieve PFC, and meet the Wyoming

Standards for Healthy Rangelands. Generally speaking, riparian-wetland water quality and

quantity trends have improved in many locations since the riparian initiatives that began in the

early 1980s.

Inflows to the major reservoirs at the planning area boundaries are gauges of the impact from

drought conditions beginning in 1999 to 2000. The harvest of water from the Wind River

watershed at Boysen Dam can be used to index the capabilities and ultimate outputs from the

BLM-administered public lands in this basin. Table 3.9, “Comparison of Historical and Recent

Inflow at Boysen Reservoir” (p. 303) compares the historic data with data from 2000 to 2006.

As shown, water supply downstream and power generation at Boysen Dam were reduced to

nearly one-half of previous years.

Other waters in the planning area have been identified as having elevated nonpoint source

pollution, but the management of these waters is being handled through the local conservation

districts, which work with ranchers and homeowners with septic systems to reduce E. coli

contamination.

Table 3.9. Comparison of Historical and Recent Inflow at Boysen Reservoir

Period Average Inflow (acre feet)

1970-1999 1,094,100

2000-2006 570,500

Source: BOR 2007

The reduction by almost 47 percent is similar to the reduction in flow as measured on the

Sweetwater River, as shown in Table 3.10, “Comparison of Historical and Recent Flows in the

Sweetwater River” (p. 303). In 2001, mean monthly flows from May to September decreased by

approximately 90 percent and decreased by approximately 64 percent from June to September.

Table 3.10. Comparison of Historical and Recent Flows in the Sweetwater River

Mean Annual Flow Measures (cubic feet per second)

Period Peak Maximum Flow

(May)

Peak Maximum Flow

(June)

Minimum Flow

(September)

1914-2001 413 391 29.8

2001 133 36.5 13.1

Source: USGS 2001

Impacts to water quantity are primarily a function of agricultural use, which accounts for 97

percent of usage, and not population size. Fremont County had a substantial population decrease

from a high in 1980. Since 1990, however, population has grown steadily, almost reaching the

1980 level by 2006. While this population increase has affected domestic water usage, it has little

effect on overall water use. All irrigation water rights have been allocated.

In general, as water levels have dropped due to the drought this decade, such parameters as

water temperature, TDS, and dissolved oxygen typically become unfavorable for supporting the

designated biological and recreational uses assigned.

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Water
304 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Groundwater

An aquifer is defined as a groundwater resource contained in the pore space of geologic media

in such quality and quantity that it may be readily available for use via springs or wells.

The United States can be divided into numerous groundwater provinces (regions) (Meinzer

1923, McGuinness 1963); the planning area is in the Unglaciated Central Region. This region

encompasses a large area of the interior United States and is generally underlain by level or gently

tilted and folded sedimentary rocks ranging in age from Paleozoic to middle Tertiary (Fetter

1980). Groundwater resources in the planning area primarily occur in unconsolidated deposits of

Quaternary age consisting of floodplain alluvium; the Tertiary Wind River Formation; and older

Mesozoic, Paleozoic, and Precambrian rocks (Plafcan et al. 1995).

The Wind River Formation is the most extensive water-bearing unit occurring at land surface

and contains groundwater under both unconfined and artesian conditions (Plafcan et al.

1995). In the older Mesozoic and Paleozoic rocks, aquifers can be present where sufficient

permeability is present, for example, in porous sandstones or fractured carbonate rocks.

These groundwater-bearing units yield water under confined conditions, except where such

water-bearing zones intersect the land surface along outcrops or faults.

Confining units within the Wind River Formation include numerous siltstones and thick shales

and mudstones. There is also unconfined groundwater in water table aquifers such as those in

alluvium and windblown sand deposits (Whitcomb and Lowry 1968) and in the aforementioned

outcrop areas of otherwise confined aquifers.

Geologic units in Fremont County are recharged by one or a combination of the following

sources: (1) precipitation that infiltrates the geologic unit in its outcrop area, (2) infiltration of

surface water, (3) infiltration of irrigation water, and (4) leakage from another geologic unit either

from above or below (Plafcan et al. 1995). Almost all geologic units are recharged to some

degree by precipitation (Plafcan et al. 1995).

Uses of groundwater in the planning area include public supply (municipal), domestic,

commercial (thermoelectric), industrial (including mining), irrigation, and agricultural.

Surficial Unconsolidated Aquifers

Surficial unconsolidated aquifers generally consist of glacial, stream, and terrace sediments

(alluvium) along floodplains of rivers and streams and surficial windblown sand deposits.

Recharge to shallower aquifers occurs through direct infiltration (rainfall, snowmelt, irrigation)

and leakage through adjacent water-bearing zones. Discharge occurs through springs, baseflow

contributions to streams and rivers, and withdrawal through shallow wells. The surficial

unconsolidated aquifer system is the second most developed aquifer system in the planning area

(ranking behind the Wind River Formation), although its occurrence is limited to areas near

streams and is therefore disconnected areally (Plafcan et al. 1995).

Table 3.11, “Uppermost Unconsolidated Water-Bearing Formations and their

Characteristics” (p. 305) lists the characteristics of surficial unconsolidated aquifers in the

planning area. The alluvial deposits are represented mainly by the Wind River, Popo Agie,

and Sweetwater Rivers and their tributaries.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Water February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 305

Table 3.11. Uppermost Unconsolidated Water-Bearing Formations and their Characteristics

Description/Formation Lithology and Distribution Aquifer Characteristics

Alluvial deposits 0 to 65 feet thick, unconsolidated

sand, clay, and gravel. Includes

terrace, floodplain, and pediment

deposits along major streams.

Yields small to large supplies of

water to wells where deposits are

porous and permeable. Water quality

is susceptible to impacts (such as

high salinity) caused by agricultural

practices (livestock and irrigation).

Windblown sand Present in northeastern part of the

planning area, consisting of a 0- to

40-foot thickness of unconsolidated

fine to very fine sand.

Yields small supplies of water

suitable for stock or domestic use.

It is considered an important source

of water in areas underlain by Cody

Shale.

Source: Whitcomb and Lowry 1968

Windblown sand deposits are primarily present between Riverton and Moneta, along Poison

and Muskrat Creeks, where they are an important source of small quantities of groundwater

(Whitcomb and Lowry 1968). While yields are small, the water quality is good because it is

derived mainly from local precipitation. One spring in this area that issued from dune sand and

loess was inventoried on August 1991 with a measured discharge of 28 gallons per minute, which

is adequate for domestic or stock supplies (Plafcan et al. 1995).

Water Quality in Surficial and Shallow Unconsolidated Aquifers

Water quality in surficial alluvial aquifers can differ markedly compared to other types of

groundwater systems, depending on the source and amount of recharge, the composition of

the porous medium, and man-made factors present in the area. Water quality also commonly

fluctuates seasonally in alluvial aquifers due to the amount of influence from direct precipitation

and runoff. It should also be noted that surficial unconsolidated aquifers are most at risk for

degradation from the cumulative impacts of domestic, industrial, agricultural, stock-raising, and

storm-water disposal practices, all of which affect water quality to some degree.

Water quality data for the surficial unconsolidated aquifers are limited; the most recent data

available were collected in 1995 (Plafcan et al. 1995). These data were obtained from 47 wells

completed in Quaternary deposits throughout Fremont County. Thirty-three of the wells sampled

were completed in alluvium and colluvium; 10 were completed in terrace deposits; and four

were completed in glacial, landslide, or eolian sand deposits. Samples obtained from shallow

unconsolidated aquifers represented by Quaternary-age alluvium, colluvium, terrace deposits,

glacial deposits, and dune sand and loess deposits had water quality parameters mostly within

acceptable limits and no samples had detectable quantities of selected pesticides (Plafcan et al.

1995). Groundwater from alluvial and colluvial deposits in Fremont County has TDS ranging

from 141 to 1,430 micrograms per liter (mg/L) and dissolved-solids concentrations from 10

water samples from terrace deposits ranged from 293 to 1,670 mg/L. For comparison, the EPA

secondary maximum contaminant level for dissolved-solids concentrations in drinking water

supplies is 500 mg/L. Generally, concentrations of TDS are lower in the upstream floodplain

deposits than in the deposits farther downstream. Most of the groundwater samples are classified

as calcium-carbonate type waters in upper reaches of the floodplain and change to sodium-calcium

carbonate-sulfate type waters with moderate to very high hardness farther downstream.

Studies done by Bartos and others (Bartos et al. 2008) demonstrated the impact that land use

has on the quality of shallow groundwater in unsewered areas of low-density development and

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Water
306 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

focused on three areas in the intermountain west, one of which was near Lander. Results of the

study are specific to the Lander area, but can be extrapolated to areas with similar hydrogeology

in the planning area. Ten wells were installed in two general areas, one north of Lander along the

floodplain of the North Fork of the Popo Agie River and the other along the floodplain of the

Middle Fork of the Popo Agie River between Sinks Canyon and the city of Lander. Land use

and land cover in the North Fork area generally consist of wetlands, pasture/hay, and occasional

row crops; land use and land cover along the Middle Fork area consists of shrubland/grassland,

forested land, wetlands, pasture/hay, and occasional crops. Water levels in these areas ranged

from less than 1 foot to almost 7 feet below land surface. Recharge to shallow groundwater is not

only from areal infiltration but also from infiltration of unlined irrigation canals and ditches; water

applied to cropland, hayfields and gardens; and leakage from domestic septic systems.

While impacts of human activities on the quality of shallow groundwater were indicated in the

planning area, shallow groundwater is suitable for most uses without treatment, and impacts

(groundwater contamination) from human activities generally were minimal and limited in areal

extent at the time of sampling (Bartos et al. 2008).

Synthetic organic pesticides are used to control weeds, insects, and other organisms in a wide

variety of agricultural and nonagricultural settings. Pesticide use, however, has also been

accompanied by concerns about potential adverse impacts on the environment and human health.

A potential pathway for the transport of pesticides is through hydrologic systems, which supply

water for both humans and natural ecosystems. Water is one of the primary ways pesticides are

transported from an application area to other locations in the environment (USGS et al. 2000).

In 1991, members of local, state, and federal governments, as well as industry and interest groups,

formed the Groundwater and Pesticide Strategy Committee to prepare the State of Wyoming's

Generic Management Plan for Pesticides in Groundwater. Part of this management plan is to

sample and analyze Wyoming's groundwater for pesticides. In 1995, the U.S. Geological Survey

(USGS), in cooperation with the Groundwater and Pesticide Strategy Committee, began statewide

implementation of the sampling component of the State of Wyoming's Generic Management Plan

for Pesticides in Groundwater. In 1998, baseline monitoring began in Fremont County.

Fremont County was determined to be fourth most vulnerable in the State of Wyoming to

pesticide contamination. The vulnerability map used by the USGS (USGS et al. 2000) identified

high vulnerability on the WRIR and the lands managed by the Bureau of Reclamation in the

Pavillon area. BLM-administered lands were generally medium low to medium high, with a

smaller area low vulnerability.

To evaluate pesticide contamination in Fremont County, 20 sites were tested for baseline

monitoring (USGS et al. 2000). None were BLM-administered lands; most were on the WRIR.

The USGS characterized the results as follows: “Six of the 18 focal pesticides and 1 non-focal

pesticide were detected in Fremont County. At least one pesticide was detected in 13 of the

20 wells sampled in Fremont County. All detected concentrations of pesticides were less than

the drinking water standards” (USGS et al. 2000). The pesticide found in 13 of the wells was

atrazine, an agricultural herbicide typically used for weed control in corn and other crops.

Lands rated as being most sensitive to contamination are generally on alluvial deposits adjacent

to rivers, streams, and lakes; on slope wash, colluvium, residium, and eolian deposits; and on

fractured bedrock areas (Stacey and Lindstone 2003). In the planning area, municipal water

sources for the City of Lander are located in the fractured bedrock areas on the slopes of the

Shoshone National Forest and BLM-administered lands in the Sinks Canyon area, as well as in

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Water February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 307

the Beaver Creek area and other primarily isolated parts of the planning area. Some of the highest

aquifer vulnerability areas on BLM-administered lands are in the watershed of the municipal

water source for the City of Lander.

Upper Regional Aquifer System

The uppermost hydrologic unit is represented by aquifers contained in Tertiary-age sediments

(e.g., the Wind River Formation) through uppermost Cretaceous rocks (e.g., Lance Formation)

or equivalents where present. Table 3.12, “Description of Water-Bearing Formations in the

Uppermost Regional Hydrologic Unit” (p. 309) lists characteristics of water-bearing formations

that can be included in the uppermost hydrologic unit (Whitcomb and Lowry 1968; Arneson et

al. 1998).

Regional Hydrologic Units

There are three regional hydrologic units through the majority of the planning area (Arneson et al.

1998). Hydrologic units are regional stratigraphically adjacent formations with similar hydraulic

properties and recharge/discharge characteristics. They can function as regional aquifer systems

or regional aquitards, even while they might be lithologically dissimilar. Recharge to shallow

hydrologic units occurs over large areas in response to direct infiltration or leakage from adjacent

water-bearing zones; recharge to deeper units is often substantial where mountain uplift has

exposed the units on the margins of the Wind River Basin, or where geologic structures are

present (e.g., Rogers Mountain Anticline, Dutton Anticline, and Rattlesnake Hills Anticline).

Principal among these water-bearing units in terms of exploitation are the Wind River Formation

throughout the upper two thirds of the planning area and the Split Rock Formation aquifer system

(also known as Arikaree) in the southern third of the planning area. The Split Rock Formation

contains water under mostly unconfined (water table) conditions, with depth to water governed

by topography (Whitcomb and Lowry 1968). Past studies have indicated well depths ranging

from 65 to 1,080 feet below land surface. Depth to water data collected for a study released in

1968 indicated a range of 12 to 220 feet below land surface (Whitcomb and Lowry 1968), while

more recent data indicate water levels ranging from 24 to 94 feet below land surface (Plafcan et

al. 1995).

The largest number of water well completions in the uppermost regional hydrologic unit is in

the Wind River Formation, making it an important source of groundwater and the most areally

extensive water-bearing surficial formation in the planning area (Plafcan et al. 1995). Its

water-bearing characteristics are variable throughout the planning area, occurring under both

confined and unconfined conditions (Plafcan et al. 1995). In general, water well yields vary

from more than 300 gallons per minute in wells in the Riverton and Gas Hills area constructed

for irrigation, industrial, and public supply purposes, to less than 50 gallons per minute in

water wells developed for livestock and domestic purposes (Plafcan et al. 1995). A maximum

yield of 3,000 gallons per minute was reported from a water well completed in the Wind River

Formation (Richter 1981).

Data, obtained from more than 115 samples taken from water wells and springs, showed

that samples obtained from Miocene-age formations (e.g., Split Rock Formation) and the

Oligocene-age White River Formation did not exceed the 500 mg/L secondary maximum

containment level for dissolved solids (Plafcan et al. 1995). However, radium-226 and uranium

were detected at low levels in the one White River Formation sample analyzed for those

constituents. Samples from the Eocene Wagon Bed Formation indicated dissolved-solids

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Water
308 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

concentrations just above the secondary maximum containment level at 572 mg/L; radium-226

and uranium also were detected at low levels in one sample.

In comparison, groundwater in the Wind River Formation was substantially lower in quality as

measured in 80 samples that contained dissolved-solids concentrations ranging from 248 to 5,110

mg/L. In addition, one sample contained selenium at a concentration of 58 mg/L, which is above

the EPA maximum contaminant level. One sample of seven contained detectable radium-226 and

uranium, and one sample of 10 contained detectable levels of two selected pesticides.

Wind River Formation water chemistry is variable due to the formation’s variable lithology,

permeability, recharge conditions, and land use. Dissolved-solids concentrations in water samples

from these wells and springs ranged from 248 to 5,110 mg/L, and some samples contained

variable amounts of dissolved metals and radiochemical constituents such as radium-226 and

uranium. One sample contained a detectable level of two (2,4-D and dicamba) of the selected

pesticides (Plafcan et al. 1995).

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Water February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 309

Table 3.12. Description of Water-Bearing Formations in the Uppermost Regional Hydrologic

Unit

Description/Formation Lithology and Distribution Aquifer Characteristics

Moonstone Formation Present only in the Granite Mountains

area, consisting of a 0 to 1,350 feet

thickness of soft claystone, shale, and

tuffaceous sandstone containing some

interbedded limestone, conglomerate,

and pumicite.

Split Rock Formation (“Arikaree”) Present in southeastern portion of

the planning area, consisting of 0- to

2,700-foot thick cemented sandstone,

containing lesser amounts of

conglomerate, claystone, limestone,

tuff, and pumicite.

White River Formation Present in the southern portion of

the planning area, consisting of 0 to

650 feet thickness of bentonitic and

tuffaceous mudstone with lenses of

arkose and conglomerate, and beds of

tuff.

Yields small quantity of water to

many stock and domestic wells; large

supplies could be obtained where

saturated thicknesses are great or

where permeability is enhanced by

fractures. Water quality is generally

good.

Wagon Bed Formation Present in the southern portion of

the planning area, consisting of 0

to 700 feet of bentonitic mudstone,

locally tuffaceous, zeolitic mudstone

and sandstone in persistent beds,

volcanoclastics and conglomerates.

Probably would yield at least small

quantity of water and possible

larger supplies from sandstone and

conglomerate beds.

Wasatch/Battle Spring Formation Present in Great Divide Basin area

of portion of the planning area,

consisting of large boulders in a soft

sandstone and shale matrix.

Known to yield only small amounts

of water. However, large yields may

be possible. Quality of water likely

good.

Wind River and Indian Meadows

Formations

Present at land surface throughout

majority of planning area, consisting

of 0 to 8,000 feet of interbedded

siltstone, and sandstone and

conglomerate containing some

carbonaceous shale and thin coal

seams.

Large supplies have been developed

in the Riverton and Gas Hills area,

and could be developed elsewhere,

especially along the margins of the

Wind River Basin. Yields small

quantities to numerous and widely

distributed stock and domestic wells.

The quality of the water ranges from

unfit for stock to good for domestic

uses.

Fort Union Formation Consists of 0 to 8,000 feet of

conglomerate, sandstone, shale and

carbonaceous shale in lower part

grading to very fine grained clastics

and upper part. Present at depth

throughout most of the planning area.

Sandstones yield small supplies of

water that is generally unsuitable for

domestic use and might be marginal

for stock.

Lance Formation Sandstone interbedded with light to

dark gray carbonaceous shale and thin

coalbeds. Coarse intervals present at

formation base.

Sandstones yield small supplies of

water that is generally unsuitable for

domestic use and might be marginal

for stock.

Sources: Arneson et al. 1998; Whitcomb and Lowry 1968

Regional Aquitard

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Water
310 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Below the uppermost hydrologic unit, there is a thick sequence of Cretaceous age fine-grained

rocks of marine origin such as shales and mudstones (e.g., Cody Shale) that comprise a regional

aquitard or confining layer. This aquitard isolates the upper aquifer system from the lower aquifer

system, which is represented by lower Cretaceous to Paleozoic rocks. Table 3.13, “Geologic

Formations Comprising the Regional Aquitard” (p. 310) lists the characteristics of regionally

confining formations, which in general correspond to the regional aquitard hydrologic unit

(Whitcomb and Lowry 1968; Arneson et al. 1998).

Samples from Mesozoic rocks, which are included in the regional aquitard, generally indicated

low water quality (Plafcan et al. 1995). All water samples collected from wells completed in

the Cody Shale and Frontier Formation had dissolved-solids concentrations from one-half to

approximately 14 times greater than the EPA secondary maximum containment level of 500

mg/L. Water quality from wells and springs tapping water from the Cloverly and Chugwater

formations was generally better, with dissolved-solids concentrations ranging from approximately

400 to 1,500 mg/L. Dissolved-solids concentrations in 10 samples obtained from wells and

springs in the Phosphoria Formation ranged from 215 to 3,690 mg/L.

Table 3.13. Geologic Formations Comprising the Regional Aquitard

Description/Formation Lithology and Distribution Aquifer Characteristics

Meeteetse/Lewis Shale Sandstone, siltstone, shale

carbonaceous shale, claystone

and coal.

Mesaverde Formation Consists of 0 to 1,575 feet

of Sandstone, shale, siltstone,

carbonaceous shale, and coal.

Sandstones yield small supplies of

water that are generally unsuitable for

domestic use and might be marginal

for stock.

Cody/Niobrara Shale Consists of 3,000- to 5,000-foot

thickness of shale with minor

sandstone interbeds.

Not a source of groundwater. Forms

a regional aquitard throughout the

planning area.

Frontier Formation Consists of 600 to 1,040 feet of

lenticular sandstones interbedded

with shale.

Yields small quantities of generally

poor quality water although some

supplies are usable for domestic use.

Mowry Shale Consists of several hundred feet of

hard, thin-bedded, siliceous bentonitic

shale.

Not a source of groundwater.

Muddy Sandstone Consists of 0- to 150-foot thick

coarse-grained sandstone.

Known to locally yield small supplies

of water suitable for stock.

Thermopolis Shale Consists of several hundred feet of

hard, thin-bedded, siliceous bentonitic

shale.

Not a source of groundwater.

Sources: Arneson et al. 1998; Whitcomb and Lowry 1968

Lower Regional Aquifer System

Below the regional aquitard layer there is a series of Jurassic through Permian age formations

that locally contain permeable zones that can yield appreciable amounts of groundwater. These

units do not always contain water-bearing zones that are regionally extensive and can include

leaky confining units and aquitards. These formations provide a transition from the aquitard

layer to the lower hydrologic unit. Dissolved solids in groundwater from upper Mesozoic

rocks in Fremont County generally range between 280 and 6,000 mg/L, but can be higher

when associated with oil-field produced water. Table 3.14, “Transitional Hydrologic Unit

Formations” (p. 311) describes these transitional hydrologic units (Whitcomb and Lowry 1968;

Arneson et al. 1998).

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Water February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 311

Table 3.14. Transitional Hydrologic Unit Formations

Description/Formation Lithology and Distribution Aquifer Characteristics

Cloverly and Morrison Formations Consists of 200 to 700 feet of

sandstone, siltstone, and shale

in upper part; claystone and

medium-to-coarse-grained sandstone

in lower part.

Sundance Formation Consists of 300 to 435 feet of shale,

siltstone, sandstone, and limestone.

Near outcrops, yields small to

moderate quantities of water suitable

for domestic use. Mineralization of

water increases with distance from

outcrops.

Gypsum Springs Formation Consists of 0 to 230 feet of dolomite,

limestone, gypsum and siltstone.

Not known to be a source of

groundwater. Any yieldable water

would likely be poor quality.

Nugget Sandstone Consists of 0 to 425 feet of

fine-to-medium grained, well-sorted

sandstone.

Little water-bearing data are available,

but probably would yield satisfactory

amounts of water for domestic or

stock use based on surface outcrop

characteristics.

Chugwater Group Siltstone, sandstone, and shale;

limestone (Alcova Limestone

member).

Dinwoody Formation Consists of 10 to 155 feet of

fine-grained sandstone in western part

of planning area grading eastward to

upper part of Goose Egg Formation,

which consists of 0 to 300 feet of

shale and siltstone interbedded with

limestone.

Yields small amounts of good-quality

water in and near outcrops.

Phosphoria/Park City/Lower Goose

Egg Formations

Interbedded dolomite, chert,

limestone, siltstone, and sandstone,

commonly containing intervals of

phosphate bearing minerals.

Probably would yield small amounts

of mineralized poor quality water.

Sources: Arneson et al. 1998; Whitcomb and Lowry 1968

Below the transitional units, the lower hydrologic unit includes a series of carbonate and

sandstone aquifers with great water yielding capacity. Transmissivities for the lower hydrologic

unit typically range from 1,000 to 60,000 gallons per day per foot (Arneson et al. 1998). Most

wells completed in the Tensleep Sandstone or Madison Limestone aquifers were reported to be

in or near the outcrop area (Plafcan et al. 1995). Of the wells inventoried, well depths in the

Tensleep aquifer ranged from 450 to 6,590 feet below land surface, with some wells displaying

flowing artesian or near flowing conditions. Table 3.15, “Characteristics of Water-Bearing

Formations Included in the Lower Hydrologic Unit” (p. 312) lists the main water-bearing

formations in the lower hydrologic unit.

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Water
312 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table 3.15. Characteristics of Water-Bearing Formations Included in the Lower Hydrologic

Unit

Description/Formation Lithology and Distribution Aquifer Characteristics

Tensleep Sandstone Consists of 200 to 600 feet of

medium-grained well-sorted

sandstone. Present throughout the

planning area.

Excellent aquifer yielding water under

artesian to flowing artesian conditions

near range front. Well yield increased

quantities where fractured. Water

quality decreases away from recharge

area (with distance from range front).

Amsden Formation Consists of 100 to 250 feet of

limestone, dolomite, and shale

interbedded with minor sandstone

underlain by basal sandstone unit

(Darwin Sandstone).

Water-bearing properties are not well

known. Quality and quantity might be

sufficient to supply domestic needs,

but well completion depth required

would likely be cost prohibitive in

most places.

Madison Limestone Consists of 300 to 700 feet of massive

to thin-bedded limestone, containing

some thin beds of chert and shale near

the top. Present throughout the area.

Potentially voluminous producer

where extensive fracturing and

cavities are known to exist. Water

quality data are sparse. Completion

could be cost prohibitive basin-ward.

Darby Formation Consists of 20 to 190 feet of dolomite,

siltstone, sandstone and shale.

Known fetid odor when rock is

broken might indicate water quality

issues. Would likely yield sufficient

quantities of water at least for stock

use, but depth to completion could be

cost prohibitive basin-ward.

Bighorn Dolomite Consists of up 0 to 300 feet of

dolomite with thin basal sandstone

unit (Lander Sandstone).

Potentially voluminous producer

where extensive fracturing and

cavities are known to exist. Water

quality data are sparse. Depth to

completion could be cost prohibitive

basin-ward.

Gallatin Limestone Consists of resistant limestone beds

interbedded with shaly units.

Water quality data are sparse.

Depth to completion could be cost

prohibitive basin-ward.

Gros Ventre Formation Consists of up to 700 feet of

interbedded shale, limestone, and

micaceous sandy shale.

Water-bearing characteristics are

largely unknown. Lithology suggests

poor source of water. Depth to

completion could be cost prohibitive.

Flathead Sandstone Consists of approximately 200 feet

of fine to coarse-grain sandstone with

conglomeritic basal unit.

Might be good source of groundwater

where weathered or fractured,

yielding high-quality water near

outcrops. Depth to completion could

be cost prohibitive basin-ward.

Pre-Cambrian Granitic crystalline rocks,

metamorphic rocks.

Yields good quality water in

sufficient quantity where fractured or

weathered. Only cost-effective near

outcrops.

Sources: Arneson et al. 1998; Whitcomb and Lowry 1968

Where significant karst has developed (as in the upper Madison limestone in the Sinks Canyon

area) or where interconnected fractures are present, yields are reported to be as high as 2,000

gallons per minute. Based on an inventory published in 1995, Madison aquifer well depths

range from 1,400 to 4,210 feet below land surface, with some wells flowing at land surface

(Plafcan et al. 1995).

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Water February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 313

Certain older and deeper formations, such as the Phosphoria and Tensleep, can be used to

a limited extent as supplies of groundwater and have suitable groundwater characteristics.

However, they generally occur below economical drilling depths in most of the Wind River

Basin. Measured TDS in groundwater in Paleozoic formations generally ranges from 300 to

3,000 mg/L, but Permian rocks have been known to have groundwater with dissolved solids of

more than 10,000 mg/L (Plafcan et al. 1995).

Existing groundwater supply conditions appear to be adequate for most anticipated uses (such as

mineral exploration and stock water) on BLM-administered public lands in the planning area.

Although climatic conditions resulting in periods of below average precipitation would be

expected to impact groundwater levels, there is no apparent shortage of available water at the

current rate of consumption.

Existing groundwater quality conditions are generally good, although quality is degraded in

localized areas due to natural conditions related to the aquifer porous medium (e.g., hardness,

radioactive solutes, and selenium), land use (e.g., domestic leach fields, livestock waste,

agriculture, and wildlife), and reduced recharge due to factors such as drought or development

over recharge zones. Depending on the toxicity and the concentration, a compound released into

the environment may be considered a contaminant or pollutant. While the Safe Drinking Water

Act currently specifically excludes hydraulic fracturing from Underground Injection Control

(UIC) regulation under SDWA 1421 (d)(I), the use of diesel fuel during hydraulic fracturing is still

regulated by the UIC program (EPA 2012c). Without appropriate site assessment, engineering,

mitigation and monitoring, activities associated with oil and gas development and production

may have the potential to contaminate ground and surface waters. However, all alternatives

assume that BMPs and the requirements of the oil and gas program will be met which should

prevent contamination.

Eleven samples obtained from wells and springs issuing from the Tensleep Sandstone aquifer

indicated dissolved-solids concentrations ranging from 196 to 1,410 mg/L, while samples from

the Madison Limestone aquifer ranged from 188 to 920 mg/L. Ten groundwater samples obtained

from springs emanating from Precambrian rocks showed dissolved-solids concentrations ranging

from 81 to 714 mg/L. The water samples in these rocks had the lowest average concentration of

dissolved solids of any other water-bearing unit for which five or more samples were collected.

Groundwater Quality Susceptibility

Water system susceptibility is the potential for a public water supply to draw water contaminated

at concentrations that pose a threat or concern to human health. The EPA developed a Source

Water Assessment Program (SWAP) in 1996 to help public water systems protect their water

supplies from contamination. The EPA directed each state to develop and implement a SWAP.

Participation in the program in Wyoming was voluntary; participants in the planning area include

Lander, Riverton, Shoshoni, Hudson, Jeffrey City, Dubois, and several state parks. Participants’

SWAP information reports were completed in 2004 and are available on the Wyoming DEQ

webpage. The determination of susceptibility was based in part on the presence of potential

contaminants or “land-use susceptibility” (BLM 2009a). For example, in South Pass City

(historical site), susceptibility in one zone was deemed to be high because of high point-source

contamination from a solid/hazardous waste site. Other factors such as water supply integrity

and sensitivity were considered. Additionally, recent groundwater sampling conducted by the

EPA near Pavillion, Wyoming detected several petroleum hydrocarbons, including benzene and

methane (CH4), in wells and groundwater. EPA also found low levels of petroleum compounds

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Water
314 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

in 17 of 19 drinking water wells sampled. Wyoming DEQ is utilizing the information from the

SWAP and its Wellhead Protection Program to develop monitoring and remediation plans that

will provide valuable information for the BLM to consider when permitting activities.

Groundwater Trends

The State of Wyoming through the State Engineer’s Office authorizes the beneficial uses of water

and the associated construction of water supply wells. It is unusual (less than once per year in

the Lander Field Office) for a BLM-authorized oil and gas operation to require drilling a water

well on public lands, although the operators may contract with private sources of water as part

of drilling operations (BLM 2009a). However, groundwater wells are almost always a required

component of uranium exploration activity to supply makeup water for drilling operations.

Groundwater for these operations is typically supplied from existing wells from previous uranium

exploration activities, converted oil and gas wells, or in some cases, new purpose-built water

wells drilled onsite by the uranium exploration operator. Generally, impacts from these types

of water wells are limited because of the relatively small amounts of groundwater required for

exploration operations. However, improperly completed or abandoned water wells or monitoring

wells can contribute to degraded groundwater quality where waters of differing quality are

allowed to communicate through the borehole. Where the use of backflow preventers (restricts

siphoning back into the water well) are not required, or the water wells are not secured against

unauthorized entry, direct contamination of groundwater can also occur.

Generally, the production of water from oil and gas operations is a disposal issue and not an impact

to water quantity because most oil and gas wells do not produce from aquifers meeting the EPA

drinking-water standards. However, there is an increased risk of contamination where the oil and

gas reservoir is located close to the surface, within an unconfined aquifer being used as a drinking

water source, or where the reservoir is connected to a drinking water aquifer through underground

faults and fissures. In order to inject produced water for disposal, applicants must receive an

aquifer exemption from the EPA. The Madison Formation, for example, contains potentially

potable water, but some injection wells have received aquifer exemptions for the Madison

Formation because the EPA has deemed the formation to be too deep to be considered a potential

source of drinking water (BLM 2009a). Such exemptions are limited in scope to the proposed

injection well and are not applied broadly across the aquifer. A modification of the Safe Drinking

Water Act (Public Law 95-523) might include consideration of fracking chemicals; at present,

these are not directly regulated by the BLM, but they are regulated by the State of Wyoming.

Surface Water and Groundwater Quantity and Use

To understand trends related to groundwater use and to better plan for the future, long-term water

level data from wells and flow rates from springs are critical. However, historical groundwater

level data for the planning area either does not exist or is limited to surficial alluvial aquifers.

The most recent usage data for Fremont County (covering most of the planning area) was

compiled by the USGS in 1990 (Plafcan et al. 1995). Table 3.16, “Estimated Groundwater Use in

1990 in Fremont County” (p. 315) compiles these data for Fremont County; it is likely that these

data understate current use. No information is available on surface water withdrawal volumes

in the planning area. Information contained in the 2010 Wind/Bighorn River Basin Water Plan

(WWDC 2010) suggests that water usage from both groundwater and surface sources is projected

to increase with increases in population. The 2010 plan estimates that current industrial and

mining water use is approximately 6.4 million gallons per day. This number is not expected to

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Water February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 315

significantly change over time due to the active plugging and abandonment of oil and gas wells

and the increasing use of recycling to supplement water needs.

Table 3.16. Estimated Groundwater Use in 1990 in Fremont County

Water Use Groundwater (million gallons per day)

Public Supply 2.5

Domestic 1.1

Commercial 0.1

Mining 1.7

Irrigation 0

Livestock 0.2

Industrial 0.3

Source: Plafcan et al. 1995

The Wyoming State Engineers Office is charged with regulation and administration of water

resources in Wyoming. The Surface Water and Engineering Division is responsible for reviewing

permit applications for any request to put Wyoming surface waters to beneficial use. The Ground

Water Division is charged with registering groundwater rights for all uses except stock and

domestic. The Wyoming DEQ is responsible for enforcing state and federal water laws, including

the Clean Water Act, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, Environmental Quality

Act, and Federal Surface Mining Reclamation and Control Act. BLM management actions or use

authorizations must comply with all federal and state water quality laws, rules, and regulations

to address water quality issues that originate on public lands.

Management Challenges for Water

Waterbodies listed in the Wyoming DEQ 305(b) Report impose a management challenge. In

2006 there were three streams listed:

1. Crook’s Creek is listed due to oil from an unknown source in the sediment on private land

near Jeffrey City. It is a high priority scheduled for TMDL development.

2. Poison Creek is listed due to fecal coliform bacteria levels from below the town of Shoshoni

to Boysen Reservoir. The Lower Wind River Conservation District is developing a

watershed plan, so Poison Creek is a low priority for TMDL development.

3. The Middle Fork of the Popo Agie River near Lander is listed due to fecal coliform. It is

a low priority for TMDL development because the Popo Agie Conservation District has

developed a watershed plan to identify sources of fecal contamination and voluntarily

remediate them.

Protecting sole source domestic water supplies is a management challenge. The city of Lander

obtains most of its domestic water needs from the Middle Fork of the Popo Agie River, so

authorized activities here would require an extra level of scrutiny to ensure that water quality is

not compromised (Lower Wind River Conservation District 2010). Other municipal sources of

water are currently being considered, including deep wells targeting Paleozoic formations in the

Middle Fork watershed. When fully developed, these wells would provide additional sources of

water in low-runoff years or supplement the surface water supply.

Increasing interest for in situ recovery (ISR) uranium mining imposes a management challenge

because it has the potential to degrade groundwater quality and quantity. Wyoming DEQ does

not allow water quality to be degraded below what is required for the previously classified level,

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Water
316 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

but does not require that the water quality return to its predisturbance condition. ISR uranium

mining operations consume groundwater, because approximately 10 percent of all water pumped

from subsurface mine units is typically bled to surface impoundments where it is allowed to

evaporate. A substantial concentration of these operations in parts of the planning area with

limited recharge would be expected to lower the head in upper regional hydrologic units, such as

the Wind River or Battle Springs Formations.

Oil and gas operations have the potential to impact groundwater quality. In general, however,

safeguards such as casing design and selection of injection well receiving horizons protect

groundwater quality. The recent interest in Coalbed Natural Gas (CBNG) development is

expected to impact the amount or the configuration of groundwater supplies through the

withdrawal of groundwater and the subsequent reinjection to other aquifers or direct discharge

to the land surface.

Water developments for livestock grazing use is an additional management challenge. The

availability and use of water is a limiting factor in locating and managing livestock grazing.

Limiting the depletion of the Platte River water to protect downstream special status species is

another important management challenge for water resources in the planning area.

Additional Information on Area Hydrology

The Wyoming DEQ maintains a website with current information on Wyoming

hydrology. Information regarding the Wind River Basin may be found at

http://waterplan.state.wy.us/plan/bighorn/2010/finalrept/gw_toc.html. That page has links to the

planning area’s other river basins, including the Platte and Snake (WSGS 2012).

3.1.5. Cave and Karst Resources

Karst topography consists of landforms produced by the dissolution of rock, creating a variety of

landscape features including caves and sinks. Cave and karst resources are fragile because of their

association with other resources such as groundwater systems and biological communities. They

can also be considered nonrenewable resources due to paleontological and archeological deposits,

speleothems (formations inside caves), and biological resources.

A cave is defined as any naturally occurring void, cavity, recess, or system of interconnected

passages beneath the surface of the Earth, or within a cliff or ledge large enough to permit an

individual to enter, whether or not the entrance is naturally formed or man-made (The Federal

Cave Resources Protection Act [FCRPA], Sec. 3[1]). The FCRPA of 1988 was the first federal

legislation to recognize caves and their contents as whole, integrated ecosystems. The FCRPA

declares significant caves on federal lands as an invaluable and irreplaceable part of the nation’s

heritage. The DOI implementation regulations for FCRPA require that federal lands be managed

in a manner that, to the extent practical, protects and maintains significant caves and cave

resources (43 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Part 37.2). BLM policy and guidance for

managing cave resources is to protect sensitive, fragile, biological, ecological, hydrological,

geological, scientific, recreational, cultural, and other cave values from damage and to ensure they

are maintained for use by the public, both now and in the future (BLM 2008b).

Under the FCRPA, a cave is considered significant if it meets one or more of the following six

criteria (43 CFR Part 37):

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Cave and Karst Resources February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 317

● Biota – The cave serves as seasonal or yearlong habitat for organisms or animals, or contains

species or subspecies of flora or fauna native to caves, or is sensitive to disruption, or contains

species found on state or federal sensitive, threatened, or endangered species lists.

● Cultural – The cave contains historic or archeological resources included in or eligible

for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) because of its research

importance for history or prehistory, its historical association, or other historical or traditional

significance.

● Geological/Mineralogical/Paleontological – The cave possesses one or more geologic or

mineralogical features that are fragile or exhibit interesting formations.

● Hydrologic – The cave is part of a hydrologic system or contains water important to humans,

biota, or development of cave resources.

● Recreational – The cave provides recreational opportunities or scenic values.

● Educational or Scientific – The resource offers opportunities for educational or scientific

use or is in a virtually pristine state, lacking evidence of contemporary human disturbance or

impact, or the length, height, volume, total depth, or similar measurements are notable.

No significant caves have been identified in the planning area; however, there has been no formal

inventory of cave and karst resources. Limestone geology in the planning area is conducive to

cave and karst resources and inventories may identity additional cave and karst resources. Known

locations of natural caves in the planning area include Sinks Canyon, Baldwin Creek Canyon,

Popo Agie Canyon, North Fork Canyon, Sawmill Canyon, and portions of the Beaver Creek

drainage.

The Sinks in Sinks Canyon State Park (adjacent to and downstream of BLM-administered land)

is one of the best known sinks in the area. Typical of a karst river, the Popo Agie disappears in

the Sinks as it flows into a cave formation in Madison Limestone and then rises again into a

pool one-half mile down canyon. Other karst formations are known to exist in the planning

area, such as the sinkholes on Auer Ranch on Beaver Creek and south of the hot spring, and

in Dubois near the airport.

Management Challenges for Cave and Karst Resources

No cave and karst resources in the planning area have been reviewed for significance under the

FCRPA, nor are they managed as such. Management challenges include performing a formal

inventory to identify significant caves and, as needed, managing these resources according to

FCRPA requirements and BLM policy.

3.1.6. Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

The BLM inventories and manages lands with wilderness characteristics. These lands are distinct

from Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs); WSAs are discussed in the Wilderness Study Areas

section. This Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) incorporates by reference the Lander Field

Office wilderness inventory files.

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics
318 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Pursuant to the 2011 Continuing Resolution, the Secretary of the Interior issued guidance stating

that the BLM will not designate any lands as “Wild Lands,” as had previously been provided for

under Secretarial Order 3310. However, the guidance also stated:

As required by law, the BLM will continue to maintain inventories of lands under

its jurisdiction, including lands with wilderness characteristics. Also, consistent

with [section 201 and 202 of] the Federal Land Policy and Management Act

(FLPMA) and other applicable authorities, the BLM will [inventory and] consider

the wilderness characteristics of public lands when undertaking its multiple use

land use planning and when making project-level decisions.

Washington Office IM 2011–154 entitled: Requirement to Conduct and Maintain Inventory

Information for Wilderness Characteristics and to Consider Lands with Wilderness

Characteristics in Land Use Plans further clarified the process outlined and authorized under

FLPMA.

The process that the Lander Field Office used to develop the RMP is consistent with the latest

direction issued as a result of the 2011 Continuing Resolution and the associated direction

contained in FLPMA. During the planning process, the Lander Field Office identified lands with

wilderness characteristics through the inventory process described below. The criteria used

to evaluate lands with wilderness characteristics is derived from the Wilderness Act and IM

2011–154. In order for an area to qualify as lands with wilderness characteristics, it must possess

sufficient size, naturalness, and outstanding opportunities for either solitude or primitive and

unconfined recreation. In addition, it may also possess supplemental values. This RMP includes a

full range of alternatives regarding management of lands with wilderness characteristics. 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.

To support the RMP revision, the Lander Field Office has maintained the original 1980s

(conducted in support of identifying WSAs) inventory. The first step in the inventory process

was to identify roadless areas over 5,000 acres or meeting one of the size requirements. Nearly

all of the areas that were found to meet one or more of the size requirements corresponded with

Citizen Proposed Wilderness (CPW) and/or were reviewed in the existing inventory files. In

addition, every CPW was reviewed independent of the size criteria determinations. The BLM

also conducted an extensive review of the citizens’ proposal and other information to determine

whether the situation on the ground had changed or new information had come to light since the

original inventory. The Lander Field Office AMS documented and served as an update for Lander

Field Office wilderness characteristics inventory. No public comments were received disagreeing

with these findings.

In support of this planning effort the BLM has further updated its inventory of lands with

wilderness characteristics to ensure consistency with the direction contained in the Wilderness Act,

FLPMA, and IM 2011–154. Since the criteria to evaluate lands with wilderness characteristics

has not changed, minimal changes resulted from this update. Initial findings indicated 20 areas

warranted additional inventory review. Nearly all of these areas were inventoried in the 1980s and

were found not to contain wilderness character and/or correspond with the CPWs discussed below.

In order for an area to be classified as land with wilderness characteristics, it must possess

sufficient size, naturalness, and outstanding opportunities for either solitude or primitive and

unconfined recreation. In addition, it may also possess supplemental values. In parts of the United

States with more precipitation and rapid vegetation growth, conditions can change dramatically

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 319

over several decades. The semi-arid conditions and slower vegetation growth in the planning

area mean that conditions change more slowly. For example, reclaimed or abandoned roads are

often visible as roads for many decades (e.g., the National Historic Trail [NHT] used during the

westward pioneer migration) and might never return to a primitive condition. In addition, over

the last 20 years, the amount of area containing wilderness characteristics has declined. Other

resource uses, such as motorized or developed recreation, have affected the number of areas that

contain wilderness characteristics. The recent recreation setting inventory found that the planning

area does not contain “primitive” physical settings and contains only a limited number of locations

with “back country” physical settings. The recreation setting inventory found that although

some portions of the planning area provide situations in which the likelihood of visitor-to-visitor

contacts and development is low, the overall trend is one of increasing urbanization (BLM 2009a).

This trend, in addition to the slow reclamation of disturbed areas discussed previously, indicates a

potential threat to the continuation of wilderness characteristics under current management.

As part of the inventory update, and in addition to the citizens’ proposals discussed below, the

BLM performed intensive wilderness inventories in several other areas, including Lewiston

Lakes, Soap Holes, Lime Kiln Gulch, Stampede Bog, Black Rock Gap, Lankin Creek, Wolf Gap,

and the Dry Creek of the Copper Mountains. As detailed in the Lander Field Office wilderness

inventory files, these areas were found to not contain wilderness characteristics. The rest of this

section provides a discussion of some key areas in the planning area that the citizens’ proposals

recommended for consideration as lands with wilderness characteristics.

Fuller/Greer Peak

The Fuller/Greer Peak area reviewed for wilderness characteristics consists of 9,076 acres of

BLM-administered surface. Upon review of available data, the BLM determined that the area did

not possess naturalness, outstanding opportunities for solitude, or outstanding opportunities for

primitive/unconfined recreation. Influential factors on this determination included: numerous

motorized ways, constructed roads, fences, digs and scrapes in support of mining activities, a

lack of screening vegetation or topography, and the area being located within a H2S gas plant

influence area. In addition, the citizens’ proposal did not contain sufficient information to indicate

the BLM’s inventory findings were deficient or outdated. Recreation opportunities, visual

resources, vegetation, and other resource values in the area might warrant additional management

consideration; however, this would need to be considered under other program areas.

Lysite Badlands

The Lysite Badlands area reviewed for wilderness characteristics consists of 14,745 acres of

BLM-administered surface. Upon review of available data, the BLM determined that the area did

not possess naturalness, outstanding opportunities for solitude, or outstanding opportunities for

primitive/unconfined recreation. Influential factors on this determination included: numerous

motorized ways, constructed roads, fences, producing gas wells, lack of screening vegetation or

topography, omnipresent visual and auditory human influences occurring outside the unit, and

the area being located within a H2S gas plant influence area. The citizens’ proposal does not

contain sufficient information that would indicate the BLM's inventory findings were deficient

or outdated. Recreation opportunities, visual resources, vegetation, and other resource values in

the area might warrant additional management consideration; however, this would need to be

considered under other program areas.

Lysite Mountain

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics
320 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

The Lysite Mountain area reviewed for wilderness characteristics consists of 8,401 acres of

BLM-administered surface. Upon review of available data, the BLM determined that the area did

not possess naturalness, outstanding opportunities for solitude, or outstanding opportunities for

primitive/unconfined recreation. Influential factors on this determination included: constructed

roads, fences, unnatural vegetation treatments, lack of screening vegetation or topography, and

the area being located within a H2S gas plant influence area. The citizens’ proposal did not

contain sufficient information that would indicate the BLM's inventory was deficient or outdated.

Recreation opportunities, visual resources, vegetation, and other resource values in the area

might warrant additional management consideration; however, this would need to be considered

under other program areas.

Whiskey Mountain Complex: Red Creek, Torrey Rim, Whiskey Mountain,

Glacier Trail

Since the original inventory and citizens’ proposal, the BLM split the complex into two inventory

units discussed below:

● Little Red Creek Complex (including: Little Red Creek and Torrey Rim) As part of this

inventory update and planning process the Little Red Creek and Torrey Rim units are

combined to form the Little Red Creek Complex (5,490 acres). The citizens’ proposal cited

the need to conduct a review of the area due to land acquisitions since the original inventory.

As a result of the land acquisition all of these units are connected by a contiguous boundary.

Since the Torrey Rim and Little Red Creek units are no longer separate land tracts, the units

are now combined into the Little Red Creek Complex. The Glacier Trail unit will remain a

distinct unit due to its geographic isolation from the rest of the unit. All of these lands share a

contiguous boundary with the USFS Fitzpatrick Wilderness Area. All of these units have been

found to contain naturalness, and with the acquisition, now have outstanding opportunities

for primitive and unconfined recreation that mimic those of the Wilderness Area. The area

is also currently managed as an Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) to protect

the important seasonal ranges of bighorn sheep and scenic values. Current management is

complementary to maintaining the wilderness characteristics of the area. As such, the Little

Red Creek Complex is recognized as land with wilderness characteristics.

● Glacier Trail: Originally this area was found to contain wilderness characteristics due to

its continuity (primarily a connecting trail) to the Little Red Creek Complex. However,

upon further review it was found that the connecting trail was obliterated by a landslide

and relocated onto adjacent USFS lands. Therefore, the Glacier Trail unit (352 acres)

was evaluated separately from the Little Red Creek Complex. In addition to the landslide

closing the trail, the adjacent USFS lands to the east are managed as multiple-use lands, not

Wilderness. The boundary of the USFS Fitzpatrick Wilderness Area follows the skyline or

ridgetop up Arrow Mountain and intentionally skirts the USFS lands to the east of the unit,

implying that the values below this rim (including those within the 352 acre Glacier Trail unit)

were not contiguous with the Wilderness Area. The unit is identical to these multiple-use

lands in terms of its relationship to and impacts from the Torrey Creek drainage and Trail Lake

Campgrounds, Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD) hay meadows, the WGFD

field school, and trail heads. Because of these factors, and the fact that the active landslides

continue to limit recreational opportunities in the area, the Glacier Trail unit was found to

not have outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation, and

therefore does not contain wilderness characteristics.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 321

● Whiskey Mountain: The citizens’ proposal encompasses the Whiskey Mountain WSA

and an area to the east of the WSA. This CPW totals 1,589 acres. The citizen's proposal

cherry stems an active road and communication tower; and also encompasses a rehabilitated

motorized way and an existing motorized way used on an intermittent basis. The cherry

stem of the citizens’ proposal creates approximately a .25 mile bottleneck area between the

designated wilderness and the area proposed for wilderness. The original BLM inventory

removed this area from WSA consideration and intensive inventory due to the impacts to

wilderness characteristics from the human modification, and the lack of screening vegetation

and topography of the unit. Since these impacts and attributes still exist today, the wilderness

characteristics of the area were found not to be contiguous with the WSA or Fitzpatrick

Wilderness Area. Therefore, the area does not meet any of the size requirements and does not

contain lands with wilderness characteristics.

Sweetwater Rocks Wilderness Study Area Complex

The citizens’ proposal recommends acquisition of several parcels of state land adjacent to the

existing WSAs. These state lands are not evaluated as part of this effort. The proposal also

recommends managing 3 public land units (totaling 11,420 acres) on the northeast and eastern

boundaries of the Savage Peak WSA to preserve wilderness characteristics. Two of these parcels

are not contiguous with the WSA, do not meet any of the size criteria, are less than 5,000 acres

of contiguous BLM-administered land, and are narrow land masses which are not practical to

preserve and use in an unimpaired condition. Management of these additional public lands would

only be possible if state lands separating the areas were acquired. The Devil's Gate extension did,

however, share a contiguous boundary with the WSA.

The BLM review found that the Devil’s Gate area, which was recommended in the citizens’

proposal, and met the size criteria, did not possess naturalness and outstanding opportunities for

solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation. This determination was due in part to the heavy

existing developed recreational use occurring within the area and the fact that the areas shared only

a 1⁄4 section of public land that connects the area to the larger Savage Peak WSA. Such a bottleneck

and extensive recreation developments do not represent outstanding opportunities for solitude and

result in confinement of recreationists. Recreation opportunities, visual resources, vegetation, and

other resource values in the area might warrant additional management consideration; however,

this would need to be considered under other program areas. Refer to the Wilderness Study Areas

section of this document for additional information on existing WSAs in the planning area.

Copper Mountain Wilderness Study Area

The citizens’ proposal included 240 acres located outside of the existing WSA. This area was

originally excluded from the WSA due to an existing gas well and road. Upon review of 2009

aerial photos, the BLM found the road and well pad still exist in the area, and therefore the area is

not contiguous to the WSA. Since the area does not meet any of the size requirements it is not

considered a land with wilderness characteristics.

Area North of Honeycomb Buttes, Oil Mountain, and Antelope Hills

General scoping input suggesting the presence of wilderness characteristics was received for

the portion of the planning area located to the northeast of the Honeycomb Buttes WSA,

which is managed by the Rock Springs Field Office. Other general suggestions of wilderness

characteristics included Oil Mountain and the Antelope hills. Evaluation determined that the areas

contained several constructed roads and therefore did not meet the size requirements necessary to

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics
322 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

contain wilderness characteristics. However, the BLM determined through scoping comments

that there is widespread public interest in having the Antelope Hills/Area North of Honeycomb

Buttes areas managed for recreational value and also for its proximity to the Congressionally

Designated Trails. The areas support recreational opportunities involving solitude and primitive

experience and other unique experiences. See Chapter 2 for recreation and trails management.

3.2. Mineral Resources

The BLM manages a total of 2,809,101 acres of federal mineral estate in the planning area which

does not include mineral estate underlying USFS or WRIR lands (Map 2). In addition, the BLM

has a fiduciary trust responsibility for the administration of minerals on the WRIR. The BLM

supervises operational activities (e.g., inspection and enforcement) on Native American mineral

leases, and provides advice on leasing and operational matters to the Bureau of Indian Affairs,

Native American tribes, and Native American mineral owners. The BLM does not make land

management decisions on the Reservation; however, where applicable, this section includes

the current condition and activity of mineral development on the WRIR to set a baseline for

the cumulative effects analysis in Chapter 4.

Mineral resource types in the planning area include locatable (uranium, bentonite, gold, gypsum,

etc.), leasable (coal, oil shale, geothermal, oil and gas, other solid leasable minerals such as

phosphate), and salable (sand, gravel, moss rock, etc.) minerals. Each individual resource

section below defines and describes these resources, their existing conditions, and management

challenges.

Development and extraction of mineral resources from federal mineral estate are authorized

under federal legislation including:

● The General Mining Law of 1872, as amended, which authorizes the location of mining claims

and mill sites on public lands, and the exploration for and mining of “locatable” minerals such

as gold, silver, uranium, bentonite, gypsum, metallurgical-grade limestone, and gemstones.

● The Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended, which authorizes the BLM to issue leases for

developing “leasable” minerals such as coal, oil, natural gas, oil shale and other hydrocarbons,

and phosphates, sodium, and other specific mineral commodities on public lands.

● The Materials Act of 1947, as amended by the Surface Resources Act of 1955, which

authorizes the BLM to sell at fair market value or allow the free use of mineral materials

(“salable” minerals) such as common varieties of sand, gravel, pumice, cinders, clay, and

stone through contracts or free-use permits, as well as petrified wood under the Petrified

Wood Act of 1962.

The management authority of the BLM varies substantially depending upon the type of legislation

that allows the mineral development. These differences are discussed below.

3.2.1. Locatable Minerals

Locatable minerals known to occur in the planning area include, but are not limited to, uranium,

bentonite, gold (both lode and placer deposits), silver, gypsum, copper, tungsten, tantalum,

zeolites, iron, and gemstones (precious and semi-precious) such as agate, opal, jade, sapphire,

beryl, and garnet.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Mineral Resources February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 323

Most of the commercial locatable mineral activity in the planning area focuses on uranium,

bentonite, and gold exploration. There are currently no operating uranium mines and one-BLM

permitted, but inactive, bentonite mine in the planning area. Gold panning is a popular activity in

the South Pass/Atlantic City area.

Opal and agate collecting attracts hobbyists to the planning area. In 2005, a large deposit of opal

was discovered near Cedar Rim, north of Sweetwater Station. This discovery was publicized by

the Wyoming State Geological Survey and touched off a modern-day “land rush” that resulted in

more than 1,000 mining claims registered at the Fremont County Courthouse in a span of two

months (BLM 2009b). Most of the opal found in the planning area is “common opal,” but some

of the highly valued “precious opal” was reportedly found (BLM 2009b). This activity has

substantially abated over the last few years and only a few mining claims remain.

Statutory and Regulatory Authorities

The General Mining Law of 1872, as amended, opens public lands to exploration and development

of “locatable” minerals. The 1872 Mining Law allows U.S. citizens or corporations to decide

where and when to locate (stake) mining claims and mill sites on public lands that are open to

(not withdrawn from) operation under the General Mining Law.

Leaving such decisions to citizens or corporations is characterized as being “non-discretionary,”

meaning that the Secretary of the Interior, or the BLM as the agency delegated with the

responsibility to oversee implementation of the General Mining Law, has no discretion or

authority to direct where or when placer or lode mining claims, mill sites, or tunnel sites can

be located on open public lands. In addition, because the General Mining Law, as amended,

authorizes location of mining claims, exploration, and mining that are in conformance with

statutes and implementing regulations, the BLM does not have the discretion to disapprove such

actions unless the actions do not comply with the requirements.

Section 302(b) of the FLPMA requires that the Secretary of the Interior take any action necessary

to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation of federal lands. Therefore, the BLM may not allow

unnecessary or undue degradation of public lands resulting from operations under the General

Mining Law (see also 43 CFR 3809 for General Mining Law implementing regulations). If the

BLM is notified of pending operations at the “notice” level under 43 CFR 3809 (see below)

that the agency believes would cause unnecessary or undue degradation of public lands, the

agency must notify the proponent that it may not proceed without modifying the proposal to

comply with requirements to prevent such degradation. Similarly, the BLM may not approve

a Plan of Operations under 43 CFR 3809 that would cause unnecessary or undue degradation

to public lands. However, if a notice or Plan of Operations meets all requirements, the agency

must allow operations to proceed.

Unlike other mineral resources such as leasable minerals (e.g., oil and gas) or salable minerals

(e.g., sand and gravel), withdrawal of land is the only management prescription available for

controlling the location of locatable mineral development. The BLM may propose to withdraw

portions of public lands from operation under the General Mining Law, subject to valid existing

rights and certain limitations (FLPMA, Sec. 204). Map 21 shows existing areas withdrawn

from operation under the General Mining Law.

The regulations at 43 CFR 3809 allow for three levels of General Mining Law operations: casual

use, notice-level operations, and plans of operations.

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Locatable Minerals
324 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

● Casual Use. Casual use activities are locatable mining activities that result in no or negligible

disturbance of public lands or resources. Gold panning is a typical example of a casual use

activity. Note that where the cumulative effects of casual use by individuals or groups will

result in more than negligible disturbance, the BLM may establish specific areas wherein such

persons must contact the agency 15 days before start-up to determine whether a notice or Plan

of Operations might be required (see 43 CFR 3809.31).

● Notice-Level Operations. Notice-level operations include exploration causing surface

disturbance of 5 or fewer acres of public lands, and bulk sampling in which operators remove

less than 1,000 tons of presumed ore for testing. Notification via a written “notice” to the

BLM is required 15 calendar days before commencing operations. No BLM approval is

required for notice-level operations.

● Plan of Operations. A Plan of Operations is required for all locatable mineral activities

exceeding casual use. For exploration-only operations disturbing less than five acres, a notice

is the only requirement which does not require BLM approval. In the notice or Plan of

Operations, the operator must disclose occupancy or uses they believe are reasonably incident

to mining as described in 43 CFR § 3715.0-5.

Locatable Mineral Activity

Uranium related mining activities have the most notice-level operations in the planning area,

followed by gold and bentonite (Table 3.17, “Notices and Plans of Operations in the Planning

Area, as of the End of 2008” (p. 324)). Gold-related mining activities account for the greatest

number of plans of operations in the planning area (Table 3.17, “Notices and Plans of Operations

in the Planning Area, as of the End of 2008” (p. 324)).

Table 3.17. Notices and Plans of Operations in the Planning Area, as of the End of 2008

Commodity Number of Notices

Number of Plans of

Operations

Disturbed Area (acres)

Bentonite 5 1 121

Gemstones and lapidary

material1 1 0 4.5

Gold, lode2 2 4 10.6

Gold, placer3 4 3 145

Uranium4 16 2 80

Zeolites5 1 0 1

Source: BLM 2009b

1

Includes diamonds, rubies, sapphires, emeralds, jade, opal, and other precious and semi-precious stones.

2 Does not include nine notices and one plan with a pending status for an additional 169 acres.

3 Does not include four notices with a pending status for an additional 3 acres.

4 Does not include two notices and five plans with a pending status for an additional 8,017 acres.

5 This case is pending.

The sub-sections below further describe the primary types of locatable minerals in the planning

area.

Locatable – Uranium

Uranium occurs geologically in four main classes of deposits, one of which is dominant in the

planning area (the “roll front” deposit). The “fronts” form when a uranium rich source rock is

leached when groundwater passes through. The uranium is dissolved and re-deposited when the

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Locatable Minerals February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 325

groundwater loses its dissolved oxygen. These geologically favorable areas occur in certain

groundwater basins in southwestern Wyoming as well as the Powder River Basin in northeast

Wyoming, and are the host for uranium deposits in the planning area.

Roll type deposits are the most important uranium deposit type being extracted by ISR technology.

Roll-front deposits with the simplest form occur as classical rolls formed in sands of uniform

lithology and permeability.

Uranium deposits in the Gas Hills area are hosted in the Eocene Wind River Formation. In

the Crooks Gap area, roll-front deposits are found in the Eocene Battle Springs Formation,

while roll-front deposits in the Bison Basin region are found within sandstones in the Eocene

Wasatch-Green River Formation (Map 15). Another important deposit in the Copper Mountain

area contains low-grade uranium in the Eocene Teepee Trails Formation, and igneous rocks

including Precambrian granites and quartz monzonites.

Uranium Mining and Exploration Activities

Fremont County has accounted for more than 26 million tons of uranium ore since mining began

in the 1950s. Fremont County ranks second in the state for total uranium produced. There are

three major uranium districts in the planning area: Gas Hills, Crooks Gap (including Green

Mountain) and informally, the Bison/Great Divide Basin district (Map 15). At present, various

entities are exploring all three districts though no mining is occurring as of late 2009.

Mining in the Gas Hills District has been predominately by open-pit methods. In the Crooks Gap

District, mining occurred by both open-pit and underground operations. Mining at the Bison

Basin Project in the Bison/Great Divide District was conducted using ISR methods.

There was new major development activity in the Crooks Gap District through the 1990s when

the Jackpot Mine at the base of Green Mountain was developed and subsequently reclaimed (with

no mining occurring). Minor exploration drilling on Green Mountain then occurred during 2007.

Some projects attempted to enter interim management to wait for better market conditions to

return, but eventually most producing mining ventures began reclamation activities. Kennecott

Uranium Company states that Big Eagle Mine remains in operational status under Permit 451. Of

the mines that began reclamation activities, most are administered under the state Abandoned

Mine Lands (AML) program for a variety of reasons, including bankruptcy of mine operators,

insufficient bond to complete reclamation, or the fact that many operations were initiated long

before mining laws required reclamation and bonding.

Since the early 1980s, there has been little actual mining as uranium market conditions have

declined. The last production in the Gas Hills District was in 1984, in Crooks Gap at Sheep

Mountain in 1985, and in 1982 at the ISR uranium mining project in Bison Basin. There are

several other known occurrences of uranium bearing ore bodies in the planning area; however,

these are of lesser importance and only produced small volumes of ore. Slowly increasing

uranium prices in the past several years have caused renewed interest in exploration and

mining, as evidenced by the number of notices for uranium filed with the BLM under 43 CFR

3809 (Table 3.17, “Notices and Plans of Operations in the Planning Area, as of the End of

2008” (p. 324)).

Uranium Milling

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Locatable Minerals
326 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

The process of uranium recovery focuses on extracting (or mining) natural uranium ore from the

earth and concentrating (or milling) that ore. These recovery operations produce a product called

“yellowcake,” which is then transported to a fuel cycle facility. Uranium recovery typically

involves several types of milling methods.

Conventional milling refers to the process in which uranium ore is removed (mined) from deep

underground shafts or shallow open pits and then crushed and subjected to physical and chemical

processes to extract uranium from the mined ore. Heap leach is a process similar to conventional

milling in which physical and chemical processes are used to extract uranium from mined ore that

has been crushed and piled in a heap. The solution drains through the heap and is captured in a

system of drains for further processing. The ISR process utilizes a chemical process to extract

uranium from underground deposits. The chemical solution is delivered directly to the ore body

by injection wells, circulated, and then pumped out. The solution, once laden or “pregnant” with

soluble uranium, is processed further to precipitate the uranium.

The challenge in operating any uranium milling facility is to mitigate groundwater impacts.

In some cases, alternate concentration limits are used as standards for restoring groundwater

quality affected by the operation of uranium milling facilities. Alternate concentration limits are

risk-based concentration limits used to establish alternative groundwater protection standards.

Conventional Uranium Mill Site Disposition

In the past 50 years, numerous conventional uranium milling facilities have been in operation

in the planning area, including several in Gas Hills, one in Riverton, and the Split Rock Mill

in Crooks Gap, which was the first uranium mill in Wyoming. At present, with the exception

of one mill, all mills in the State of Wyoming are undergoing or have been decommissioned.

The still existing Sweetwater Mill is the only conventional uranium mill left in the State of

Wyoming and is located south of the planning area approximately 45 miles northwest of Rawlins.

This mill is one of six operational conventional mills left in the United States and has been on

standby status since 1983.

It is the policy of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to transfer lands used for uranium mill

sites, processing, and the storage of processing waste (tailings) to the U.S. Department of Energy

(DOE) for long-term monitoring and oversight. Table 3.18, “Segregated Lands at Uranium Mill

Sites in the Planning Area” (p. 326) identifies lands segregated from land use laws in preparation

for withdrawal and transfer to DOE. Mill specific information can be found in the Final Mineral

Occurrence and Development Potential Report (BLM 2009b).

Table 3.18. Segregated Lands at Uranium Mill Sites in the Planning Area

Mill Site Township/Range Section(s) Acreage1

T 29 N, R 91 W Sec. 6, lots 5, 8

through 13, inclusive,

E1⁄2SE1⁄4, SW1/4SE1/4,

SE1/4NW1/4; Sec. 7,

lots 3 and 4, E1/2SW1/4,

SW1/4SE1/4; Sec. 18, lot 1,

NE1/4NW1/4

Western Nuclear – Split

Rock Mill (WYW172386)

T 29 N, R 92 W Sec. 1, lots 1, 2 and

4, S1⁄2NE1⁄4, SW1/4,

W1/2SE1/4, SE1⁄4SE1⁄4;

Sec. 2, SE1⁄4SW1⁄4,

SW1⁄4SE1⁄4, NE1/4SW1/4,

749.09

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Locatable Minerals February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 327

Mill Site Township/Range Section(s) Acreage1

S1/2SW1/4, SE1/4; Sec.

3, SE1/4SE1/4; Sec. 11,

ENTIRE SECTION; Sec.

12, ENTIRE SECTION;

Sec. 13, N1/2; Sec. 14,

NE1/4, NE1/4NW1/4

Pathfinder – Lucky Mac

Mill (WYW161764)

T 33 N, R 90 W Sec. 9, lots 1 and 2, and

NE1⁄4SE1⁄4; Sec. 10, lots

1 through 3, inclusive,

NW1⁄4, W1⁄2SE1⁄4, and

that unpatented portion of

Mineral Survey No. 644

lying within sec.10; Sec. 15,

lots 1 through 8, inclusive,

S1⁄2NE1⁄4, NW1⁄4NE1⁄4,

N1⁄2SE1⁄4, SE1⁄4SE1⁄4, and

those unpatented portions

of Mineral Survey Nos. 587

and 644 lying within sec.

15; Sec. 21, E1⁄2NE1⁄4,

and NE1⁄4SE1⁄4; Sec. 22,

lots 1 through 4, inclusive,

NE1⁄4NE1⁄4, and those

unpatented portions of

Mineral Survey Nos. 582,

584, and 587 lying within

the N1⁄2, NW1⁄4SW1⁄4 and

N1⁄2SE1⁄4

1,091

Umetco – East Gas Hills

Mill (WYW164606)

T 33 N, R 89 W Sec. 9, SE1⁄4; Sec. 10, S1⁄2;

Sec. 15, N1⁄2, SE1⁄4SE1⁄4;

Sec. 21, NE1⁄4; and Sec.

22, N1⁄2

1,320

American Nuclear – Gas

Hills Mill

T 33 N, R 93 W Unknown, under Wyoming

DEQ reclamation

responsibility

Unknown

Source: BLM 2009b

1 Values shown are for public surface (any additional subsurface mineral estate not included).

DEQ Department of Environmental Quality

E East

N North

NE Northeast

NW Northwest

R Range

Sec. Section

S South

SE Southeast

SW Southwest

T Township

W West

Locatable – Gold

Gold deposits are typically found in the planning area in two forms, lode and placer. These

gold deposits are found in varied geologic settings. In the South Pass/Atlantic City area, most

of the lode gold is orientated along shear zones trending east-northeast in a suite of granitic and

metamorphic rocks, including banded iron formation, quartzite, schist, and other rocks referred to

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Locatable Minerals
328 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

as greenstone. Placer deposits are found in streams which are mostly sourced in the Wind River

Range. Two Tertiary-age paleoplacer deposits have also been identified in the vicinity of the

South Pass/Atlantic City District. These include the Dickie Springs-Oregon Gulch paleoplacer

and the Twin Creek conglomerate. These placers are notable because they could represent the

greatest potential for a major gold accumulation in the planning area. The Dickie Springs placer

also extends into the administrative boundaries of the BLM Rock Springs Field Office. Additional

placer activity in the Red Canyon area was part of the early development of the South Pass

deposits and was supported by irrigation ditches bringing water into Red Canyon.

The Rattlesnake Hills District is north of the Granite Mountains on the north side of the east-west

trending North Granite Mountains Fault, and encompasses an area of approximately 150 square

miles. This area includes more than 40 discrete volcanic vents and igneous bodies of Eocene age.

The Rattlesnake Hills were formed by a northwest plunging anticline of Laramide age, cored by

Precambrian rocks, and intruded by Tertiary igneous rocks (Hausel 1989). Apparently, there are

some precious metals in the Precambrian metamorphic rocks, which also include band iron

formations. Jasperoid rocks are also reported in the area, which is important because jasperoid

is a well-known mineralization indicator rock in other mining districts, especially in the Great

Basin of Nevada. In 1981, the Wyoming State Geological Survey discovered important gold

anomalies in the Rattlesnake Hills District.

Additional information on gold in the planning area can be found in the Final Mineral Occurrence

and Development Potential Report (BLM 2009b).

Gold Mining and Exploration Activities

Mining operations for precious metallic ores, particularly gold, has a long and varied history in the

planning area. The most well known district is the South Pass/Atlantic City area. Metals mining

districts of lesser prominence include the Lewiston District, the Granite Mountains, the Copper

Mountains, and various placers on streams mostly sourced in the Wind River Range (Hausel

1989). At present, most of the mining activity in the South Pass/Atlantic City area is recreational.

The South Pass/Atlantic City District lies along the northwestern flank of the South Pass

Precambrian greenstone belt and has been Wyoming’s most prolific source of gold and iron ore

(Hausel 1989). Gold was discovered here in the 1860s, touching off a gold rush in 1867 that

resulted in more than 1,000 inhabitants settling in South Pass City. By 1872, only a few hundred

people remained and the boom was over. Optimistic estimates of the total gold production in the

district range as high as 334,000 ounces (Hausel 1987). Historically, approximately 50 mines

were in operation at one time or another. However, most gold mining efforts in the district met

with disappointment, although several did produce for a number of years. Most of these mines

had total gold production amounting to a little over a few hundred ounces. Little is known about

ore grades in the district and most available figures vary. In the 1970s, several properties were

explored with modern methods, with numerous boreholes drilled at both the Carissa and Duncan

mines. Although the boreholes did intersect zones of gold mineralization, the grade and areal

extent of the mineralization was apparently not sufficient for additional development. The

State of Wyoming purchased the Carissa Mine for historical purposes; the state is performing

stabilization work and has plans for public access and onsite interpretation. Although its future

status appears to be settled, the Carissa Mine areas host some of the more promising possibilities

for gold mineralization in the district (Hausel 2004). Most of the mines in the district are now

undergoing AML reclamation and/or preservation. Several properties remain privately owned

and are open to operation at little more than a hobbyist’s level.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Locatable Minerals February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 329

Modern stream placers in the South Pass/Atlantic City District were relatively productive and

may have recovered up to 100,000 ounces of gold (Hausel 1989). Principal placers include Rock

Creek, Meadow Gulch, and Yankee Gulch.

The South Pass/Atlantic City Mining District has seen no major change in mining-related

activities over the last planning cycle, and continues to experience several hundred visitors

engaged in casual use mining activity (surface panning and sluicing). Many people converge on

the area during summer to stake claims and try their hand at recreational gold panning. Several

clubs operate claims in the South Pass area for the sole use of their members, and these activities

do result in recoverable amounts of gold dust, flakes, and small nuggets. In addition, small

operators explore for gold or take bulk samples using backhoes. There is some management

concern in the South Pass area about the cumulative impact of these activities. To date, there has

been little interest in other potential placer deposits in other Wind River Mountain locations.

Increased interest in the Rattlesnake Hills District by several major gold mining companies

began with a limited surface and drilling program between 1983 and 1987, and again by another

company from 1993 to 1995. This activity led to several discoveries, including a large-tonnage,

low-grade deposit that has the potential to host more than 1 million ounces of gold (WSGS 2002).

Subsequent drilling by the latter company targeted diatreme breccias, which border one of the

alkali stocks in the area. Gold grades reported by the company ranged up to 485 feet averaging

0.07 ounce per short ton, with higher-grade intervals over narrower widths.

The potential for gold uncovered thus far in the Rattlesnake Hills District has resulted in a third

company taking options on approximately 2,600 acres of claims. This company filed a mining

notice under 43 CFR 3809 with the Lander Field Office and started a drilling program in the

summer of 2008. Preliminary results indicate that drilling during the summer 2008 drilling

program intersected anomalous values of gold in two core holes 65 meters (approximately 213

feet) apart (BLM 2009b). As of 2009, the company is operating an expanded core-drilling project

under a BLM-approved Plan of Operations. If mined, it is anticipated that this deposit would be

mined by either surface (open pit) or underground mining methods, in contrast to the panning,

sluicing, and backhoe methods employed in the South Pass/Atlantic City area.

Locatable – Bentonite

Bentonite is an aluminum phyllosilicate, essentially a type of impure clay usually formed from

the weathering of volcanic ash, most often in the presence of water. Bentonite deposits were

formed from the alteration of volcanic ash deposited primarily during the Cretaceous Period.

This volcanic ash was deposited into the epeiric seas that covered much of Wyoming, forming

sediments as much as 50 feet deep. The weathering and alteration of these sediments formed the

clay (bentonite). Bentonite is widespread in the planning area and primarily occurs as discrete

beds within shales and sandstones, most notably the Cretaceous Mowry Shale, the Frontier

Formation, and the Eocene Wind River Formation. Bentonite is able to absorb large amounts of

fluid and is used for absorbents, animal feed, drilling fluids, foundry, iron ore pelletizing, sealants,

pet litter, crayons, medicines, food thickeners, cosmetics, and other applications. The absorptive

and adsorptive properties of bentonite give it a high swelling potential that is useful in a wide

variety of industries, such as drilling muds, cosmetics, and pharmaceuticals (Thorson 1983).

Bentonite Mining and Exploration Activities

Bentonite deposits of the Wind River Basin and in the planning area are found in a wide variety

and quality. Typically, the most economically viable deposits are found in the Upper Cretaceous

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Locatable Minerals
330 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Frontier Formation and the Lower Cretaceous Mowry and Thermopolis Shales (Gersic 1993).

Several beds 1 to 5 feet thick of low-to high-grade ore occur throughout the 300-foot thick

Upper Thermopolis Shale and 400-foot thick Mowry Shale (Thorson 1983). The most abundant

and valuable bentonite beds occur within the Mowry Shale (Hausel and Holden 1978). Just

above the contact between the Mowry Shale and Frontier Formation, a bed of 2- to 5-foot thick,

high-grade bentonite can almost consistently be found throughout most of Wyoming. Bentonite

exploration is ongoing in the planning area, targeting certain beds in the Cretaceous Mowry and

Frontier Formations.

The bentonite throughout the Wind River Basin is classified as montmorillonite clay and consists

of very fine-grained, gray to white, plate-like minerals high in sodium content (Hausel and Holden

1978). This sodium-rich bentonite is considered unique to Wyoming.

Because of the variability in quality of bentonite, the mere presence of bentonite beds does not

constitute commercial value. Bentonite must be determined to meet specific industry standards

through testing of its chemical and physical properties. Not only is quality an important factor

in economic potential, but quantity must be taken into account as well. Typically, bentonite is

mined at the surface where bed thickness exceeds 24 inches and the overburden-to-ore ratio is

equal to 6:1 or less. In certain conditions, mining can occur on 35-degree dipping beds at a depth

of up to 60 feet, but the average ratios being mined today are 4:1 with dips usually less than

15 degrees (Thorson 1983).

Mining of bentonite in the planning area has been limited to reserves found in the Gas Hills, 35

miles east of Riverton, Wyoming. This mine uses shallow surface mining methods to strip thin

beds from the upper Mowry Shale known locally as the Beaver Beds. These beds dip at 5 to 15

degrees north/northeast and are mostly available at the surface, so there is minimal waste rock or

overburden. At present, there are no commercial bentonite mining operations in the planning

area. One bentonite mine, in the Gas Hills area, has an approved Plan of Operations and holds a

mine permit from the Wyoming DEQ. The mine facility came online in 2010.

Various sampling and testing has been conducted on mining claims for bentonite throughout the

planning area, including the Twin Creek and Lander Slope areas to the south and southwest of

Lander, Wyoming. The beds tested in this area are typically found at the contact of the Mowry

Shale and Frontier Formation.

Bentonite beds crop out along all four margins of the Wind River Basin, but often dip too steeply

for mining (Hausel and Holden 1978). Because of the folding associated with the uplifted

Wind River Range to the west, the Mowry Shale and Frontier Formation are generally found as

east-dipping beds between 5 and 30 degrees; however, an anticlinal fold known as Dallas Dome

has repeated this section of bentonite-bearing formations along the Lander Slope and created

nearly vertical dipping beds as well. From discussions with operators in this area, this bentonite

does not have the economic qualities or quantities found in the Gas Hills.

According to Gersic (1993), testing of beds in the Mowry Shale and Frontier Formation

exposed along the same structural complex adjacent to the Wind River Mountains as the Twin

Creek/Lander Slope area, showed overall poor quality compared to bentonite produced elsewhere

in Wyoming.

Management Challenges for Locatable Minerals

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Locatable Minerals February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 331

There are considerable management challenges associated with locatable minerals mining in the

planning area. The primary management challenges are associated with surface disturbance

resulting from mining activities and impacts to other resources and resource uses from locatable

mineral mining. There are also management challenges associated with reclamation of historic

mining activities, mixed land ownership patterns, mining in special designation areas, and trespass

issues associated with locatable minerals mining.

The greater sage-grouse is a candidate species for listing under provisions of the Endangered

Species Act (ESA) (USFWS 2010). The BLM, in coordination with other federal and state

agencies, local government, local working groups, and public land users, is taking measures

to conserve greater sage-grouse habitat and populations. Some areas with locatable mineral

development potential (especially areas with uranium potential) in the planning area lie within

high quality habitat for the greater sage-grouse. Therefore, the BLM faces challenges managing

locatable mineral development while protecting greater sage-grouse habitat.

Holders of grazing permits and leases on public lands can be affected by locatable mineral

operations taking lands out of production short- or long-term. Surface disturbance necessary to

extract locatable mineral resources can directly reduce the availability of livestock forage until

either interim or final reclamation of mineral operations is completed. Such reductions can range

from minor acreage related to a single drill hole, to hundreds of acres related to surface mining or

milling. In the case of open pit mining, “reclamation” may involve protection of water quality but

not the replacement of vegetation, so that the area is permanently lost as grazing and browsing

habitat. This may be observed in the former iron mine on Highway 28 between South Pass and

Red Canyon or the old uranium mines and mill sites that do not support vegetation.

Several mining districts in the planning area, such as the South Pass/Atlantic City and Copper

Mountains, are undergoing extensive reclamation of historic surface disturbance under the

Wyoming DEQ, AML Division. Many of these mining districts contain historic mining features

worthy of preservation. However, some of the areas undergoing reclamation and immediately

adjacent lands have some potential for the presence of gold and other locatable minerals, thus

generating interest in exploration under the Surface Management Regulations (43 CFR 3809).

These issues pose management challenges for the disposition and future management of such

lands. The need to restore and clean up mines associated with previous mining activities and a

limited amount of funds provided for the AML program pose additional challenges associated

with historic mining and reclamation of mines.

The land ownership pattern in the planning area consists of mixed ownership between

BLM-administered lands, the WRIR, state trust lands, private lands, private surface overlying

federal mineral estate, National Forest System Lands, and lands managed by the Bureau of

Reclamation. Management of locatable mineral operations becomes more complex where projects

are proposed in areas of mixed ownership. In addition, segregations and withdrawals of public

lands from operations under the General Mining Law, including those segregated in preparation

for withdrawal and transfer to DOE (see the discussion of mill sites under the uranium sub-section

above) add to management complexity, especially when addressing valid existing rights.

Additional management challenges for locatable minerals mining in the planning area include

locatable mineral operations within special management areas such as ACECs and NHTs.

Allowing operations in these specially designated areas and mitigating impacts to the areas

consistent with management objectives are a management challenge in the planning area.

Trespassing of public pursuing unauthorized mining (beyond scope of staking or without

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Locatable Minerals
332 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

staking) and “claims” being asserted without meeting the ongoing activities required by the 3809

Regulations are an additional management challenge in the planning area.

3.2.2. Leasable Minerals – Coal

At present, there is no coal leasing in the planning area and no anticipated development of coal

resources during the planning cycle. Future coal leasing and development in the planning area

would require an RMP amendment.

3.2.3. Leasable Minerals – Geothermal

Geothermal resources are typically underground reservoirs of hot water or steam created by heat

from the Earth. Geothermal energy is produced when this steam or heat is used to turn a turbine to

create electrical energy. Geothermal steam and hot water naturally discharge at Earth’s surface in

the form of hot springs, geysers, mud pots, or steam vents. Geothermal resources also include

subsurface areas of hot, dry rock. The Lander Field Office is responsible for supervising and

managing all exploration, development, and production operations on any federal geothermal

leases in the planning area.

There are two main categories of geothermal energy systems. Hydrothermal systems occur where

water or steam is the primary carrier of the associated energy, and “dry” systems occur where hot,

water-free rocks and magma are the energy sources. While dry environments are also the primary

mechanism from which the hydrothermal environments derive their heat, existing technology

used to exploit these dry environments for energy use is in the experimental phase and such

extraction is usually not economically viable.

Warm water systems and normal temperature systems are hydrothermal systems typically used for

site-specific and residential scale applications (direct use). Electrical grade geothermal energy

comes from hydrothermal systems, which can generate electricity via geothermal fluids used to

drive turbines. Electrical grade systems must have relatively high temperature fluids (liquid

and/or vapor water) to efficiently drive the turbines. As technology has evolved, the temperatures

required have become lower, but generally must still be more than 300 degrees Fahrenheit (°F)

(Duffield and Sass 2003).

The Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) for Geothermal Leasing in the

Western United States (October 2008) evaluates various alternatives for allocating lands as being

closed or available for geothermal leasing and analyzes stipulations to protect sensitive resources.

The Record of Decision (ROD) for the Geothermal PEIS (December 2008) amended existing

land use plans to facilitate geothermal leasing on federal mineral estate in the planning area. The

PEIS allocated 1,201,201 acres of BLM-administered surface as open to geothermal leasing in the

planning area and 32,423 acres as closed (BLM and USFS 2008). Areas for discretionary and

nondiscretionary closures as identified in the PEIS that are applicable in the planning area include:

● WSAs

● ACECs

● Areas previously closed to fluid minerals development in approved land use plans

● Lands in the BLM National Landscape Conservation System, such as National Historic and

Scenic Trails

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Leasable Minerals – Coal February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 333

The Lander Field Office has determined that the acreage in the PEIS do not accurately reflect

the components of the National Landscape Conservation System (NLCS) in the planning area.

In addition, the PEIS did not provide a buffer for the excluded lands which creates planning

difficulties, particularly in association with the Congressionally Designated Trails.

Geothermal Activity

There are geothermal resources in many places in the planning area, as evidenced by flowing

springs with elevated groundwater temperatures. There are several areas where measured

temperature gradients in groundwater wells indicate the potential for low- or medium-grade

geothermal energy. These areas include north of the Gas Hills, the Diamond Springs area, Big

Sand Draw, and the Copper Mountain area. Table 3.19, “Thermal Springs in the Planning

Area” (p. 333) lists known thermal springs in the planning area. None of these thermal

springs met the criteria to be included in the inventory of hot and warm springs included in

the Geothermal PEIS (BLM and USFS 2008).

Table 3.19. Thermal Springs in the Planning Area

Thermal Spring Location Temperature (°C) Flow (liters per minute)

Warm Springs Creek

Springs

T 42 N, R 107 W 29 503

Little Warm Springs T 41 N, R 107 W 25 2120

Jakey’s Fork Spring T 41 N, R 106 W 20 15

Conant Creek Springs T 33 N, R 94 W 16 1136

Sweetwater Station Spring T 29 N, R 95 W 32 1890

Horse Creek Springs T 32 N, R 86 W 24 8327

Fort Washakie Hot Springs T 1 S, R 1 W 44 568

Source: Heasler et al. 1983

°C degrees Celsius

N North

R Range

S South

T Township

W West

There are no active or pending federal leases for geothermal facilities in the planning area and no

likely development of utility scale geothermal resources. There are areas in the planning area

with low potential for geothermal development for direct use applications from warm water and

normal temperature systems, but not for utility scale application (Map 16). These low potential

areas occur around thermal springs and in areas with anomalies in the subsurface temperature

gradient. Low potential areas are considered to have some potential for future exploration, but

due to the expected nature of future projects (small, direct use systems) it is not likely that there

would be any substantial development (BLM 2009d).

Areas with very low potential for geothermal development in the planning area are underlain by

aquifer waters with temperatures in excess of approximately 120°F, and those deemed favorable

for shallow, direct heat development (Map 16) (BLM 2009d). These waters, while too cool for

electrical generation, might still be utilized for direct use systems, although less effectively than

geothermal areas associated with thermal springs (low potential areas).

Areas with negligible geothermal potential represent the remainder of the planning area (Map

16). The entire planning area is underlain by rocks with temperatures in excess of approximately

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Leasable Minerals – Geothermal
334 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

300°F at an average depth of approximately 24,600 feet. As a result, the entire planning area

might be suitable for future deep enhanced geothermal development as the technology for such

systems improves. However, at present, these types of projects are not economically feasible and

this type of geothermal development is the least likely to occur in the planning area.

The most likely potential for utilization of geothermal resources in the planning area is for

co-generation, such as with oil and gas development. Low potential geothermal resources are

more viable if a developer is already drilling to reach differentially heated material. Coupled with

new low temperature equipment, electrical power to operate facilities could be generated without

carbon dioxide (CO2) or other emissions. Direct heat application could be used to warm gas lines

and other facilities associated with minerals development. As clean energy initiatives increase

and oil and gas operators look at ways to reduce the emissions impacts of their projects (and

potentially to make projects more affordable), utilization of direct use geothermal systems on

public land in the planning area might increase.

Additional information on Geothermal Resources and potential development in the planning area

can be found in the Reasonable Foreseeable Future Development Scenario for Geothermal for

the Lander Field Office Planning Area (BLM 2009d).

Management Challenges for Geothermal Development

Due to the lack of activity and absence of geothermal leasing in the planning area, no management

challenges have been identified.

3.2.4. Leasable Minerals – Oil and Gas

Oil and gas occurs in the planning area in numerous geologic formations, and members of

formations that range in age from the oldest producing formation (Flathead Sandstone of

Cambrian age) upward to the Wind River Formation of Tertiary age. The two oil and gas basins in

the planning area are the Wind River Basin and a small portion of the northern part of the Great

Divide Basin. In addition, CBNG being produced in the planning area originates from coals in

the Mesaverde Formation.

The Wind River Basin is a west-east trending asymmetrical intermontane basin of the

Rocky Mountain Foreland, located in central Wyoming. The Wind River Basin Province is

approximately 200 miles long and 100 miles wide, encompassing an area of approximately 11,700

square miles. Province boundaries are defined by fault-bounded Laramide uplifts that surround it.

These include the Owl Creek Mountains to the north, Wind River Mountains to the west, Casper

Arch to the east, and the Sweetwater Uplift to the south.

Two source rock and associated oil and gas reservoir systems appear to be responsible for most of

the hydrocarbons found in the planning area. Permian aged Phosphoria source rocks appear to

have sourced most of the pre-Cretaceous-aged reservoirs in the planning area (Kirschbaum et al.

2005). These older formations have predominately produced oil with smaller amounts of gas;

the Madison Limestone, which has produced mostly gas in the Madden Field, is the exception.

Tertiary and Cretaceous aged source rocks appear to have been the source of hydrocarbons in

most Tertiary and Cretaceous aged reservoirs. The lower shaly member of the Cody Shale is a fair

to excellent source rock for both oil and gas, and it is the most organic-rich and oil-prone of all

potential hydrocarbon source rocks in Cretaceous strata in the Wind River Basin (Finn 2007). In

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Leasable Minerals – Oil and Gas February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 335

the Tertiary and Cretaceous aged reservoirs, gas production tends to predominate, although there

is usually a substantial oil component produced along with the gas.

Up until 2004, evidence for CBNG potential within the planning area has been limited to perhaps

five exploration targets, generally in the Mesaverde Formation, with less than 5,000 feet of

overburden (De Bruin and Jones 1990). The steeply dipping Lance and Meeteetse coalbeds

in the Waltman area of the Wind River Coal Field might present additional targets for CBNG

development. The Fort Union Coals are targets for CBNG development in the Great Divide

Basin portion of the planning area.

Statutory and Regulatory Authorities

The Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended, provides that all public lands are open to oil and

gas leasing unless a specific order has been issued to close an area. However, it is important

to note that lease issuance by the Secretary of the Interior, through the BLM, is discretionary.

With reasonable basis, the BLM can control the geographic location and timing of lease parcels

it offers. The agency can also add lease stipulations to the standard lease terms and conditions,

which can impose additional limits on the timing and methods of drilling for oil and gas.

Leasing procedures for oil, conventional natural gas, and CBNG are the same (see 43 CFR

3101). Based on the Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987, all leases must

be exposed to competitive interest. Lands that do not receive competitive interest are available

for noncompetitive leasing for a period not to exceed two years. Competitive sales are held at

least quarterly and by oral auction.

Competitive and noncompetitive leases are issued for a primary term of 10 years. If the lessee

establishes hydrocarbon production, the competitive and noncompetitive leases can be held for as

long as oil or gas is produced. At the leasing stage, the Lander Field Office applies appropriate

stipulations on federal oil and gas leases, including standard oil and gas stipulations (Appendix

N (p. 1601)), as well as special stipulations identified in the RMP.

The federal government receives yearly rental fees on nonproducing leases. Royalty on

production is received on producing leases, of which approximately one half (48 percent in

2009) is returned to the State of Wyoming.

The general policy and main objectives of the BLM oil and gas program are to foster a fair return

to the public for its resources, to ensure activities are environmentally acceptable, and to provide

for conservation of the fluid mineral resources without compromising the long-term health and

diversity of the land.

In 2010, leasing reform was instituted. One component of the reform was to identify areas where

pre-leasing management in the form of Master Leasing Plans (MLPs) would be instituted to

protect identified resource values with additional management to standard stipulations. Resource

protections in MLPs serve to reduce conflicts between oil and gas development and other resource

values. Additional information regarding the areas proposed for management with MLP areas are

identified in Chapter 2, both in the section Alternatives Considered but Not Carried Forward for

Detailed Analysis and in the Detailed Description of Alternatives by Resource section. The Oil

and Gas Master Leasing Plans subsection below discusses MLPs in more detail.

History of Oil and Gas Development in the Planning Area

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Leasable Minerals – Oil and Gas
336 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Oil and gas development in the planning area has a long history that has contributed to economies

at the local, state, and national levels. The first oil well in the state was drilled in the planning area

in 1884. That well was the discovery well for the Dallas Field, which still produces. Later, two

additional wells were drilled on the same structure producing oil from the Phosphoria Formation,

with 53 additional wells in the same formation soon following (BLM 2009c). In 1930, a well

was drilled producing oil from the Tensleep Sandstone, resulting in the extension of a number

of previously drilled Phosphoria Formation wells into the Tensleep (BLM 2009c). Additional

natural oil seeps were discovered at a number of sites northwest of the Dallas Field on WRIR

lands. Oil fields were later developed on most of these sites.

Most of the fields found prior to 1947 were discovered by surface observations of oil seeps and/or

surface mapping (BLM 2009c). These include the Lander, Plunkett, Sage Creek Anticline, Pilot

Butte, Winkleman, Maverick Springs, Big Sand Draw, Alkali Butte, Derby, Circle Ridge, Bison

Basin, Crooks Gap, Sheep Creek, Muskrat, Muskrat East, and Dubois fields. From 1938 through

1959, additional exploration methods, including mapping of surface geological structures, seismic

surveys, and some subsurface mapping led to the discovery of the Beaver Creek, Steamboat

Butte, Sheldon, Sand Draw South, Antelope Springs East, Longs Creek, Riverton Dome, Happy

Springs, Sand Draw North, Kirby Draw, Grieve, Kirk, Sheldon Northwest, Mt. Rogers Unit, Lost

Cabin, Castle Garden, Rolff Lake, Little Dome, and Dolis Hills fields in the planning area.

With increasing data obtained from drilled wells, subsurface stratigraphic mapping began to

contribute to exploration for new production. In the planning area, the earliest use of subsurface

stratigraphic mapping appears to have aided in the discovery of the Frenchie Draw and Dinty

Moore Reservoir fields in 1961, the Bonneville Field in 1968, and the Madden Field in 1968

(Wyoming Geological Association 1989). The first producing formation in each of these fields

was the Fort Union. This method was also used in combination with geophysical methods

(seismic surveys) in three of the four discovery cases.

Technological Advances in Oil and Gas Development

The U.S. oil and gas industry has historically relied on continuous improvements in technology to

better understand oil and gas resources and to find and extract these resources. Innovative drilling

and completion techniques have enabled the industry to drill fewer dry holes and to recover more

oil and gas reserves per well. Smaller accumulations once thought to be uneconomical are now

being produced. Technological improvements have also allowed fewer wells to be drilled per

acre to develop oil and/or gas resources in some cases. Increased drilling success rates have cut

the number of wells drilled and dry holes (DOE 1999). The Energy Information Administration

has projected the increase in percentage of wells drilled successfully will be 0.2 percent per

year to 2030 (EIA 2007a).

From the early 1990s to present, oil and gas activity in the planning area has focused almost

entirely on very low risk development drilling in and around known field areas, which helped to

improve the overall success rate. More future exploratory drilling would be required to discover

new resources in the planning area and to determine if the potential CBNG resource is economical

to produce. Because the risk of failure is higher for these types of activities, success rates could

decline slightly in the future.

Advances in technology have boosted exploration efficiency, and additional future advances

would continue this trend. Substantial progress has been made and is expected to continue in

the following:

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Leasable Minerals – Oil and Gas February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 337

● Computer processing capability and speed

● Remote sensing and image-processing technology

● Developments in global positioning systems

● Advances in geographical information systems

● Three-dimensional and four-dimensional time-lapse imaging technology that permits better

interpretation of subsurface traps and characterization of reservoir fluid

● Improved borehole logging tools that enhance understanding of specific basins, plays, and

reservoirs

● Advances in drilling that allow more cost-efficient tests of undepleted zones in mature fields,

testing deeper zones in existing fields, and exploring new regions

New technologies would likely allow companies to target higher-quality prospects and improve

well placement and success rates. As a result, fewer drilled wells would be needed to find a

new trap, and total production per well would increase (DOE 1999). Also, drilling fewer wells

would reduce surface disturbance and volumes of waste, such as drill cuttings, drilling fluids,

and produced water. An added benefit of improved remote sensing technology is the ability to

identify oil and gas “seeps” so that they can be cleaned up. These seeps can also help pinpoint

undiscovered oil and gas resources.

There have been drilling improvements in new rotary rig types, coiled tubing, drilling fluids,

and borehole condition monitoring during the drilling operation. Improvements in technology

are allowing directional and horizontal drilling use in many applications. New bit types have

boosted drilling productivity and efficiency. New casing designs have reduced the number of

casing strings required. Environmental benefits of drilling and completion technology advances

include the following:

● Smaller footprints (less surface disturbance)

● Reduced noise and visual impacts

● Less frequent maintenance and workovers of producing wells with less associated waste

● Reduced fuel use and associated emissions

● Enhanced well control for greater worker safety and protection of groundwater resources

● Less time onsite with fewer associated environmental impacts

● Lower toxicity of discharges

● Better protection of sensitive environments and habitat

Technologies such as secondary and enhanced recovery might also be used to revive old fields to

a producing status. Oil remaining in existing fields could be targeted by injecting fluids such as

water or CO2 to enhance or increase recovery. For more detailed information on such technologies,

see the Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario for Oil and Gas (BLM 2009c).

Geophysical Exploration

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Leasable Minerals – Oil and Gas
338 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

The BLM may permit geophysical operations on federal lands both on and off oil and gas leases.

A geophysical operator is required to file with the BLM a Notice of Intent to Conduct Oil and

Gas Exploration Operations. Geophysical surveys might include gravity surveys, geomagnetic

surveys, and reflection seismic surveys, the latter being the most common method for locating

subsurface structures that might contain hydrocarbons.

With reflection seismic surveys, seismic (shock wave) energy is induced into earth using one of

several methods at a location called a source point or shot point. As the waves travel downward

and outward, they encounter rock strata that transmit seismic energy at different velocities.

Sensing devices, called geophones, are placed on the surface to detect these reflections of energy.

The end product of the seismic processing is a seismic section that presents the strata or structures

below the surface. Most common is the two-dimensional survey, so called because the data yield

a two-dimensional model of the subsurface being analyzed. A variation of this technique is the

three-dimensional seismic profile survey. The methods of generating the seismic waves are the

same as those used in conventional seismic surveys. This type of survey differs from the more

common two-dimensional survey in the greater number of data points and the closer spacing of

the lines. See the Final Mineral Occurrence and Development Potential Report for a more

complete description of geophysical exploration methods (BLM 2009b).

Historically, two-dimensional seismic surveys have been conducted over large parts of the

planning area. The Wind River Mountains along the western side and the Absaroka Range on

the northwest side have not had recent seismic surveys. Three-dimensional surveys have been

less widespread in the planning area. Recent three-dimensional surveys have been conducted in

the central part of the planning area.

Oil and Gas Activity

Through the end of 2007, there were 1,566 active wells and 1,628 inactive wells in the planning

area (BLM 2009c). Almost all planning area drilling activity (exploratory and development) has

been occurring in the eastern Wind River Basin and eastern portions of the WRIR, with additional

exploratory activity in the Great Divide Basin portion of the planning area.

New wells drilled in the last 10 years are concentrated in the northeast part of the planning

area (mainly at the Madden, Frenchie Draw, Fuller Reservoir, and Beaver Creek fields) and in

the southeastern part of the WRIR (at the Muddy Ridge, Pavilion, and Riverton Dome fields),

with a few new oil wells drilled in the northwest and occasional new wells scattered across the

south (Map 33). Of the 719 development wells completed in the last 10 years, 93.7 percent

were successful.

Oil and Gas Master Leasing Plans

Subsequent to the start of the RMP revision process, the BLM issued guidance regarding MLPs

to address oil and gas leasing in areas with resource values of concern; see IM 2010–117. The

BLM received nominations for five areas in the planning area (either in whole or in part) for

which MLPs were requested. BLM guidance requires land use plan revisions to analyze MLP

proposals. The Wyoming State Office of the BLM determined that three of these areas did not

meet the requirements of IM 2010–117. Of the two remaining areas, the Dubois area was also

later dropped from analysis as an MLP after it was determined that the alternatives already

incorporated the kinds of protections for the resource values in Dubois that would be afforded

under an MLP, and as such the effect of an MLP was fully considered. These four areas are

discussed in greater detail in the Alternatives Considered but Not Carried Forward for Detailed

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Leasable Minerals – Oil and Gas February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 339

Analysis section in Chapter 2. The remaining area, Beaver Rim, was the only area identified for

further analysis as an MLP in the RMP revision.

The citizens' nomination for the Beaver Rim area did not provide specific mapped location

information. The BLM originally identified an area below Beaver Rim to the east of Highway

135 (the Sand Draw Highway) as the proposed area. On further analysis and after consultation

with the nominating group, the location of the proposed Beaver Rim MLP analysis area was

further refined to identify lands with resources that could be protected with an MLP. These

lands were identified as being east of Sand Draw Highway and following the edge of the Rim

eastward. These lands contain Native American sacred sites and important visual resources. The

topography of the area is such that surface disturbances such as oil and gas and other mineral

development could be highly visible and would present a sharp contrast with the surrounding

areas. The southern boundary is immediately to the north of the swath of land that makes up the

visual setting for the NHTs. The importance of the visual resources in the area stems from the

geologic features of the Rim (and the Native American concerns that arise because of the Rim's

visual importance) and nearby setting of the NHTs. The area also lies within greater sage-grouse

Core Area, as does all of the land on top of the Rim up to the Granite Mountains.

The Beaver Rim area has the only known locations of Yermo (a species listed as threatened) in

the world. The two Yermo sites are managed as open to oil and gas leasing subject to no surface

occupancy (NSO) stipulations. In addition, there are a number of unique plant communities

including types of trees and shrubs that would not be anticipated from the type of vegetation

found in the surrounding areas of sagebrush steppe. The small pockets of vegetation vary in

size from a half acre to several acres and contain Douglas-fir, limber pine (a BLM-sensitive

species), juniper, and cottonwood.

The vast majority of the Beaver Rim has not experienced surface disturbance. However, there

are current resource uses that present potential conflicts with other resource values. An existing

communication site is present along with two major ROWs: a pipeline corridor running northwest

to southeast and an above ground utility corridor that runs along the Jeffrey City Haul Road.

There are some areas that are leased for oil and gas that contain wells that have been producing

for many years. These leases are located primarily in the north western most portion of the area

and extend into the most visually sensitive areas. The current level of disturbance is at a very low

threshold, but the existing authorized uses raise the level of potential resource conflict.

While Beaver Rim continues as a geologic feature across the planning area, the area changes in

character and values near the Haul Road (also called the Jeffrey City to Gas Hills County Road).

At this point, the Rim is less prominent and although Native American sites are common, they are

less important than further west. The Haul Road is the approximate western edge of the historic

uranium district both above and below the Rim.

Oil and Gas Leasing

In the planning area as of June 2009, there were approximately 994,123 acres of leased federal oil

and gas mineral estate and approximately 1,814,978 acres of unleased federal oil and gas mineral

estate (Map 33) (BLM 2012a). Federal oil and gas leases are incorporated into 35 active unit

agreements that lie within or partly within the planning area. Twenty-one companies operate the

35 units. Unique rules apply to unitized leases, which are exempt from state spacing rules. The

oldest active unit is the Big Sand Draw Gas unit established in 1934 (BLM 2009c).

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Leasable Minerals – Oil and Gas
340 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Areas are either open or closed to oil and gas leasing. If open, an area may be offered subject

to major constraints such as NSO, moderate constraints such as timing limitations, or subject to

standard lease stipulations. As indicated above, Washington Office Leasing Reform introduced

the MLP concept as part of BLM oil and gas leasing. MLPs expand the tools available to the

BLM to address resource conflicts prior to leasing and make a finer scale analysis on identified

smaller areas than the entire RMP planning area. Although this guidance was issued late in the

development of the alternatives, the MLP tool is very similar in its approach to controlling the

amount and kind of surface uses that were evaluated in developing the alternatives based upon

current condition and identified conflicts between resource values and leasing. See Chapter 2 for

further discussion regarding MLP management.

Oil and Gas Production

The most prolific oil productive formations have been the Phosphoria Formation and Tensleep

Sandstone. A substantial amount of gas production has also been associated with these two

formations. Almost all of the fields producing from these two formations are within the boundaries

of the WRIR, with some additional productive fields to the south and southeast of the WRIR.

The Fort Union Formation and Madison Limestone, at the Madden field have been the most

prolific gas producers within the planning area. A moderate amount of oil has been produced in

association with the gas in the Fort Union Formation wells, while associated oil production in

the Madison Limestone has been moderate from other fields such as Beaver Creek. Most of the

Fort Union Formation producing gas fields are concentrated in the northeast part of the planning

area, within the Madden field (Map 33) containing more than one third of the total wells. The

Fort Union Formation has been productive in 737 (23 percent) of the total productive wells in the

planning area. Only 61 wells have produced from the Madison Limestone (less than 2 percent

of all producing wells), with most wells located at the Circle Ridge and Beaver Creek fields.

Although only eight Madison Limestone wells produce at the Madden field, that field accounts for

more than 98 percent of all Madison Limestone gas production.

Table 3.20, “Producing Oil and Gas Fields and Cumulative Production in the Planning Area

as of the End of 2007” (p. 340) lists producing oil and gas fields and cumulative production

through 2007. The major producing gas fields in the planning area (by volume), in descending

order, are Madden, Beaver Creek, Pavillion, and Big Sand Draw. The major producing oil fields,

in descending order, are Winkleman, Steamboat Butte, Beaver Creek, Big Sand Draw, and

Circle Ridge. At the close of 2007, there were 1,566 actively producing oil and gas wells and

a cumulative oil production of approximately 502,428,297 barrels of oil and 3,885,146,697

cubic feet of gas.

Table 3.20. Producing Oil and Gas Fields and Cumulative Production in the Planning Area

as of the End of 2007

Fields

Producing

Zones

Cumulative

Gas (thousand

cubic feet)

Cumulative

Oil (barrels) Wells Active Wells Inactive Wells

Alkali Butte 9 9,379,319 56,919 15 3 12

Alkali Butte

North

2 1,654,720 51 2 0 2

Antelope

Springs East

2 1,628,096 8,421 3 0 3

Arapahoe

Creek

2 76,942 23,674 2 0 2

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Leasable Minerals – Oil and Gas February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 341

Fields

Producing

Zones

Cumulative

Gas (thousand

cubic feet)

Cumulative

Oil (barrels) Wells Active Wells Inactive Wells

Austin Creek 1 1,549,402 353,233 1 1 0

Beaver Creek 17 827,049,315 59,407,755 211 110 101

Big Sand Draw 8 196,902,304 55,515,483 87 35 52

Bison Basin 2 483,160 3,40,2540 38 31 7

Bonneville 3 1,794,895 22,751 9 5 4

Boulder Dome 3 0 11,074 4 0 4

Boysen 3 50,736 630 3 0 3

Campbell

Ridge

1 477,663 31,934 2 1 1

Carvner 1 5,600 5,575 1 0 1

Castle Garden 2 5,639,462 12,321 6 5 1

Cedar Gap 1 320,610 1,282 1 0 1

Circle Ridge 14 679 40,336,477 391 111 280

Crooks Creek 1 4,434 0 2 0 2

Crooks Gap 6 1,105,944 7,990,708 30 4 26

Dallas 5 1,021 7,199,703 109 68 41

Day Butte 2 137,468 1,589 3 1 2

Deer Creek II 2 186,243 691 2 0 2

Derby 4 0 1,559,253 48 28 20

Dubois 1 1,555 244,570 9 3 6

Frenchie Draw 3 127,064,636 3,239,555 134 126 8

Fuller

Reservoir

2 25,933,280 2,315,223 73 38 35

Gates Butte 1 372,901 2,791 1 1 0

Girrard 3 311,411 0 3 0 3

Golden Goose 3 153,954 944,922 5 1 4

Grieve 2 95,649,598 26,580,521 36 3 33

Happy Springs 6 10,921,079 10,365,047 53 9 44

Haybarn 2 1,459,945 350,577 10 6 4

Hoodoo Hills 1 18,373 0 1 0 1

Howard Ranch 1 2,821,385 28,896 1 1 0

Indian Butte 1 21,203 0 1 0 1

Jade Ridge 2 1,015,632 33,090 2 0 2

Kanson Draw 2 1,209,038 4,760 5 1 4

Kirby Draw

South

1 74,428 73,428 1 1 0

Kirk 1 0 3,388 1 0 1

Kohler 1 0 83,514 1 1 0

Lander 3 677 20,787,305 273 104 169

Long Butte 4 111,614,511 20 15 7 8

Longs Creek 3 3,682,290 2,031 4 2 2

Lost Cabin 3 2,822,709 508,704 15 6 9

Lost Soldier 1 976,394 483,517 1 1 0

Lysite 5 35,891,852 35,516 7 4 3

Madden 10 1,638,302,619 1,461,492 327 264 63

Maverick

Springs

5 37,089 17,376,648 149 32 117

Maverick

Springs SE

1 9,247 233,479 7 0 7

Meigh Ranch 1 37,722 163 3 0 3

Moneta Hills 3 1,925,468 94,537 20 10 10

Mount Rogers 1 66,288 0 1 0 1

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Leasable Minerals – Oil and Gas
342 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Fields

Producing

Zones

Cumulative

Gas (thousand

cubic feet)

Cumulative

Oil (barrels) Wells Active Wells Inactive Wells

Muddy Ridge 10 125,231,228 509,456 95 62 33

Muskrat 5 20,374,946 105,563 11 1 10

Ocean Lake 1 59,418 3,484 1 0 1

Owl Creek

Valley

1 1,035,960 8,463 1 1 0

Paradise Valley 1 282,365 6,469 1 0 1

Pavillion 7 275,617,842 7,617 160 129 31

Picket Lake 2 1,751,580 17,468 7 4 3

Pilot Butte 15 8,769,616 8,683,881 65 23 42

Poison Creek 1 3,634,647 8,428 8 3 5

Popo Agie 1 0 39,322 1 1 0

Riverton 5 3,631,520 1,449,045 6 0 6

Riverton Dome 9 191,340,688 3,796,698 77 44 33

Riverton Dome

East

9 74,444,493 218,714 36 10 26

Riverton East 1 6,751,097 22,310 1 0 1

Rolff Lake 3 1,560 1,213,079 11 5 6

Sage Creek

North

1 21,011 58,781 4 0 4

Sand Draw

North

3 2,294,124 678,743 5 2 3

Sand Draw

South

7 9,277,024 3,202,199 32 14 18

Sand Mesa 3 4,840,068 2,093 12 4 8

Sheep Creek 1 0 329,618 10 4 6

Sheldon 11 10,067,592 5,424,313 37 16 21

Sheldon

Northwest

8 349,175 2,682,841 30 7 23

Sheldon West 2 6,266 1,761 2 0 2

Shoshoni 2 235,573 342 3 0 3

Squaw Butte 3 801,570 48,333 9 5 4

Steamboat

Butte

17 13,449,344 81,260,740 167 54 113

Steffen Hill 4 449,034 0 4 2 2

Unknown 1 0 0 1 0 1

Unnamed 9 3,908,395 56,715 46 25 21

Wertz 2 12,840,976 16,277,939 8 3 5

Wickersham

Draw

2 53,159 0 2 0 2

Winkleman 6 2,783,129 118,520,664 212 123 89

Total 3,885,146,697 502,428,297 3,194 1,566 1,628

Source: BLM 2009c

Annual (Figure 3.15, “Annual Oil and Gas Production Rates from Federal, Tribal, Private,

and State Wells in the Planning Area” (p. 343)) and cumulative (Figure 3.16, “Cumulative

Oil and Gas Production Rates from Federal, Tribal, Private, and State Wells in the Planning

Area” (p. 343)) graphs of oil and gas production illustrate historical volume rates and cumulative

volumes of oil and gas as a function of time from 1974 through 2007 (BLM 2009c). The rate of

oil production declined steadily for a decade starting in 1982 and has been flat since 1993. The

rate of gas production was flat up through 1994, experienced a subsequent sharp increase and then

began to decline in 2006. In 2006, the Madden field was ranked tenth in the United States by gas

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Leasable Minerals – Oil and Gas February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 343

proved reserves and twelfth by gas production (EIA 2007b). See the Reasonably Foreseeable

Development Scenario for Oil and Gas (BLM 2009c).

Source: BLM 2009c

bbls barrels

mcf thousand cubic feet

Figure 3.15. Annual Oil and Gas Production Rates from Federal, Tribal, Private, and State

Wells in the Planning Area

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Leasable Minerals – Oil and Gas
344 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Source: BLM 2009c

bbls barrels

mcf thousand cubic feet

Figure 3.16. Cumulative Oil and Gas Production Rates from Federal, Tribal, Private, and

State Wells in the Planning Area

Oil and Gas Resource Estimates in the Planning Area

Table 3.21, “Summary and Estimates of Oil and Gas Resources for the Planning

Area” (p. 345) lists projections of the amount of oil, gas, and natural gas liquid resources in the

planning area. The estimates of oil and gas resources include portions of the Wind River Basin,

Southwestern Wyoming, and Bighorn Basin provinces in the planning area. It is estimated that

the planning area contains a mean undiscovered volume of approximately 35.39 million barrels

of oil, approximately 3.73371 trillion cubic feet of gas, and 54.55 million barrels of natural gas

liquids. The planning area’s oil resource could range from 9.51 to 76.12 million barrels of oil,

the gas resource could range from 1.5389 to 5.49116 trillion cubic feet, and natural gas liquids

resource could range from 19.55 to 93.62 million barrels of natural gas liquids (BLM 2009c). See

the Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario for Oil and Gas (BLM 2009c) for a more

complete summary of the assessment results.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Leasable Minerals – Oil and Gas February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 345

Table 3.21. Summary and Estimates of Oil and Gas Resources for the Planning Area

Gas (TCFG) Oil (MMBO)

Natural Gas Liquids

(MMBNGL)

Mean Undiscovered

Volume1 3.13371 35.39 54.55

Estimated Range of

Resources in the planning

area2

1.5389 – 5.49116 9.51 – 76.12 19.55 – 93.62

Source: BLM 2009c

1 Mean (average) undiscovered volume of all portions of assessment units lying within the planning area

2 Assuming fractile data used has a perfect positive correlation

MMBNGL million barrels of natural gas liquids

MMBO million barrels of oil

TCFG trillion cubic feet of gas

Projected Conventional Oil and Gas Drilling Activity in the Planning Area

For a baseline unconstrained reasonably foreseeable development projection (limiting factors

such as lease stipulations, or the possibility that some areas might not be administratively

available for leasing, are not considered at this stage of analysis), it is estimated that during the

next planning cycle as many as 2,566 wells (not including CBNG) could be drilled in the planning

area (Rocky Mountain Federal Leadership Forum 2002). Seventy-five of these wells could be

deep wells (more than 15,000 feet deep).

Development potential is defined as high, moderate, low, very low, and none. It is estimated that

average drilling densities per township (one township is approximately 36 square miles) during

the planning period will be:

● High – 100 or more wells

● Moderate – 20 to 100 wells

● Low – 2 to fewer than 20 wells

● Very low – fewer than two wells

● None – no wells

Of the 2,566 projected wells, most (2,542) are projected in areas of high, moderate, or low

potential (Map 17). Drilling activity will likely be concentrated in the following areas:

● High levels of activity will be in and around the Madden and Frenchie Draw fields on the

northeastern portion of the planning area and in and around the Muddy Ridge field on the

WRIR. Many new wells in these townships will likely be drilled as infill or fringe wells in

existing fields, or as reentries into existing wellbores. Some minor exploratory activity could

occur just beyond field boundaries. Well spacing is projected to be variable, in the 160- to

20-acre range.

● Moderate levels of activity will be in the northeastern part of the planning area, in and around

the Sand Mesa field, in the Beaver Creek field area, and on the southern end of the planning

area. Infill field drilling, fringe wells in existing fields, or wildcat wells to discover entirely

new fields are all possible. As with areas of projected high density drilling, well spacing in

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Leasable Minerals – Oil and Gas
346 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

areas of moderate potential is likely to be variable, depending on the characteristics of the

play(s) driving development.

● In areas of projected low potential activity, future drilling will be to either improve enhanced

oil production projects; to add wells in and around existing oil and gas fields that are maturely

developed and have limited opportunities to develop the existing reservoirs or additional

deeper reservoirs; or to explore for new oil and gas reservoirs away from existing developed

areas. Well densities will remain similar to what they are at present, with isolated townships

having a low potential for an increase in drilling density.

Most of the anticipated activity in the planning area will be infill drilling to increase proven

recoverable reserves and as exploratory drilling to further explore the potential of continuous

resources identified by the USGS in the Wind River Basin and Southwestern Wyoming provinces

(USGS 2002, USGS 2005a, USGS 2005b, USGS 2008). Initial estimates of the ultimate size of

new oil or gas fields are usually too low, and over time, newer estimates of the size and ultimate

recovery contribute to growth in the reserve estimate (Central Region Energy Resources Team

1996). Factors that could contribute to increases in reserve growth in the planning area include:

● Physical expansion of fields by areal extensions and development of new producing intervals

● Improved recovery resulting from application of new technology and engineering methods

● Upward revisions of reserve calculations based on production experience and changing

relations between price and cost

Coalbed Natural Gas Production in the Planning Area

There is little CBNG activity in the planning area. Existing CBNG producing zones are coals

in the Mesaverde Formation. Three areas in the planning area have produced CBNG, two on

the southeastern fringe of the WRIR and one just 4 miles south of the WRIR boundary at the

Beaver Creek field.

Three CBNG units have been designated in the southern portion of the planning area; however, at

present, there are no producing CBNG wells in any of these units.

Table 3.22, “Cumulative Production (through October 2008) for Coalbed Natural Gas Wells

within the Planning Area” (p. 346) lists cumulative production of CBNG and produced water

from all active CBNG wells since the first producing well was completed in 1990. Cumulative

CBNG production in the planning area has been more than 5.026 billion cubic feet and cumulative

water production has been more than 13.7 million barrels.

Table 3.22. Cumulative Production (through October 2008) for Coalbed Natural Gas Wells

within the Planning Area

Year

Cumulative Oil

(barrels)

Cumulative Gas

(thousand cubic

feet)

Cumulative

Water (barrels)

Days on

Production Active Wells

1990 0 4,397 5,590 28 1

1991 0 24,520 25,057 319 1

1992 0 15,590 20,982 246 1

- - - - - -

1999 0 39 994 8 1

2000 0 5,403 1,610,607 712 4

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Leasable Minerals – Oil and Gas February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 347

Year

Cumulative Oil

(barrels)

Cumulative Gas

(thousand cubic

feet)

Cumulative

Water (barrels)

Days on

Production Active Wells

2001 0 8,238 1,674,494 727 4

- - - - - -

2005 0 364,463 428,149 2,004 9 to 16

2006 1,026 846,601 2,159,245 5,687 15 to 19

2007 417 1,826,016 2,843,328 3,911 11

2008 255 1,930,903 4,965,604 4,385 10 to 11

Total 1,698 5,026,170 13,734,050 18,027 57 to 69

Source: BLM 2009c

Projected Coalbed Natural Gas Drilling Activity in the Planning Area

Development potential for CBNG ranges in the planning area between moderate, low, very

low, and none. It is estimated that average drilling densities per township (one township is

approximately 36 square miles) during the planning period will be:

● Moderate: 20 to 100 wells

● Low: two to fewer than 20 wells

● Very low: fewer than two wells

● None: no wells

For a baseline unconstrained reasonably foreseeable development projection for CBNG, the

BLM estimates that during the next planning cycle, up to 861 CBNG wells could be drilled

in the planning area (Rocky Mountain Federal Leadership Forum 2002). It is anticipated that

approximately 844 of the new CBNG wells will be drilled somewhere in the areas of moderate

or low potential and the remaining 17 wells will be drilled in the areas of very low potential

(Table 3.23, “Estimated Coalbed Natural Gas Development Potential in the Planning Area

between 2008 and 2027” (p. 347)) (Map 20). CBNG wells drilled through 2017 will likely be in

areas of moderate potential where there is existing or proposed activity.

Table 3.23. Estimated Coalbed Natural Gas Development Potential in the Planning Area

between 2008 and 2027

Development

Potential Area (total acres)

Number of

Townships with

Development

Potential

Average New Wells

per Township

Percent of Planning

Area

High 0 0 110 0

Moderate 149,401 6.48 60 2.30

Low 1,309,236 56.82 8 20.18

Very Low 1,611,953 69.96 0.25 24.85

None 2,907,578 126.20 0 44.82

Not Assessed 508,759 22.08 0 7.84

Source: BLM 2009c

Produced Water

Water is often produced in conjunction with the production of oil and gas from most reservoirs.

Water is injected into oil reservoirs as part of waterflooding projects or the water produced in

conjunction with oil and gas production can be disposed of (injected) into the subsurface. Produced

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Leasable Minerals – Oil and Gas
348 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

water that is not injected is disposed of in evaporation ponds, and in a limited number of ponds,

managed by the State of Wyoming under WYPDES. Waterflooding projects also cause an increase

in associated water production. Figure 3.17, “Annual Water Injection and Water Production Rates

in the Planning Area (includes the Wind River Indian Reservation)” (p. 348) shows volumes of

annual water produced and annual water injection. Increases in water production in recent years

are mainly tied to increased gas production (Figure 3.15, “Annual Oil and Gas Production Rates

from Federal, Tribal, Private, and State Wells in the Planning Area” (p. 343)). Cumulative water

produced through August 2007 was 4,389,859,424 barrels.

Water injection (mostly for waterflooding purposes) was highest from 1982 through 1992 and then

dropped off for a number of years when oil prices were very low and there was little incentive to

produce oil. Water injection began to increase again in 1999 and peaked in 2006, at more than

50 million barrels (BLM 2009c). With higher oil prices in recent years, there has been added

incentive to bear the additional costs of waterflooding to obtain additional oil production. Since

1982, the water production curve has tended to mirror the water injection curve, but at higher rates.

Coproduction of water associated with oil and gas development is unavoidable at most locations.

Wyoming allows water produced with oil and gas to be disposed of by injection in a permitted

disposal or enhanced recovery well, evaporation in an approved pit, or discharge into a surface

water source through an outfall permit. At present, the planning area has 26 active and two shut-in

disposal wells (Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission 2008).

Source: BLM 2009c

bbls barrels

Figure 3.17. Annual Water Injection and Water Production Rates in the Planning Area

(includes the Wind River Indian Reservation)

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Leasable Minerals – Oil and Gas February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 349

The geographic distribution of water quality samples in relation to TDS and salinity can be found

in the Reasonably Foreseeable Future Development Scenario for Oil and Gas (BLM 2009c).

Management Challenges for Oil and Gas Development

A variety of management challenges for oil and gas exploration and development are associated

with both public and internal BLM issues. Oil and gas exploration and development is a necessary,

but sometimes contentious, activity with highly vested stakeholders. Oil and gas development in

the planning area is associated with management challenges including impacts to resources and

resource uses, produced water, mixed ownership patterns, and a variety of other issues.

Oil and gas development includes challenges for handling the disposal of produced water of

variable quality, particularly TDS, while meeting management objectives for resources and

resource uses. Management of produced water from oil and gas activities tends to be a disposal

issue, not an impact on water quantity, because these wells do not produce from aquifers that

meet the standards for U.S. drinking water.

The BLM also faces management challenges related to oil and gas development pressures and

the need to conserve habitat for greater sage-grouse. In 2010, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

(USFWS) designated the greater sage-grouse as a candidate species for listing under provisions of

the ESA (USFWS 2010). The BLM, in coordination with other federal and state agencies, local

government, local working groups, and public land users, is implementing measures to conserve

greater sage-grouse habitat and populations. Some areas with oil and gas development potential

in the planning area lie within high-quality greater sage-grouse habitat; therefore, the BLM is

challenged with how to manage such development while protecting greater sage-grouse habitat.

The viability of wildlife population levels is linked to a variety of factors, including habitat

fragmentation. The BLM faces management challenges resulting from habitat fragmentation

caused by oil and gas operations.

Oil and gas resources in the planning area might be located, in part, in areas with important visual

resources, including ACECs, historic trails, and other scenic vistas. The BLM faces the challenge

of managing oil and gas exploration and development while mitigating impacts to visual resources

and meeting Visual Resource Management (VRM) objectives.

The land ownership pattern in the planning area consists of mixed ownership between

BLM-administered lands, the WRIR, state trust lands, private lands, private surface overlying

federal mineral estate, USFS lands, and lands managed by the Bureau of Reclamation.

Management of oil and gas operations becomes more complex where projects are proposed in

areas of mixed ownership.

Oil and gas activities, like other mineral development, fluctuate with price. The level of activity

in “oil equivalents” such as natural gas increased with the international price of petroleum. As

that price fell starting in the beginning of 2009, natural gas Applications for Permit to Drill

(APDs) also fell. The high fluctuation in activities causes planning and staff issues for the BLM

and impacts the local economy that depends on mineral activities.

Additional management challenges for oil and gas exploration and development for the BLM

include:

● Processing timeframes for APDs and notices to conduct seismic exploration

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Leasable Minerals – Oil and Gas
350 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

● Timing restrictions on oil and gas leases, Notices of Intent to conduct geophysical exploration,

and APDs

● Processing timeframes for ROW applications

● Road design requirements

● Lessee’s/operator’s surface use rights

● Impacts from oil and gas development and exploration activities on grazing lessees

● Impacts from oil and gas development and exploration activities on cultural resources

● Impacts from oil and gas development and exploration activities on air and water quality

● Impacts from oil and gas development and exploration activities on soils and vegetation

● Multiple-use conflicts resulting in restricted access to oil and gas resources

● Impacts from oil and gas development on levels of CO2 in the atmosphere and on climate

change

● Economic impacts on local, state, and federal government from oil and gas production in the

planning area

● Split-estate issues

● Staffing and priority to complete oil and gas workload

3.2.5. Leasable Minerals – Oil Shale-Tar Sands

Oil shale-tar sands are an unconventional type of oil production (as distinguished from the

recovery of oil and gas from shale formations). At present, there is no development of oil shale-tar

sands in the planning area. There are low-quality oil shale deposits in the southern part of the

planning area; however, there is little potential for commercial development of these resources.

Based on these resource values, the existing Lander RMP was not amended for oil shale leasing

under the PEIS for oil shale and tar sands resources (BLM 2008c).

3.2.6. Leasable Minerals – Other Solid Leasable Minerals

Other solid leasable minerals (non-coal) present within the planning area include phosphate and

oil shale-tar sands (Ver Ploeg 1986). A very small segment of the Green River Formation in

the South Pass portion of the Lander planning area contains oil shale-tar sand deposits. These

remote locations are not deemed commercially viable (BLM 2008c). Lander is not part of the

programmatic analysis of oil shale-tar sands resources currently being analyzed in the PEIS

released for comment in 2012. Accordingly, no management decisions are required for oil

shale-tar sands.

Rocks of the Permian System (299 to 251 million years ago) comprise one of the most complex

and also most closely studied Paleozoic systems in the planning area. These strata are an

important source of phosphate in the Intermountain West.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Leasable Minerals – Oil Shale-Tar Sands February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 351

Studies over the years attempted to quantify the distribution and grade of phosphate-bearing

sedimentary rocks in the Permian Phosphoria Formation in three general locations (BLM 2009a).

The largest and most well known occurrence is on the northwest flank of the Wind River Range,

particularly in the area known as the Lander Front or Lander Slope. The rock along the Lander

Front can be traced south from the Dubois area to the Sweetwater River. The other occurrences of

phosphate-bearing sedimentary rocks are Crooks Mountain, Lysite Mountain, and the Conant

Creek Anticline southeast of Riverton (BLM 2009a).

A U.S. Bureau of Mines analysis (BLM 2009a) identified and ranked known mineral deposit

areas, which are areas having past or present mineral production and/or known mineral resources.

This effort mapped areas in relation to their favorability for phosphate. The classification of

phosphate deposits is based on two factors: how well understood the physical extent of the

deposit is (degree of geologic assurance) and how feasibly the deposit can be mined and marketed

with existing technology and under current market conditions (feasibility of economic recovery).

Table 3.24, “Percentage of Phosphate Lands in Moderate and High Favorability Classifications

in the Planning Area” (p. 351) lists the percentage of phosphate lands in moderate and high

favorability classifications in the planning area (Map 19). Crooks Mountain was not classified as

having a favorability above low in this data set.

Table 3.24. Percentage of Phosphate Lands in Moderate and High Favorability

Classifications in the Planning Area

Phosphate Field Total Area (acres) High Favorability

(acres / percent)

Moderate Favorability

(acres / percent)

Lander Front 400,556 3,702 (0.9%) 396,854 (99.1%)

Conant Creek 509 0 509 (100%)

Lysite Mountain 2,100 0 2,100 (100%)

Source: BLM 2009a

Other Solid Leasable Mineral Activity

Until very recently, there had been little interest in phosphate except for one proposal in which

planning area phosphate deposits were seriously considered for development during the 1960s

through 1980s. During this period, a mining company extensively surveyed, mapped, drilled,

trenched, and sampled phosphate deposits. Eventually, eight federal leases totaling 12,628 acres

were issued and held by this company until 1985 (BLM 2009a). Although the mining company

performed exploration activities under prospecting permits before it was issued leases, the

company never performed mining operations under the leases.

At present, there are no phosphate lands under lease in the planning area, but in 2008 two

proposals were submitted for phosphate prospecting and leasing, neither of which the BLM

will consider until this RMP revision is finalized and a ROD is issued. There are currently no

tar sand leases in the planning area.

There has been increased interest in phosphate potential on the Lander Front, both on federal

mineral estate and lands owned by the State of Wyoming and managed in trust. There have been

proposals for state phosphate leases.

Management Challenges for Other Solid Leasable Minerals

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Leasable Minerals – Other Solid Leasable Minerals
352 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Management challenges for other solid leasable minerals reflect management challenges for other

minerals in relation to impacts to resources and resource uses (especially disturbance to greater

sage-grouse and associated habitat) and challenges associated with mixed land ownership patterns.

There are additional management challenges for other solid minerals associated with the location

of phosphate deposits in the planning area. Phosphate deposits in the planning area are located, in

part, in areas with important visual resources including ACECs, NHTs, and other scenic vistas.

There are phosphate deposits on the northwest flank of the Wind River Range in the area known

as the Lander Front or Lander Slope, where scenic vistas are prominent on the landscape. The

BLM faces the challenge of managing phosphate exploration and development while mitigating

impacts to visual resources. Managing for other resource objectives in these specially designated

areas in association with phosphate development could pose additional management challenges.

3.2.7. Salable Minerals

Salable minerals, also called mineral materials, known to be present in the planning area include

sand and gravel (aggregates), common-variety (non-metallurgical-grade) limestone, granite, shale

and moss rock (lichen stone). Sand and gravel are the most common type of mineral materials

found in the planning area (Map 18). Sand and gravel are typically used for road base, oil and

gas drill pads, and various building-construction projects. Most of the limestone in the planning

area is considered common variety and therefore salable. Crushed limestone can be used for rip

rap or for road base in place of sand and gravel. Granite and moss rock are used for building or

decorative stone. Shale has been recently used for cap material in AML reclamation projects, due

to its low permeability. Refer to the Mineral Occurrence and Development Potential Final Report

(BLM 2009b) for additional information on salable minerals.

Sand and gravel are found on old terrace benches along former and existing major drainages and

pediment surfaces adjacent to range fronts. Formations for the potential exploitation of limestone

resources include the Alcova Limestone member of the Chugwater Group, and the Madison

Limestone. Large quantities of granitic mineral material are available at various places in the

planning area, most abundantly in the Sweetwater Rocks and the Granite Mountains area. Shale is

commonly obtained from exposures of Cody Shale.

Statutory and Regulatory Authority

The Materials Act of 1947 authorizes the BLM (under rules and regulations prescribed by the

Secretary of the Interior) to dispose of mineral and vegetative materials through a contract or a

free-use permit. The Surface Resources Act of 1955 amended the Materials Act to make common

varieties of sand, stone, gravel, pumice, pumicite, and cinders salable minerals. Applicable

regulations are found at 43 CFR 3600.

The BLM may dispose of mineral materials by sale or on a free-use basis to units of government

and non-profit organizations. If the BLM sells such materials, it does so at not less than fair

market value (see FLPMA, Sec. 102[9] and 43 CFR 3601.6). It is BLM policy to make mineral

materials available unless it is detrimental to do so (see 43 CFR 3601.6). However, mineral

material disposals are discretionary. The BLM may deny an applicant’s request based on various

considerations such as an inadequate plan, or to protect other competing resources (e.g., wildlife,

scenic values, grazing, and sensitive soils) identified through National Environmental Policy

Act (NEPA) analysis.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Salable Minerals February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 353

Mineral materials may also be acquired from BLM-administered lands by the State of

Wyoming Department of Transportation for development of federal-aid highways, under a

Title 23 Material Site ROW realty action. The authority for Title 23 actions is an Interagency

Agreement between the BLM and the Federal Highway Administration AA-851-IA2-40, dated

July 1982. In Wyoming, this is implemented under Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)

WY920-08-07-192, among the BLM, Wyoming Department of Transportation, and the Federal

Highway Administration, signed August 24, 2007.

There are two broad categories of mineral material disposals: exclusive disposals and

non-exclusive disposals. Under exclusive disposals, the purchaser has an exclusive right to the

materials and sole responsibility for developing and reclaiming the site or a designated portion of

the site. There are three types of exclusive disposals: negotiated sales, competitive sales, and free

use permits. Non-exclusive disposals are made from sites to which the general public has access

and more than one party has a right to remove materials. There are two types of nonexclusive

disposal sites: the community pit and the common use area (CUA). The distinction between the

two is that community pits are limited areas with extensive disturbance requiring reclamation,

while CUAs are generally broader geographic areas which, after removal of the minerals, require

little or no reclamation. The BLM may impose a reclamation fee on the user to cover the BLM’s

costs to reclaim the disturbance.

Due to its demand as a decorative building stone, several CUAs have been established for moss

rock collection in the planning area. Only two CUAs, Little Popo Agie CUA and Diamond

Springs CUA, remain active but are near depletion of readily available moss rock.

For exclusive disposals, the BLM is commonly approached by a private or public entity (e.g.,

local government agency) with a specific plan to obtain mineral materials from a certain location.

The BLM must then process the request under the NEPA process and develop any necessary

stipulations and mitigations required to protect other resources affected by the disposal. Typically,

environmental assessments are performed for each proposal. When a contract for mineral

materials amounts to less than 50,000 cubic yards or the disturbance covers an area of less than 5

acres, a categorical exclusion is commonly granted.

Once a determination is made to process a mineral material disposal, a contract is issued to

describe the location of the disposal, the quantity of material authorized to be removed, and the

total cost of the material. Contracts also include the terms of use (such as seasonal restrictions and

access), and the required bond for reclamation. The terms of payment depend on the total cost

of the material. If the cost is under $2,000, the total amount is due in full when the contract is

issued. Cost of the material is determined by the most up-to-date appraisal schedule furnished by

the BLM.

Non-exclusive disposals are usually accomplished “over the counter” at the field office. A

customer seeking mineral materials will identify what type of material is desired and will then be

directed to one of several areas developed for that purpose. The customer must sign a contract

and pay in advance for the desired quantity of material. The cost of the material is determined by

the most up-to-date appraisal schedule.

Mineral Materials Activity

The amount of mineral material disposals generally reflects economic conditions. Because the

main uses of mineral materials are associated with construction work and oil field development,

these activities highly reflect mineral material use and disposal. The increase in oil and gas

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Salable Minerals
354 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

activity from approximately late 2004 until the third quarter of 2008 resulted in a period of

increased use of mineral materials in the planning area. Planning area infrastructure has remained

static during the last planning cycle, and due to this, free use permits and material sales have

decreased compared to earlier periods. In addition, most of the large AML projects in the Gas

Hills and Crooks Gap Districts have been completed as of the mid-2000s; these were large

contributors to disposal activity.

Aggregate disposals track the economy and AML work. Disposals experienced a higher rate

during the late 1980s until mid-2000s due to the large amount of AML work. Also, demand

increased due to increased oil field development in the mid-to-late 2000s. Development dropped

off substantially beginning in fall of 2008.

In the late 1980s, more than 500,000 cubic yards of limestone were sold in the Gas Hills for the

purpose of AML work at former uranium mining properties. This material was taken from the

Dutton Anticline where the Alcova Limestone is exposed at land surface. The permit expired in

2000, and there has since been no substantial use of these resources.

Large quantities of granite (up to 100,000 cubic yards) were sold from the so-called Black Rock

quarry approximately 9 miles north of Jeffrey City over the last decade or so for the purpose of

completing various AML-related projects. There has been no substantial use of these resources

since.

Approximately 1.5 million cubic yards of shale were removed from shale pits near the Gas Hills

and more than 1 million cubic yards were removed from another pit south of Jeffrey City, both

utilizing this material for AML reclamation activities during approximately the last decade. There

has since been no substantial use of these resources.

Moss rock disposal in the planning area has declined possibly due to two factors. Two CUAs

were substantially utilized and availability of substantial quantities of high-quality moss rock

in these locations is limited. The public-at-large is less willing to obtain moss rock through

individual negotiated sales due to higher costs associated with cost recovery policy and delays

associated with NEPA analyses.

Sand and gravel are the only mineral materials commonly authorized for disposal under free use

permits in the planning area (Table 3.25, “Authorized Mineral Material Free Use Permits in the

Planning Area” (p. 355)). Sand and gravel and soil/fill materials are the only pending mineral

material free-use permits in the planning area (Table 3.26, “Pending Mineral Material Free Use

Permits in the Planning Area” (p. 355)).

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Salable Minerals February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 355

Table 3.25. Authorized Mineral Material Free Use Permits in the Planning Area

Entity Name or location Case Number Commodity Amount

Wyoming Game and

Fish Department

Bear Creek Pit, East

Fork Wind River

WYW152033 Sand and gravel 3,000 CY

Fremont County Road

Department

Jeffrey City Pit WYW154885 Sand and gravel 130,000 CY

Town of Dubois Overlook site WYW159799 Sand and gravel 10,000 CY

Fremont County Road

Department

Moneta-Lysite Hwy

Project

WYW149779 Sand and gravel 40,000 CY

Fremont County Road

Department

Lost Cabin Pit WYW152039 Sand and gravel 200,000 CY

Wyoming DEQ AML Gas Hills haul road

restoration project

WYW158055 Sand and gravel 20,000 CY

Source: BLM 2009b

AML Abandoned Mine Land

CY cubic yard

DEQ Department of Environmental Quality

Table 3.26. Pending Mineral Material Free Use Permits in the Planning Area

Entity Name or location Case Number Commodity Quantity

Fremont County Road

Department

Sec. 23, T. 37 N.,

R. 94 W. (Muskrat

Crossing)

WYW135187 sand and gravel 10,000 CY

Fremont County Road

Department

Sec. 6, T. 36 N., R. 93

W. (Muskrat Pit)

WYW135188 sand and gravel 15,000 CY

Fremont County Road

Department

Sec. 27, T. 30 N., R.

95 W. (Sweetwater

Station)

WYW147151 sand and gravel 8,072 CY

Fremont County Road

Department

Sec. 1, 12, T. 38 N., R

.91 W. (Lysite Gravel

Pit)

WYW147157 sand and gravel 20,000 CY

Fremont County Road

Department

Sec. 30, T. 39 N.,

R. 90 W. (Badwater

Borrow)

WYW159824 sand and gravel 5000 CY

Wyoming Department

of Transportation

Sec. 26, T. 35 N., R.

94 W.

WYW152035 soil/fill 10,000 CY

Wyoming Department

of Transportation

Sec. 9, T. 34 N., R. 92

W.

WYW152036 soil/fill 10,000 CY

Wyoming Department

of Transportation

Sec. 32, T. 35 N., R.

93 W.

WYW152037 soil/fill 10,000 CY

Wyoming Department

of Transportation

Sec. 31, 32, T. 35 N.,

R. 92W.

WYW152038 soil/fill 10,000 CY

Source: BLM 2009b

CY cubic yard

N North

R Range

Sec. Section

T Township

W West

The planning area currently has authorized sales of mineral materials for sand and gravel,

decorative stone and moss rock. The planning area has pending sales of mineral materials for sand

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Salable Minerals
356 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

and gravel, shale, limestone, moss rock, and decorative stone (Table 3.27, “Current and Pending

Authorized Sales of Mineral Materials” (p. 356)).

Table 3.27. Current and Pending Authorized Sales of Mineral Materials

Status Commodity Quantity

Current Sand and gravel 50,000 cubic yards

Current Decorative stone 100 tons

Current Moss rock 10 tons

Pending Sand and gravel 18,000 cubic yards + undetermined

amount

Pending Shale 100,000 tons

Pending Limestone Undetermined amount

Pending Moss rock 650 tons

Pending Decorative stone 15 tons

Source: BLM 2009b

Management Challenges for Salable Mineral Development

Management challenges associated with disposal of mineral materials result from adverse impacts

to resources and resource uses from mining activities and the demand for mineral materials. The

need to conserve greater sage-grouse habitat can conflict with the development of mineral material

resources. Some salable mineral resources in the planning area might lie in or near habitat for

the greater sage-grouse. Although salable mineral disposals are discretionary, the BLM faces

challenges in meeting demands for these minerals while protecting greater sage-grouse habitat.

Areas of mixed land ownership pose additional management challenges for mineral material

disposal. Management of salable mineral operations becomes more complex where projects are

proposed in areas of mixed ownership. In particular, salable mineral operations on land surface

patented under the Stock Raising Homestead Act can present management challenges related to

coordinating the concerns of the surface owner with the mineral operations. The 1983 Watt v.

Western Nuclear U.S. Supreme Court decision, which established that gravel on Stock Raising

Homestead Act lands belonged to the federal government, was a case originating in the planning

area near Jeffrey City.

Due to the relatively high cost of transportation to the site of end use compared to value in place,

salable minerals tend to serve local markets. These minerals help meet the demand for community

growth. The BLM faces management challenges in meeting the demand for mineral materials to

meet local needs while mitigating potential impacts to other resource values.

3.3. Fire and Fuels Management

Fire is an integral part of the ecological process of many plant communities in the planning area.

Several vegetation types in the planning area have developed under a regime of intermittent fires

and have adapted to the impacts of fires in some way. For each vegetation type, fire behavior

varies based on many factors, including topography and site productivity. Highly productive

sites, such as north slopes, generally have more biomass and therefore can carry fires better than

less productive sites characterized by less fuel.

Within the western sagebrush steppe ecosystem, natural and human-caused fire played an

important role at the landscape level in creating a mosaic of early, mid, and late seral sagebrush

steppe in the varied habitat types (Paysen et al. 2000). It is important to not overlook the

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Fire and Fuels Management February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 357

prehistoric and early historic human use of fire, possibly to modify habitat types for hunting

purposes (Arno 1983, Barrett and Arno 1982).

The 2001 Review and Update of the 1995 Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy is the

primary interagency wildland fire policy document. In February 2009, a joint effort between the

BLM, USFS, Bureau of Indian Affairs, USFWS, and the NPS resulted in updated guidance

for implementation of the Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy (DOI and USDA 2009).

This guidance provides for consistent federal implementation of the Federal Wildland Fire

Management Policy.

According to the implementation guidance for the fire policy the following terms are used to

describe the different types of fire:

● Prescribed fire – Any fire ignited by management actions to meet specific objectives. A

written, approved prescribed fire plan must exist, and NEPA requirements (where applicable)

must be met, prior to ignition.

● Wildland fire – A general term describing any non-structure fire that occurs in the vegetation

and/or natural fuels.

● Wildfire – An unplanned ignition caused by lightning, volcanoes, unauthorized, and accidental

human-caused actions and escaped prescribed fires.

The BLM fire management program focuses on two categories of fires: unplanned/wildfires

and planned/prescribed fires. The objectives of prescribed fires include reduction of fuels,

maintenance or improvement of wildlife habitat or range conditions, control of invasive species,

and maintenance of the historic fire return interval. Firefighter and public safety are the highest

priority in every fire management activity.

For much of the last century throughout the United States, fire management has focused on the

suppression of wildfires with minimal use of prescribed fires to achieve management objectives.

As a result, there has been a buildup of vegetative fuels and biomass, exacerbated by the impacts

of disease and drought.

Both wildfires and prescribed fires could be utilized as management tools to achieve

predetermined objectives established through the land use planning process. The fire management

program utilizes a full suite of fire suppression tactics in containing and controlling wildfires

throughout the planning area, with the highest likelihood for use of full suppression tactics

occurring in areas with high resource and/or human values and in areas with intermingled land

ownership patterns, while also utilizing prescribed fire and other fuel treatments to help meet the

objectives of other resource management programs.

The BLM response to wildland fires is based on values to be protected from and/or enhanced

by wildland fires. The response to wildland fires also considers the ecological, social, and legal

consequences of fires. The circumstances under which a fire occurs, and the likely consequences

to firefighter and public safety and welfare, natural and cultural resources, and values to be

protected, dictate the appropriate response to the fire. The response to wildland fires considers all

resource values and concerns and is coordinated across jurisdictional boundaries. Although fire

terminology changes over time, the approach to suppression actions remains relatively consistent.

The Wind River Bighorn Basin District has interagency cooperative agreements with the

Shoshone National Forest, WRIR, Wyoming State Forestry, Fremont County Rural Fire

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Fire and Fuels Management
358 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Associations, Hot Springs County, Natrona County, Sweetwater County, Carbon County, city of

Riverton, city of Lander, all local fire battalions, local volunteers, and all Firewise communities.

Fire suppression operations are coordinated with the Cody Interagency Dispatch Center.

3.3.1. Unplanned/Wildfire

Wildfires are unplanned ignitions caused by natural events (e.g., lightning) or by human

acts. There have been numerous large fires in the planning area from 1988 to 2008 at a scale

and quantity that exceeds the annual average acreage burned in the previous 13-year period

from 1974–1987.(Table 3.28, “Selected Large Wildfire Occurrences in the Planning Area,

1988-2008” (p. 358)). Whether this trend is part of the natural fire cycle or representative of

flammable conditions because of past fire and vegetation management is not precisely understood.

Regardless, it appears that the planning area is within an undetermined period of more frequent,

larger fire occurrence. Much of the forest, shrublands, and grasslands are vulnerable to wildfires,

but under existing conditions the areas that have the greatest potential for large wildfires are

within the 15- to 19-inch and 20-inch precipitation zones where natural fuel loading is greater

(Map 44). Almost all of the fires larger than 100 acres within the planning area have been within

these precipitation zones. Figure 3.18, “Acres Burned and Number of Wildfires per Year within

the Lander Field Office, 1974-2008” (p. 360) depicts the number of wildfires and the number of

acres burned by wildfires each year from 1974 to 2008.

The nature of historical fire patterns in sagebrush communities, particularly in Artemisia

tridentata wyomingensis, is not well understood, and there was likely a high degree of variability

(Zouhar et al. 2008, Baker 2006). Depending on the species of sagebrush and other site-specific

characteristics, fire return intervals from 10 to well over 300 years have been reported (Zouhar et

al. 2008). In general, fire extensively reduces sagebrush and some varieties, such as Artemesia

tridentata wyomingensis, can take up to 150 years to reestablish in an area (Braun 1998, Baker

2006).

Table 3.28. Selected Large Wildfire Occurrences in the Planning Area, 1988-2008

Name Year Jurisdiction Cause Acres Precipitation

Zone (inches)

Fuel Type

North Fork 1988 BIA Lightning 25,000

(approximate)

10-14 and

15-19

Wyoming

sagebrush/

grass,

mountain

shrub/grass,

juniper/limber

pine

Kates Basin 2000 BIA Lightning 137,069 10-14, 15-19,

and 20+

Wyoming

sagebrush/

grass,

mountain

shrub/grass,

juniper/limber

pine, lodgepole

pine

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Unplanned/Wildfire February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 359

Name Year Jurisdiction Cause Acres Precipitation

Zone (inches)

Fuel Type

Murphy Draw 2000 BLM Human Caused 1,365 15-19 Wyoming

sagebrush/

grass,

mountain

shrub/grass,

juniper/limber

pine

Red Canyon 2000 BLM Lightning 1,312 15-19 Wyoming

sagebrush/

grass,

mountain

shrub/grass,

juniper/limber

pine

Bighorn Flat

Unit 3

2000 BIA Escaped

Prescribed Fire

751 10-14 Wyoming

sagebrush/

grass

Beaver Rim 2001 BLM Lightning 1,927 15-19 Wyoming

sagebrush/

grass,

mountain

shrub/grass,

juniper/limber

pine

Bighorn Flat

Unit 1

2001 BIA Escaped

Prescribed Fire

655 10-14 Wyoming

sagebrush/

grass

Pass Creek 2002 BLM and

USFS

Lightning 13,433 15-19 and 20+ Wyoming

Sagebrush/

grass,

mountain

shrub/grass,

juniper/limber

pine, lodgepole

pine

South Fork 2 2002 BIA Lightning 13,978 15-19 and 20+ Wyoming

sagebrush/

grass,

mountain

shrub/grass,

lodgepole pine

Sagehen 2005 BLM Lightning 1,271 15-19 Wyoming

sagebrush/

grass,

mountain

shrub/grass,

juniper/limber

pine

Wise Flat 2006 BIA Lightning 1,044 15-19 grass, juniper/

limber pine

Bull Ridge 2006 BIA Lightning 837 15-19 grass, juniper/

limber pine

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Unplanned/Wildfire
360 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Name Year Jurisdiction Cause Acres Precipitation

Zone (inches)

Fuel Type

Washakie Park 2006 BIA Lightning 1,240 15-19 Wyoming

sagebrush/

grass,

mountain

shrub/grass

Poison Spider 2006 BLM Lightning 3,166 15-19 Wyoming

sagebrush/

grass,

mountain

shrub/grass,

juniper/limber

pine

Total Acres 203,048

Source: BLM 2009a

BIA Bureau of Indian Affairs

BLM Bureau of Land Management

USFS United States Forest Service

Source: BLM 2010a

Figure 3.18. Acres Burned and Number of Wildfires per Year within the Lander Field

Office, 1974-2008

Public Safety and Resource Protection

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Unplanned/Wildfire February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 361

Title 1 of the Healthy Forest Restoration Act requires identification and mapping of the fire

regimes and Fire Regime Condition Classes (FRCCs) on BLM-administered lands at risk of

wildfire and insect or disease epidemics. BLM policy requires that existing and desired resource

conditions related to fire management be described in terms of three condition classes and five fire

regimes. The FRCC system classifies existing ecosystem conditions to determine priority areas

for treatment. This system provides a measure of the existing vegetation community’s degree

of departure from a reference condition. Departure from the reference condition can indicate

changes to key ecosystem components such as vegetation characteristics; fuel composition;

fire frequency, severity and pattern; and other associated disturbances, such as insect- or

disease-related mortality. FRCC involves two pieces of information: the historic fire regime and

the condition class. Fire regime is the inferred historic fire return interval and severity on a given

landscape (Table 3.29, “Fire Regime Groups and Descriptions” (p. 361)), while condition class is

the departure of the given area from the historic fire interval.

Fire regime is an indicator of the role wildfires play in an ecosystem. A natural fire regime is

a general classification of the role fire would play across a landscape in the absence of modern

human mechanical intervention, but including the possible influence of intentional aboriginal fire

use (National Wildfire Coordinating Group 2003). The BLM utilizes five historic fire regimes

based on the average number of years between fires (fire frequency) combined with the severity

(amount of replacement) of the fire on the dominant overstory vegetation.

Table 3.29. Fire Regime Groups and Descriptions

Group Frequency Severity Severity Description

I 0 to 35 years Low/mixed Generally low-severity

fires replacing less than 75

percent of the dominant

overstory vegetation; could

include mixed-severity fires

that replace up to 75 percent

of the overstory.

II 0 to 35 years Replacement High-severity fires

replacing more than 75

percent of the dominant

overstory vegetation.

III 35 to 200 years Mixed/low Generally mixed-severity;

could also include

low-severity fires.

IV 35 to 200 years Replacement High-severity fires.

V More than 200 years Replacement/any severity Generally replacementseverity; could include

any severity type in this

frequency range.

Source: DOI and The Nature Conservancy 2008

Historically, wildfires in the planning area have generally been group III or IV, meaning that

wildfires occurred every 35 to 200 years. The amount of overstory replacement was highly

variable.

FRCC describes the degree of departure from the historic natural fire regime in terms of either fire

frequency or stand replacement (Hann and Bunnell 2001). Extreme departure from the historic

fire regimes results in changes to one or more of the following ecological components: vegetation

characteristics (species composition, structural stages, stand age, canopy closure, and mosaic

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Unplanned/Wildfire
362 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

pattern); fuel composition; fire frequency, severity, and pattern; and other associated disturbances

such as livestock grazing and drought. The majority of the planning area is composed of FRCC 2

and 3 (Map 42). FRCC describes ecosystem health, as follows:

● Condition Class 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.

● Condition Class 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.

● Condition Class 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. Consequently, these

lands verge on the greatest risk of ecological collapse.

The planning area is divided into six Fire Management Units (FMUs) (Table 3.30, “FRCC Ratings

and Management Prescriptions by Fire Management Unit” (p. 363)) (Map 43). An FMU is a

geographic area with similar plant communities and resource and fire management objectives.

The fire program identifies a full suite of responses to all wildland fires, with responses ranging

from monitor to full suppression. The response to wildland fires also includes managing a

wildland fire for multiple objectives, including, but not limited to, firefighter safety and resource

benefit. The BLM tailors responses to wildland fires to meet management objectives. In

establishing a response to wildland fires, the BLM considers the impacts of both fire suppression

and unsuppressed fire on wildlife, viewshed, invasive species, and loss of forest products,

particularly when cumulative impacts are considered. Appendix O (p. 1605) lists the suppression

objectives, fire use and prescribed burn objectives, planned fuels treatment by vegetative type,

non-fire fuel treatment objectives, community protection and assistance, prescribed fire and

non-fire treatments, and restoration and rehabilitation objectives by FMU.

The Wyoming BLM Forest and Woodland Management Action Plan concluded that the

information regarding condition class within forest and woodland communities was based on

the foresters’ professional opinions in the absence of up-to-date inventory data (BLM 2005c).

Moreover, these criteria were not the same as the FRCC definitions. In the future, the goal is to

complete a vegetation fuels inventory that more accurately identifies fire regimes and condition

classes across the landscape using up-to-date definitions and determination methods as identified

in the Interagency FRCC Guidebook (DOI and The Nature Conservancy 2008).

The locations of human-caused fires have been widespread in the planning area, with heavier

concentrations of ignitions in the Green Mountain, Lander Slope, and Sweetwater Valley FMUs.

Historically, wildfires have occurred in camping and woodcutting areas from accidental ignition

caused by fireworks, campfires, and machinery. Wildfires not caused by humans have been

widespread, with natural fires occurring in areas of intense lightning activity in the Lander

Slope and Rattlesnake Hills FMUs. Table 3.30, “FRCC Ratings and Management Prescriptions

by Fire Management Unit” (p. 363) lists information regarding condition and class for the six

FMUs in the planning area.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Unplanned/Wildfire February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 363

Table 3.30. FRCC Ratings and Management Prescriptions by Fire Management Unit

Fire Management

Unit

Total Acres

(BLM-administered

surface acres)

Fire Regime Group Fire Regime

Condition Class

Treatments

Green/Crooks

Mountain

262,485 (220,114)

WUI present

IV – lodgepole pine,

limber pine, juniper,

mountain shrub, big

shrub

2-3 – timbered

communities and

2 – shrubland

communities

Prescribed fire and

non-fire treatments

(mechanical,

chemical, biological)

ongoing

Sweetwater Valley 2,267, 001

(1,745,060)

WUI present

IV – big sagebrush

V – juniper, limber

pine, aspen

2 Prescribed fire and

non-fire treatments

(mechanical,

chemical, biological)

ongoing

Rattlesnake Hills 191,576 (128,729)

WUI present

IV – big sagebrush

V – juniper, limber

pine, aspen

2 Treatment allowed,

but not ongoing

Lander Slope 269,997 (128,675)

Substantial WUI

issues

IV – mountain shrub,

limber pine, lodgepole

pine, Douglas-fir

2 Prescribed fire

treatments ongoing

and planned

Copper Mountain 194,390 (127,153)

WUI present

IV – big sagebrush

V – juniper, limber

pine

2 Prescribed fire and

non-fire treatments

(mechanical,

chemical, biological)

ongoing

Dubois (USFS has

initial suppression

management)

161,232 (42,736)

WUI present

IV – mountain shrub,

limber pine

V – lodgepole pine,

Douglas-fir

2

1 – the badlands

Prescribed fire and

non-fire treatments

(mechanical,

chemical, biological)

ongoing

Sources: BLM 2004b; National Fire Plan 2009

BLM Bureau of Land Management

FRCC Fire Regime Condition Class

USFS United States Forest Service

WUI Wildland-Urban Interface

Fuel Loading

Table 3.30, “FRCC Ratings and Management Prescriptions by Fire Management

Unit” (p. 363) provides a coarse scale landscape level assessment of condition class of the Lander

Field Office FMUs based on University of Wyoming GAP Analysis Program Data (University of

Wyoming 1994), ground truthing, and inputs from experts. There is no other inventory available

to determine vegetation ecological condition and fuels build up. For example, the mountain pine

beetle epidemic is present in the Dubois FMU, but the extent of the beetle epidemic is only

loosely identified in the Lander Slope, South Pass, and Green Mountain FMUs.

In forested areas, mountain pine beetle outbreaks create a buildup of dead and dry fuels that are

particularly susceptible to fire. Fuel loading caused by the pine beetle create a problem that

traditional forest management practices are not designed to address. In the absence of a local

market for beetle kill timber and lack of available funding to remove or treat beetle kill areas, fuel

loading increases the potential for wildfire spread and occurrence.

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Unplanned/Wildfire
364 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

The growing wildland-urban interface (WUI) brings more people in closer contact with forests and

woodlands, making the public more invested as stakeholders and more concerned about the health

and appearance of forests. Many treatments are designed to reduce the risk of landscape-level

fire while maintaining the aesthetic qualities of the landscape. For example, juniper woodlands

adjacent to the Red Canyon Subdivision were thinned to approximately 30-foot spacing, with

a residual woodland stand representing a diversity of age classes. The finished treatment has

maintained the qualities of juniper woodlands that landowners value, while reducing fuel loading.

The WUI could become more of an influence on fire suppression and fuel management activities

in the future. Urban development and use of public land could increase as the population grows

and the desire to live close to wildlands remains desirable. The fire and fuels treatment program

is affected by the cost of suppressing wildfires, which has increased, particularly in the WUI.

The WUI is a key aspect of fire and fuels management. Table 3.31, “Wildland Urban Interface

Treatment Areas in the Planning Area” (p. 364) lists WUI areas that have been treated for fuels

reduction.

Table 3.31. Wildland Urban Interface Treatment Areas in the Planning Area

Name Adjacent Lands

Jurisdiction

Fuels Reduction

Treatment Type

Fuels Reduction

Project Time

Natural Fuels Type

Union Pass BLM and USFS Forest fuels

mechanical

10 years Lodgepole pine

Red Canyon

Subdivision

BLM Woodland and

sagebrush mechanical

5 years Juniper/limber pine

and sagebrush

Dubois Area BLM, USFS, and

state lands

Forest fuels

mechanical

15 years Lodgepole pine and

mountain shrub

South Pass Atlantic

City

BLM and USFS Forest fuels,

woodland, and

sagebrush mechanical

15 years Lodgepole pine,

mountain shrub,

Wyoming sagebrush

Homestead Park BLM and USFS Forest fuels,

woodland, and

sagebrush mechanical

and prescribed fire

10 years Lodgepole pine and

mountain shrub

Source: BLM 2009a

BLM Bureau of Land Management

USFS United States Forest Service

WUI Wildland-Urban Interface

Management Challenges for Unplanned/Wildfires

Over the last century, the focus on suppressing wildfires has created a management challenge

because fuels have built up and created the potential for larger wildfires. Likewise, the impacts of

disease (pine beetle and other infestations) and recent drought have created similar management

challenges. Fire and fuels management challenges have increased due to limited vegetation

treatments that reduce fuel loading, such as vegetative thinning and forest product sales.

Encroaching development and urbanization create challenges for managing wildfires in WUI

areas because the BLM needs to consider the potential impacts of fuels treatments and suppression

tactics to certain adjacent areas that still contain a natural aesthetic. As the WUI increases with

expanding development, the cost and personnel required to manage wildfires in these areas creates

additional management challenges.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Unplanned/Wildfire February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 365

3.3.2. Planned/Prescribed Fires and Other Fuels Treatments

Prescribed fires and other methods of fuels reduction including mechanical, hand cutting and

chemical treatments, have become increasingly important as tools to manage natural fuels

buildup and to achieve habitat and rangeland health management objectives. There are many

factors that affect the success of prescribed fire and other vegetation treatment methods. With

the use of prescribed fire, these include fire behavior and characteristics including fire size,

fire intensity, fire severity and weather conditions, as well as vegetation community condition

prior to burning and the short-term and long-term management of a treatment area. Prescribed

fires can also become uncontrolled due to a number of factors, including unanticipated weather

changes. The success of non-fire fuels treatments is similar in that it is dependent upon short-term

and long-term management of the project area post-treatment, the condition of the vegetation

community prior to treatment, and the appropriate treatment location and extent to strategically

reduce fuel loading in the event of a wildfire.

The goal of all fuels reduction and vegetation management treatments is to reduce the

accumulation of hazardous fuel, diversify vegetation age class structures, or rejuvenate areas

where woody vegetation has become decadent. For example, various areas of sagebrush and

mountain shrub habitat in the Mexican Creek drainage were successfully prescribed burned

between 2002 and 2005, rejuvenating wildlife habitat and reducing conifer encroachment.

A similar prescribed burn project is being implemented near Lysite Mountain. Examples of

mechanical treatments that have been implemented within the last several years include the

reduction of timber fuels loading in the Dubois area from 2003 through the present time,

mastication of juniper in the Lander area from 2005 through 2010, and mowing of sagebrush in

the Sweetwater Valley FMU from 2005 through 2010.

Prescribed fire can be used to open the timber canopy so that more grasses and forbs are available

and areas are open to wildlife use. Fire also can provide a mechanism for controlling plant

diseases and insect infestations. Succession processes, such as aspen gradually succeeding to

lodgepole pine and other conifers in the absence of fire, could be influenced by fire management.

However, landscape scale changes such as is now being experienced because of the pine beetle

infestation are likely to be considerable contributors to aspen succession. The success of fire as a

management tool is a function of precipitation timing and amounts following the fire as well as

post-fire vegetation management including livestock grazing.

The locations of prescribed fires are primarily selected so that fire improves rangeland health and

wildlife habitat as well as targeting areas of hazardous fuel loadings. Project area boundaries are

established to enable appropriate containment and control of the prescribed fire.

There are locations and fuels situations that are not appropriate for fire treatment, such as areas

with high potential for erosion or invasive plant infestation or areas where fire would adversely

impact visual resources. Subsequent chemical treatment could reduce the adverse impacts of

invasive species following the otherwise beneficial fire treatment. In locations with Wyoming

big sagebrush, the use of prescribed fires must be considered carefully. Wyoming sagebrush

ecological sites in the planning area are in Fire Regime Group III, with the return to mature

sagebrush dominated sites not occurring for at least 35 years after burning, but more likely not

occurring for closer to 100 years. The FMU analysis needs to consider both beneficial and

potentially adverse impacts from prescribed fires and wildlife habitat requirements (Davies et al.

2008, Davies et al. 2009a).

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Planned/Prescribed Fires and Other Fuels Treatments
366 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

From 1985 to 2008, prescribed fires were used to treat 6,162 acres (BLM 2009a). Results included

improved herbaceous production, rejuvenated crown sprouting, and robust seed production

among shrub species such as true mountain mahogany, antelope bitterbrush, snowberry, and

mountain sagebrush. In a few cases, portions of the treated areas were revegetated by invasive

species such as cheatgrass, with a corresponding adverse impact to wildlife habitat and overall

ecological health.

Vegetation treatment is addressed on a case-by-case basis because fire, mechanical, hand-cutting,

and chemical treatments might not be appropriate for conditions on the ground. For example,

studies indicate that burning of certain sagebrush steppe communities should be undertaken with

caution because of the threat of invasive plant species and the importance of intact sagebrush

steppe to many sagebrush-obligate wildlife species. Though non-fire fuels management methods

can be viewed as “safer” treatment options on the landscape, many of the same issues exist for

these options, such as threats of increasing the percent composition of invasive plant species

within treated areas as well as conflicts with other resource disciplines whose goals may include

maintaining current habitat conditions.

Large-scale prescribed burn, mechanical, and chemical fuels project areas are being identified, but

to successfully achieve these landscape-level projects, planning at the allotment level needs to

include fuels treatments where vegetation types are appropriate for the use of fire or other fuels

treatment options and, in the case of prescribed fire, often include a post-fire change in livestock

grazing management as described in Wyoming IM No. WY-2005–018.

Cheatgrass is a substantial component in many areas in the Sweetwater Valley, Lander Slope, and

Copper Mountain FMUs, and it responds favorably to the reduction of shrub canopy from burning,

mechanical and chemical treatment methods, negating the beneficial impacts of fuels treatment on

the vegetative community (Zouhar et al. 2008, Blumenthal et al. 2006). There are several areas in

these FMUs that would benefit from prescribed burning, mechanical treatment such as sagebrush

mowing, and thinning of sagebrush with tebuthiuron, but these treatment methods would not be

utilized due to the expected spread of cheatgrass unless followed by application of herbicides.

The Lander Field Office has identified prescribed fire/non-fire treatment objectives, planned

fuels treatment by vegetative type, and non-fire fuel treatment objectives. At present, prescribed

burning is a tool identified for each of the five FMUs that fall under the administration of the

Lander Field Office. There are approximately 44,000 acres identified as suitable for treatment

in the next 10 years either by prescribed burning and/or by mechanical, manual, chemical, or

biological methods. Areas that are of primary interest for the use of prescribed fire are:

● Vegetation communities within the 15- to 19-inch precipitation zones, especially large-scale

prescribed fire treatments in the Rattlesnake Hills and Green Mountain FMUs and smaller

prescribed burn treatments in the Dubois, Lander Slope, Sweetwater Valley, and Copper

Mountain FMUs (Map 43).

● Areas that have shown a beneficial response from such treatments are those dominated by

mountain shrub/grass and juniper/limber pine woodlands.

● Areas that are identified within Condition Class 2 or 3 and Fire Regime Group IV.

All fuels management treatment options can also be used as tools to counter the damage from

climate change by removing decadent vegetation and rejuvenating the carbon sequestration

potential of vegetation. Fuels reduction is even more important as the climate warms and results

in fluctuating precipitation patterns. Refer to the Climate Change section at the end of this chapter

for more information regarding climate change.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Planned/Prescribed Fires and Other Fuels

Treatments February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 367

Management Challenges for Planned/Prescribed Fires and Other Fuels

Treatments

Management challenges for prescribed fire include the successful collaboration with adjacent

landowners and stakeholders in conducting prescribed fires. The success of fire treatments

depends on collaboration with affected stakeholders, including adjoining landowners or livestock

permittees, surrounding municipalities, and regulatory agencies that monitor air quality. Planned

and prescribed fires are usually successful only if BLM partners and cooperators agree with the

approach. Another substantial challenge to implementing prescribed burns is conflicts with

objectives from other resource disciplines within the BLM and other resource management

agencies. For example, wildlife habitat management can limit the timing, extent or even the

use of prescribed fire within key habitat areas.

Challenges to non-fire fuels treatments include long-term management of the area treated, public

perception of the treatment, and conflicts with management objectives with other BLM programs.

Similar to the challenges that may restrict the use of prescribed fire within the planning area,

wildlife habitat management can also restrict the use and extent of mechanical and chemical

vegetation treatments.

3.3.3. Stabilization and Rehabilitation

The Burned Area Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation (ES&R) Plan is an interdisciplinary

response to protecting 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.

Fires throughout the West have become much larger, have threatened the natural integrity of

the burnt ecosystem, and have become a threat to human health and safety. The recovery of

burned landscapes, especially from large, landscape-level fires, sometimes requires actions to

maintain the integrity of the natural resources and the safety of adjacent communities. The need

to stabilize and rehabilitate burnt areas has become increasingly important. Some areas do not

successfully recover with native vegetation and become dominated by invasive plant species.

Many communities adjacent to wildfires are threatened by erosion of bare soil, loss of public

infrastructure, and contamination of water resources.

All wildfires are analyzed for the need to implement an ES&R Plan after the fire is contained.

Indicators of the need for an ES&R Plan for a burn are areas of high-severity burns, steep terrain,

high probability of proliferation of invasive plant species after the burn, and threats to human

health and safety or loss of infrastructure. Relatively few fires in the planning area require a plan.

Table 3.32, “Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation Plans and Treatments in the Planning

Area between 2000 and 2007” (p. 368) lists ES&R Plans developed for the planning area between

2000 and 2007. ES&R Plans were developed for wildfires such as the Pass Creek Fire (2002),

the Arapahoe Fire (2002), and five other wildfires over the past 10 years. The plans for the Pass

Creek and Purdy fires (USFS) were complex and addressed multiple threatened resources and

values. Most of the plans are of relatively low complexity and have not required substantial

funding to implement. Increased need for ES&R Plans has corresponded with the increase in

larger fires. ES&R Plans have been developed and successfully implemented in the planning area

to rehabilitate areas infested with cheatgrass, such as in the Twin Creek watershed.

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Stabilization and Rehabilitation
368 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table 3.32. Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation Plans and Treatments in the

Planning Area between 2000 and 2007

Fire name

Treatment Name Treatment

Category

Funding Source Treatment Fiscal Year

Fence Repair Fence Repair

Emergency

Stabilization

2 miles 2007

Poison Spider

RehabilitationRoad Signing

Protection

Emergency

Stabilization

25 signs 2007

Jeep Trail Closure

Erosion/

Sedimentation

Suppression

Activity Damage

20 acres 2003

RehabilitationRoad Signing

Roads Rehabilitation 1 sign 2003

Erosion Control

Structures

Erosion/

Sedimentation

Emergency

Stabilization

75 acres 2003

Temporary Fence

Erosion/

Sedimentation

Rehabilitation 320 acres 2003

Monitoring Invasive Weeds Rehabilitation 356 acres 2003

Arapahoe

Seeding

Erosion/

Sedimentation

Emergency

Stabilization

30 acres 2003

Monitoring Weeds Invasive Plants Rehabilitation 4,725 acres 2003

Monitoring

Vegetation

Erosion/

Sedimentation

Rehabilitation 4,725 acres 2003

RehabilitationRoad Signing

Roads Rehabilitation 44 signs 2003

Seeding

Erosion/

Sedimentation

Emergency

Stabilization

250 acres 2003

Pass Creek

Temporary Fence

Erosion/

Sedimentation

Rehabilitation 600 acres 2003

Temporary Fence

Erosion/

Sedimentation

Rehabilitation 5.75 miles 2001

Monitoring Weeds Invasive Plants Rehabilitation 30 acres 2001

Monitoring

Vegetation

Erosion/

Sedimentation

Rehabilitation 1,365 acres 2001

RehabilitationMonitoring Weeds

Invasive Plants Rehabilitation 30 acres 2001

Seeding

Erosion/

Sedimentation

Emergency

Stabilization

200 acres 2001

Murphy Draw

RehabilitationRoad Signing

Protection

Emergency

Stabilization

28 signs 2001

Temporary Fence

Erosion/

Sedimentation

Rehabilitation 1.6 miles 2000

RehabilitationMonitoring Weeds

Invasive Plants Rehabilitation 155 acres 2000

Monitoring

Vegetation

Erosion/

Sedimentation

Rehabilitation 155 acres 2000

RehabilitationMonitoring Weeds

– – 30 acres 2000

Seeding – – 155 acres 2000

RehabilitationRoad Signing

Protection

Emergency

Stabilization

28 signs 2000

Cottonwood

Erosion Control

Structures

Erosion/

Sedimentation

Emergency

Stabilization

10 waterbars 2000

Source: BLM 2009a

Management Challenges for Stabilization and Rehabilitation

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Stabilization and Rehabilitation February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 369

Fluctuations in precipitation patterns create management challenges for stabilization and

rehabilitation. The affect of continual years of drought intermixed with years of average or

slightly above average precipitation influences the need to develop ES&R plans following

a wildfire. Additionally, increased drought, disease, and large wildfires create management

challenges related to rehabilitation. The need for stabilization and rehabilitation in the planning

area is predicted to increase as wildfires become increasingly larger and include more expansive

high severity burned areas.

Impacts to water, soil, vegetation, and forests from larger wildfires increase the need for and

importance of stabilization and rehabilitation. Areas with burned vegetation are vulnerable to

erosion, especially due to fluctuations in precipitation patterns and the potential for severe storms

associated with climate change.

3.4. Biological Resources

This section describes the biological resources in the planning area including vegetation, invasive

species and pest management, fish, wildlife, special status species, and wild horses. Due to the

complexity of biological resources and the size of the planning area, this section does not attempt

to provide an encyclopedic description of all vegetation, fish, wildlife, and special status species

in the planning area. Common names for species are used throughout this section and the rest of

this document. A complete list of scientific names for species referenced in this document can

be found in Appendix P (p. 1611).

Acreage reported for biological resources in the planning area in this section does not include

the WRIR and USFS lands as the BLM does not manage these lands. However, these areas are

depicted on the referenced maps in this document to provide a visual and geographic context

for biological resources in the planning area. Important ecosystem components of biological

resources include biological diversity and habitat fragmentation which are discussed below.

Biological Diversity

The Keystone Center (Keystone Center 1991) defines four elements of biological diversity

relating to scale:

1. Genetic diversity

2. Species diversity

3. Community or ecosystem diversity

4. Landscape or regional diversity

Biological diversity is complex, and makes the measurement of existing conditions difficult.

Species diversity is the most recognizable and easily understood element of biological diversity

and in this document is defined as the variety of species found in the planning area. In other

words, species diversity includes the numbers and distribution of all species in the planning area.

This includes species (e.g., mule deer, elk, and pronghorn) that are common and plentiful, and

other species (e.g., burrowing owl, mountain plover, and bald eagle) that are less common or are

rare. Classifying rare species as sensitive, threatened, or endangered is one way of conserving

biological diversity because these classifications heighten awareness for conservation of rare

species.

Spatial and temporal scales are also important considerations for conserving biological diversity.

For example, nonmigratory populations of mammals are sometimes temporarily diminished

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Biological Resources
370 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

following a harsh winter and limited food supply. In addition, migratory birds might return to

breeding grounds with diminished populations due to the stresses associated with migration. In

these cases, the lower number of individuals of wildlife populations does not necessarily equate

to a reduction in biological diversity in the planning area because the number of individuals

ultimately (all else being equal) return to pre-winter levels. For the purposes of this document,

permanent reductions in the four elements of diversity listed above are considered adverse

impacts to biological diversity.

Counting the number and relative frequency of species occupying an area over time is one means

of identifying reductions in species diversity; however, this approach can be overly simplistic and

does not necessarily address the other three elements of diversity. There is no single commonly

accepted scientific protocol for measuring biological diversity. Nevertheless, it is generally

accepted that “...reducing the number of biological entities in a system or making some of them

less abundant reduces diversity” (Langner and Flather 1994).

Climatic factors (e.g., drought), disease, fire regime, predation, competition, and population

cycles all have contributed to the existing natural variability in number and relative frequency of

individuals, species, and communities of plants and animals in the planning area. Other factors

include surface-disturbing activities (e.g., road and well pad construction), the physical and

chemical environment (e.g., soil nutrients and water), adjacent area vegetation (e.g., croplands),

historic vegetation, invasive species, herbivory (e.g., native ungulates and livestock), and existing

vegetation in the planning area.

Existing conditions for biological diversity in the planning area is a function of physical factors

(e.g., soils, geology, air, water, geography, and elevation), natural factors (e.g., fire, drought,

disease, evolution), and human actions. In the context of these physical and natural factors,

biological diversity evolved over time to produce the diversity in the planning area prior to

European American settlement. Human actions during the subsequent 150 years changed the

pattern, composition, structure, and function of plant and animal communities in the planning

area, thus affecting the pre-European American biologically diverse settlement. Management

challenges for biological diversity include competing resources and resource uses. Management

actions to address these challenges are incorporated in the alternatives for physical and biological

resources and for fire and fuels management in Chapter 2.

Habitat Fragmentation

As large contiguous blocks of habitat are bisected into smaller blocks, they become isolated

from one another by dissimilar habitats and land uses. For example, a contiguous 100,000-acre

block of sagebrush habitat is considered fragmented when a road or other development is

constructed through the habitat, thereby bisecting the block. If, in this example, the road bisects

the 100,000-acre block in half, the result of this fragmentation is two 50,000-acre blocks of

sagebrush habitat bisected by a road. As blocks of habitat are repeatedly bisected into smaller

blocks, there can be adverse impacts, including isolation, to individual plant and animal species

and communities occupying the habitat. The impacts to biological resources from habitat

fragmentation can occur on multiple scales.

Actions that result in habitat loss are exacerbated when fragmentation reduces the size and/or

isolates remaining habitat patches below size thresholds necessary to support particular species.

Some species are area-sensitive and habitat loss and fragmentation that reduces or isolates their

area thresholds likely affects their distribution and abundance in the planning area.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Biological Resources February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 371

The planning area habitat is fragmented by linear features, including roads, trails, irrigation

systems, and ROWs. A network of state highways, county roads, and local roads on private and

public lands cross portions of the planning area. Fences can also block migration routes for

wildlife species such as pronghorn, consequently fragmenting their habitats. The conversion

of large areas of sagebrush to predominately grassland communities can fragment habitat for

sagebrush-dependent species such as the greater sage-grouse.

Habitat fragmentation in the planning area is most prevalent along the linear features identified in

the previous discussion; however, fragmentation also occurs at population centers, reservoirs,

and other developments where humans live, recreate, and work. For example, the development

of private parcels bordering BLM-administered lands has, in some instances, contributed to

habitat fragmentation by the conversion to subdivisions or smaller ranchettes. This type of

land conversion and habitat fragmentation primarily occurs near population centers and the

WUI. Buildings, roads, fences, and utility corridors associated with residential and commercial

developments have all contributed to habitat fragmentation in the planning area.

In addition to the linear features and other types of development, conditions on BLM-administered

land continue to be influenced by the management of resources and resource uses, including

mineral resources; fire and fuels management; forests, woodlands, and aspen communities; and

land resources. Refer to the appropriate sections in this chapter for additional details regarding

existing conditions for these resources and resource uses.

In general, development and the associated construction and maintenance of roads, railroads, well

pads, pipelines, and powerlines has fragmented habitat in the planning area. In addition, wildland

fires have sometimes contributed to temporary habitat fragmentation. Intense and large area burns

can temporarily isolate individual species and communities of plants and less mobile species of

animals. A frequent fire return interval often associated with invasive species can effectively

fragment habitat over the long term. Similar to fire, mechanical vegetative treatments have

generally been temporary. Motorized vehicle use also can contribute to habitat fragmentation

through the transportation of invasive species seeds.

Vegetation

The last ecological condition inventory in the planning area occurred between 1982 and 1983

using vegetation and soil information collected during the range site inventory and applying

this information to the Soil Conservation Service’s (now known as the Natural Resources

Conservation Service) method of calculating range condition. Results indicated that 6 percent

(53,241 acres) was in excellent condition, 52 percent (505,272 acres) was in good condition, 33

percent (327,581 acres) was in fair condition, and 6 percent (53,338 acres) was in poor condition.

Three percent (25,726 acres) was placed in an unclassified category. However, these results were

only identified for a portion of the planning area, which consisted of the Gas Hills, East Fork,

Dubois Badlands, Whiskey Mountain, and Dubois Area Management Units. For the remaining

portion of the planning area, the Green Mountain Management Unit, the previous planning

document only estimated that “70 to 80 percent of the area was in far to low-good condition

with a static to upward trend” (BLM 1982).

At present, approximately 45 percent of the planning area has been evaluated for compliance with

the Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands (BLM 1997b). These assessments indicated that

75 allotments (280,006 acres) are meeting the standards and 41 allotments (776,671 acres) are not

meeting one or more standards as a result of grazing, and 194 allotments (1,056,677 acres) have

not been assessed. Table K.3, “Lander Field Office Grazing Allotments Assessed for Meeting

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Biological Resources
372 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Standards” (p. 1569) identifies the allotments that have been evaluated, and the results of those

evaluations. Monitoring of rangelands is conducted primarily by the field office Rangeland

Management staff, which generally documents use levels, conditions, and trends in rangeland

attributes in coordination with current processes, such as the Wyoming Standards for Healthy

Rangelands and grazing permit renewals. Over time, the BLM intends to continue assessing

grazing allotments through a landscape approach, as discussed in Section 3.6.5, “Livestock

Grazing Management” (p. 479) of this document.

In many cases throughout the planning area, vegetation communities are “locked” into a stable

state of range condition in the early to mid seral states. It might take a disturbance event, such as

fire or mechanical treatment, to improve the current seral status or state.

There are three major types of vegetative communities in the planning area: forest and woodland

communities, grassland and shrubland communities, and riparian-wetland communities. These

communities are identified on Map 45.

Precipitation patterns and zones play an important role in the functions and types of vegetative

communities (Map 44).

● The Wind River Basin is in the 5- to 9-inch precipitation zone, with some inclusions in and

around the town of Shoshoni where precipitation might be less than 5 inches annually.

● Most of the area of increasing elevation up Beaver Rim into the Sweetwater Valley is in the

10- to 14-inch High Plains East precipitation zone.

● Areas in the higher elevation portions of the Green Mountain physiographic feature, the

Rattlesnake Mountain Range, and the Copper Mountain and Bridger Mountain Range area

receive more than 15 inches of precipitation annually. These areas are unique oases of the

intermountain cold desert shrublands that dominate the area.

● The Lander Slope and Twin Creek areas are characterized by both the 10- to 14-inch and the

15-inch+ precipitation zones, with ecological sites that portray those areas.

● The Dubois area is mostly in a rain shadow, but all precipitation zones found in the

planning area are within a very short distance. As elevation increases, precipitation changes

dramatically from a desert environment in and around Dubois to a spruce/fir/aspen community

in the Ramshorn Peak area near the headwaters of Tappan Creek.

Table 3.33, “Acreage of Vegetative Communities in the Planning Area” (p. 373) lists the acreage

for plant communities in the planning area based on Wyoming GAP Analysis data (BLM 2012a).

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Biological Resources February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 373

Table 3.33. Acreage of Vegetative Communities in the Planning Area

Vegetative Type Total Acreage

BLM-Administered

surface acreage

Percent BLMadministered surface

acreage

Grasslands 276,142 177,156 7.4

Sagebrush 2,396,517 1,770,153 73.9

Conifer (ponderosa/

lodgepole pine forests)

34,232 19,058 0.8

Desert shrubs and

saltbush-greasewood flats

301,833 231,746 9.7

Juniper/limber pine, and

aspen (woodlands)

67,268 42,803 1.8

Mountain shrubs 94,410 70,518 2.9

Riparian-wetland 131,684 54,292 2.3

Other (rockland, disturbed

Area, water, unclassified)

45,120 25,416 1.1

Totals 3,347,206 2,391,142 -

Source: BLM 2012a

Note: Percentages might not sum to 100 due to rounding; totals for acreage columns do not equal total planning

area and total BLM-administered land in the planning area due to differences in source files for boundary and for

vegetation.

BLM Bureau of Land Management

The USDA NRCS developed Major Land Resource Areas (MLRAs) as a way to classify

geographic areas with similar elevation, topography, geology, climate, water, soils, biological

resources, and land use (USDA 2006). The planning area lies within three MLRAs (Map 45),

as described below:

1. MLRA 32 – Northern Intermountain Desertic Basins (5- to 9-inch and 10- to 14-inch

precipitation zones) – MLRA 32 occupies the lowest elevations and includes salt desert

environments and soils that support sagebrush but not large contiguous stands. This MLRA

has the longest growing season in the planning area, but is also the driest.

2. MLRA 34A – Cool Central Desertic Basins and Plateaus (7- to 9-inch and 10- to 14-inch

precipitation zones) – While many MLRAs in Wyoming support sagebrush, MLRA 34A

forms the core of sagebrush habitat in Wyoming. This is the most intact tract of sagebrush

remaining in the world. Virtually everywhere else the sagebrush biome is fragmented and

threatened. Green Mountain, and to a lesser extent Crooks Mountain, have the alpine

characteristics associated with MLRA 43B, but the region is too small to map separately on

the scale appropriate for MLRAs.

3. MLRA 43B – Central Rocky Mountains (15- to 19-inch and 20-inch+ precipitation zones) –

MLRA 43B is an alpine environment. It has the shortest growing season and the highest

precipitation in the planning area. It includes the Wind River Front and the south slopes of

the Owl Creek and Copper Mountains. Much of this MLRA is forest or mountain shrub

vegetation types.

Each MLRA contains a set of “Ecological Sites,” which describes the land capability and

function based on precipitation zones, soil factor differences that determine plant production and

composition, site hydrology, functioning of the ecological processes of the water cycle, nutrient

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Biological Resources
374 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

cycles, and energy flow. Different ecological sites exhibit differences in the number and relative

proportion of species and total annual vegetation production.

Ecological site descriptions are used as the initial basis for determining the existing and potential

range of conditions for each site. State and transition models are used to develop objectives and

guide management actions necessary to meet the Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands

(Appendix J (p. 1537)). State and transition models describe the anticipated vegetation changes

on a given site over time in response to various types of disturbances and environmental factors

(NRCS 2003).

Vegetative Conditions

Appendix Q (p. 1617) provides a general discussion of vegetative conditions in the planning

area. The appendix provides an estimate of vegetation conditions based on data from existing

vegetation, fire regime groups, FRCC from regional LANDFIRE data, and estimates from ground

level conditions. The coarse scale, landscape level assessment of the condition classes for

vegetation types in the planning area was conducted in 2001 for the purpose of describing the

Fire Regime Group and the Landscape Level FRCC, and to provide the only planning area wide

inventory available for determining the ecological condition of vegetation communities. The

LANDFIRE database description of the ecological condition of vegetation communities was used

because the Lander Field Office has not completed a forest and woodlands inventory, and there

has not been an Ecological Site Inventory of grassland and shrubland conditions in more than 35

years. This assessment technique does not provide useful information for riparian-wetlands, as

the scale is too broad.

While the information provided in Appendix Q (p. 1617) provides broad information that can be

informative at the RMP level of analysis, up-to-date inventories are still needed. Refer to the Fire

and Fuels Management section for additional information on the FRCC system.

3.4.1. Vegetation – Forests, Woodlands, and Aspen Communities

Approximately 61,861 acres, or 2.6 percent, of BLM-administered surface in the planning

area consists of forest and woodland communities (including juniper/limber pine and aspen

woodlands and conifer forests) (Map 45). Overall, forest and woodland health throughout the

West is declining. Drought conditions, hotter summers and fewer deep winter freezes have

stressed forest and woodland communities and made them more susceptible to insect and disease

outbreaks. Related to changing climatic conditions, 100 years of fire suppression has altered the

ecology of the existing landscape. Evidence of the combination of these factors include juniper

encroachment, conifer stands decimated by pest infestation, and the decline of aspen stands. Loss

of aspen stands have been reported throughout the west, with the highest mortality occurring in

areas where aspen is a mid-seral species (Bartos and Campbell 1998).

Age-class distribution, diversity, fire return intervals, as well as pine beetle and other infestations,

are key indicators of forest and woodland health. Aspen, because of its importance as a vegetative

resource for wildlife habitat, serves as an overall indicator species for forest and woodland health.

Forest Communities

Forest communities comprise approximately 19,058 acres of BLM-administered surface, or less

than 1 percent of the planning area. Forest communities in the planning area are dominated by

lodgepole pine with some confined Douglas-fir and Engelmann spruce stands, and are primarily

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Vegetation – Forests, Woodlands, and Aspen

Communities February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 375

found north of Dubois and Lander, and in the South Pass and Green Mountain areas. The

importance of these forest stands is a function of their distribution, relatively long rotation age

(number of years to maturity), and the diversity of plants and animals they support. Age-class

distribution of forested lands is tending toward mature, heavily stocked stands with younger

age-class stands in smaller areas that have burned over the past 30 years or have had some

logging activity over the past 40 years. Portions of these older and more mature stands remain

healthy, but many are declining in tree vigor and productivity. The advanced age and density

of these stands, combined with the lack of vegetative treatments and altered fire regime, have

contributed to the decline in overall forest stand health. Vegetative treatment includes methods to

manage natural processes, insects and diseases, structure, density, species composition, age-class

distribution, and site quality of forest stands.

The age-class distribution of lodgepole pine stands is largely a result of past logging activities and,

to a lesser extent, the influence of wildland fires and wind throw. Except where there has been

recent (within approximately the last 50 years) disturbance, lodgepole pine is primarily even-aged

stands between 100 and 200 years old with size classes of pole (5- to 9-inch diameter breast

height) and medium saw timber (9- to 21-inch diameter breast height). Old-growth characteristics

are generally not applied to lodgepole pine.

Lodgepole pine is stressed by mountain pine beetle and dwarf mistletoe infestations in scattered

patches throughout the planning area. Forested lands adjoining the planning area exhibit more

pest damage than in the planning area itself. The mountain pine beetle has most heavily affected

the Dubois area, but there are signs of disease on Green Mountain and Lander Slope. Funding

levels provide little scope for management response to the spread of the mountain pine beetle.

The BLM works with the Shoshone National Forest and the community of Dubois to control

pine beetle infestations.

Douglas-fir and Engelmann spruce are minor components of forested areas. Douglas-fir stands are

found in the South Pass, Lander Slope, and Dubois areas and are restricted to limestone derived

calcareous soils of the Wind River Slope. Some of the Douglas-fir stands in the Mexican Creek

area of Lander Slope display old growth characteristics with basal bark scarring from past fires

and age classes in excess of 300 years. Engelmann spruce is limited to forested drainage bottoms.

Small stands are found on Green Mountain, Lander Slope, South Pass, and in the Dubois area.

Neither Douglas-fir nor Engelmann spruce display the degree of infestation and mortality that

is affecting lodgepole pine and limber pine.

Woodland Communities

Woodland communities comprise approximately 42,803 acres, or 1.8 percent of

BLM-administered surface in the planning area. Woodlands include limber pine, Rocky Mountain

and Utah juniper stands, aspen stands, and cottonwood galleries along waterways. In general,

distribution of aspen has decreased, while limber pine and juniper stands have increased.

Identified woodland areas are on the Lander Slope, Green Mountain, Copper Mountain-Lysite

Mountain area, the Beaver Creek-Twin Creek area, the Sweetwater Rocks, the Dubois/Wind

River area, and portions of the Rattlesnake Range. Juniper/limber pine woodlands occur in the

Beaver Creek and Twin Creek areas. Limber pine has been more acutely impacted by disease than

other woodland species in the planning area. There is no whitebark pine in the planning area, and

as such management does not address this BLM sensitive species; see the Wyoming sensitive

species list for locations of other sensitive species (NRCS No Date). Extensive herbivory has

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Vegetation – Forests, Woodlands, and Aspen

Communities
376 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

adversely impacted aspen stands in numerous areas, including on Green Mountain and Beaver

Rim. The long-term lack of fire necessary to regenerate aspen stands has also been detrimental.

Aspen is scattered throughout the planning area, although most stands are maturing and

distributions are declining. Most of the aspen occurs within forest and woodland sites in mid-seral

communities that naturally transition into conifer stands before a disturbance, such as fire,

returns the stands to early- and mid-seral aspen dominated woodland communities. Aspen stands

typically exhibit a diversity of understory vegetation, are used by wildlife and livestock, can serve

as natural fire breaks, and often occur as part of important riparian-wetland components in the

forest system. Older aspen stands are showing signs of increased cankers, conks, and decay in the

boles, and generally have little clone regeneration due to competition from conifers and herbivory

from wildlife and livestock. The healthiest aspen stands are on Lander Slope and in the Dubois

area, probably due to the extensiveness of the forested landscape and the lack of concentrated

browsing pressure; the largest acreage of this community occurs in the Green Mountain area.

Much of the aspen at middle to high elevations is declining as succession to conifer dominance

proceeds. In the absence of treatment or re-generation through fire or other landscape-wide

event, this trend would continue. The loss of deciduous forestland affects watershed and

riparian-wetland function and the diversity of habitat. Slowing the landscape level loss of aspen

is a high management priority and is being addressed by aspen regeneration projects using the

most recent aspen inventory data.

Forest Products

Forest product sales in the planning area are minimal with total receipts of $4,209 in 2005, $4,956

in 2006, $5,513 in 2007, and $5,478 in 2008 (fiscal years). These receipts were mainly from sales

of fuel wood permits, Christmas tree permits, and post and pole permits.

Management of Forests, Woodlands, and Aspen Communities

Forest Communities

Forestlands in the Lander Slope-Red Canyon, South Pass, Whiskey Mountain, and East Fork areas

are under restricted management for forest products due to access and topographical limitations

(steep slopes) associated with forest management in these areas. The BLM manages stands in

the WUI to reduce hazardous fuel loading. Refer to the Fire and Fuels Management section for

information on planned/prescribed fire and non-fire treatments by FMU in the Southern Zone Fire

Management Plan (FMP) (BLM 2004b) (Appendix O (p. 1605)).

The BLM has attempted to increase forest sales in recent years to address fuel loading and beetle

kill. There is an opportunity to combine the BLM harvest with other state, private, and federal

agency harvests where jurisdictional boundaries cut through larger sale areas. The Healthy

Forest Initiative of 2002 and the subsequent Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2003 promotes

expediting fuels reduction and forest restoration and entering into stewardship contracts under

which contractors would harvest wood products and complete service work such as thinning trees

and removing dead wood (BLM 2009a). In the planning area, however, there is a weak demand

for the forest products that could be garnered through these stewardship contracts (with the

exception of the Dubois area, where there is currently a demand for all types of forest products).

The demand for minor wood products such as firewood, posts and poles, and Christmas trees

is likely to continue and could be a tool to manage areas, such as Green Mountain, that would

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Vegetation – Forests, Woodlands, and Aspen

Communities February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 377

benefit from thinning. However, the cost in time and fuel to drive to Green Mountain makes this

area much less desirable to those interested in forest products from the Lander area than closer

areas in the Lander Slope and South Pass areas.

Woodland Communities

The BLM manages 42,803 acres of woodlands in the planning area to enhance other resources.

Management includes enhancement of aspen stands through the removal of encroaching limber

pine and juniper from mountain shrubland habitat. Future site-specific inventories would identify

additional acres of these vegetative types because of woodland encroachment on shrublands.

The Green Mountain area has the largest acreage of aspen within the planning area, with over

6,000 acres. Treatment has averaged approximately 50 acres annually since 2006. This level

of treatment is not sufficient to maintain and enhance the health of this community type, but

with proper funding and staffing to issue larger aspen health contracts and utilize tools (e.g., the

Stewardship Contracting Authority and service contracts), greater benefits to aspen communities

could be achieved. Barring any major surface disturbance, conifers would eventually replace

most of the aspen stands, impacting overall forest health, wildlife habitat requirements, and visual

resources (Wyoming State Forestry Division 2001). Major disturbance to woodland communities

include wildland fires, and mountain pine beetle or other insect infestations; which can result in

massive losses of woodlands.

Management Challenges for Forests, Woodlands, and Aspen Communities

Management challenges for forests, woodlands, and aspen communities include the lack of a

natural fire regime, limited fuels management, fragmented and isolated stands, encroachment of

woodland species, lack of an up-to-date inventory, a weak local and regional demand for sawlogs,

declining or over-mature stands, and management of disease, insects, pathogens, and invasive

species. Fragmented vegetative communities generally suffer from these declining conditions

more than other vegetative communities.

Mountain pine beetle infestations can result in management challenges for forests, woodlands,

and aspen communities as conifers have very little defense against infestation and entire stands

can be destroyed by a single brood of pine beetles. Mountain pine beetles infestations result

in substantial changes in species composition and an altered fuels complex. Early pine beetle

infestations result in an increase in the amount of fine surface fuels compared to endemic stands.

In post infestation stands, large, dead, wood fuels, and live surface fuels dominate. Infestations of

pine beetles can increase the occurrence, rate of spread, and intensity of fires that affect forests,

woodlands, and aspen communities.

The impacts of climate change might also be contributing to management challenges associated

with disease, drought, infestation, habitat fragmentation, and other issues. Refer to the Climate

Change section at the end of this chapter for additional information on the potential impacts of

climate change in the planning area.

3.4.2. Vegetation – Grassland and Shrubland Communities

The sagebrush biome, which consists of grassland, sagebrush, mountain shrub, and desert

shrub and saltbush-greasewood flats vegetative types (Table 3.33, “Acreage of Vegetative

Communities in the Planning Area” (p. 373)) comprises 2,249,573 acres, or 94 percent of the

BLM-administered surface in the planning area. The sagebrush biome has become increasingly

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Vegetation – Grassland and Shrubland Communities
378 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

important as it is lost throughout the western United States to development, urbanization, and

fragmentation. For decades, the objective was to convert sagebrush steppe, whenever it could be

done in a cost-effective manner, to crops or grassland. In the Great Basin, altered fire regimes from

cheatgrass infestation have removed approximately half of the sagebrush in the last few decades.

Sagebrush plays an especially important role in relation to greater sage-grouse, which is declining

in population and distribution across much of its range. Native herbivores, including bison,

were present in low numbers on the sagebrush-steppe region prior to European settlement of

the western states (Miller et al. 1994), and greater sage-grouse co-evolved with these animals

(USFWS 2010). Native vegetation communities within the sagebrush ecosystem evolved in the

absence of substantial grazing presence (Mack and Thompson 1982, Miller et al. 1994). These

same plant communities are not adapted to domestic grazing disturbance. Grazing has changed

the functioning of these systems into less resilient, and in some cases, altered communities (Knick

et al. 2011). Sagebrush in the planning area remains largely intact and the Lander Field Office is

positioned to ensure the proper functioning of the biome (Map 45).

Alteration of the herbaceous community due to long-term impacts from livestock grazing, and

a reduction in the influence of natural disturbances such as fire across the landscape, has likely

increased sagebrush cover within these communities. Upland sagebrush steppe Historic Climax

Plant Communities of the Ecological Site Descriptions (USDA-NRCS) found in the planning area

is generally 75 percent grasses, 10 to 15 percent forbs, and 10 to 15 percent shrubs by weight.

Standard 3 of the Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands states that upland vegetation

on each ecological site should consist of plant communities appropriate to the site which are

resilient, diverse, and able to recover from natural and human disturbance (Appendix J (p. 1537)).

Indicators used to assess upland vegetation health include vegetative cover, plant composition

and diversity, bare ground and litter, erosion, water infiltration rates, and invasive species. Refer

to the Livestock Grazing Management section of this chapter for additional information on the

Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands.

Most vegetative communities have been influenced by surface-disturbing activities, livestock

grazing, and fire or fire suppression. As mineral developments and pipeline projects increase,

sagebrush and grassland conditions are increasingly affected.

Existing management practices for upland grass and shrub communities are addressed primarily

through monitoring livestock grazing, evaluating terms and conditions of individual grazing

permits, and the development and implementation of Allotment Management Plans (AMPs). As

discussed in the Livestock Grazing Management section, the impacts of drought, climate change,

and mineral development on grass and shrub communities have been historically overlooked.

Moreover, short-term indicators, such as stubble height of vegetation in riparian-wetland areas and

utilization on uplands, are only useful for determining whether livestock grazing may continue in

a given season, unless they are correlated to long-term trend data establishing a cause and effect

relationship. Long-term indicators, such as upland condition and trend studies are in place for

some high priority “Improve” category grazing allotments, but are lacking in other allotments.

Standards assessments of vegetative condition need to be completed to evaluate health and trends.

Grasslands

Grasslands comprise 177,156 acres, or 7.4 percent of BLM-administered surface in the planning

area and include lowland, foothill, mountain, and alpine types. Most of the grassland areas are in

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Vegetation – Grassland and Shrubland Communities February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 379

valley bottoms, uppermost south facing slopes, and scattered patches on windswept ridges, such

as the bighorn sheep habitat on Whiskey Mountain in Dubois.

The average composition of the grass vegetative type is 48 to 80 percent grass species, 10 percent

forbs, and 10 to 42 percent shrubs. Most of the grasslands on BLM-administered surface are

in a mid to late seral stage of plant succession, generally comprised of a lower percentage of

grass and herbaceous species and a higher percentage of shrubs compared to the historic climax

plant community. This condition is due to a number of factors, including, but not limited to, the

lack of disturbance from fire and historic livestock grazing that could have altered site species

composition. Grasses comprise only 7.4 percent of BLM-administered surface in the planning

area, but are important to wildlife, livestock, and wild horses and contribute to the diversity of the

area. Open grasslands are important components in bighorn sheep habitat. The typical habitat

types included in this vegetative type are highland short grass, sagebrush mixed grass, lowland

short grass, and sagebrush mixed shrub.

Shrublands

Sagebrush (1,770,153 acres, or 74 percent of BLM-administered surface) is the most common

vegetative type of the shrubland communities. The average species composition varies widely

across the sagebrush landscape, depending on soil classification and average annual precipitation.

Much like the BLM-administered grasslands, shrublands are generally in a mid to late seral stage

of succession, comprised of a lower percentage of herbaceous grass and grass-like species and a

higher percentage of shrubs compared to the historic climax plant community. An estimate for

most mid-seral sagebrush communities within the 10- to 14-inch precipitation zone is 50 to 65

percent grass, 5 to 10 percent forbs, and 15 to 35 percent shrubs.

There are multiple sagebrush species in the planning area. Basin sagebrush and silver sage

are discussed in the Riparian-Wetland Resources section. Bud sagebrush is identified in the

discussion of saline upland sites. Threetip sagebrush is present on clay soils and is common along

Lander Slope, although uncommon elsewhere. Low and black sagebrush are found on shallow

soils. Big sagebrush is the most widely recognized sagebrush.

Big sagebrush includes two subspecies of similar appearance, including mountain big sagebrush

and Wyoming big sagebrush. Only Wyoming big sagebrush occurs in the 5- to 9-inch precipitation

zone. Both subspecies occur in the 10- to 14-inch precipitation zone, and mountain big sagebrush

dominates the 15- to 19-inch precipitation zone. Age class studies of sagebrush stands indicate

that most of the planning area is dominated by monotypic old age class sagebrush approximately

80 to 100 years old or greater.

Big sagebrush is a biome level plant that supports a variety of obligate species such as greater

sage-grouse, pygmy rabbits, and vesper sparrows. Many species, such as mule deer, pronghorn,

and ferruginous hawk, are not sagebrush obligates, but occupy ranges closely correlated with

sagebrush. Domestic sheep graze sagebrush, especially on winter ranges.

Almost all big sagebrush communities can support an understory of cool season bunchgrasses.

Needle and thread is the key grass species on sandy soils; bluebunch wheatgrass is more prevalent

on loamy sites. These large cool season bunchgrasses occur in conjunction with a mix of smaller

grasses such as thickspike wheatgrass, Sandberg bluegrass, and prairie junegrass. Cool season

bunchgrasses complete over 90 percent of their growth in a relatively short period, primarily

in May. When subjected to repeated heavy grazing use during that short growth period, the

preferred cool season bunchgrasses tend to decline as a part of the plant community, after which

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Vegetation – Grassland and Shrubland Communities
380 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

more grazing adaptive species such as Sandberg bluegrass and threadleaf sedge become the

predominant component of the herbaceous community (Cagney et al. 2010).

Depending on location and soil type, blue grama or upland (needle leaf or threadleaf) sedges

usually prevail instead of smaller grasses. Blue grama is a warm season grass that produces

a minimum amount of forage and ground cover. Sagebrush communities are increasingly

vulnerable to cheatgrass infestations, especially in MLRA 32. Cheatgrass appears to be expanding

its range in the planning area. While cheatgrass is relatively uncommon in MLRA 43A, no area

occupied by sagebrush in the planning area is outside of its reach.

Plant succession in big sagebrush communities is complex, and cool season bunchgrasses, if lost

from a given site, do not readily reemerge on sites unless niches are opened through sagebrush

treatments. Because greater sage-grouse habitat is a prime concern, sagebrush treatments might or

might not be appropriate, and prescribed fire should be used only with great care.

Mountain shrub communities (70,518 acres, or 2.9 percent of BLM-administered surface) occur

primarily in the 15- to 19-inch precipitation zone. Mountain big sagebrush, bitterbrush, and snow

berry are the key species. Mountain mahogany sometimes occurs, mostly in conjunction with

Utah juniper on rocky outcrops in lower-precipitation zones. The grass component includes

needle grasses, mountain brome, and Idaho fescue. Arrowleaf balsamroot is a key forb. Mountain

shrub areas provide forage for livestock and wildlife, particularly mule deer.

Salt desert habitats (231,746 acres, or 9.7 percent of BLM-administered surface) consisting of

desert shrubs and saltbush-greasewood flats are found in two basic forms, saline upland and

saline lowland. Saline upland sites are found along the base of Beaver Rim and in the northeast

portion of the planning area. These sites are dominated by Gardner’s saltbush, often with bud

sagebrush. If the salt content is not too severe, these sites have a herbaceous component that

includes thickspike wheatgrass and Indian ricegrass. On the edge between a saline upland site and

a loamy site, Wyoming big sagebrush and bottlebrush squirreltail can intermingle with the salt

tolerant species. They offer high levels of protein in the fall and winter making these sites winter

range for livestock and wildlife, particularly domestic sheep and pronghorn. When saline soils

are disturbed, reclamation efforts are difficult.

When saline upland sites are subject to improperly managed grazing, the herbaceous component

declines and pure stands of Gardener’s saltbush develop. The higher the salt content in the soil,

the more vulnerable these sites are to this transition. Saline upland sites are also vulnerable to the

invasive plant species halogeton. In most circumstances, halogeton is an opportunistic species that

occupies disturbed sites. However, halogeton does have the ability to advance onto undisturbed

saline upland sites. Saline lowland sites are dominated by greasewood, with variable amounts of

basin big sagebrush that decline with increasing salinity as the amount of greasewood increases.

Rockland

This “vegetative” type covers approximately 10,828 acres, or less than 1 percent of the

BLM-administered surface in the planning area. Sites include areas of unharvestable trees

or brush and rocky or barren areas with little or no potential for agricultural activities due to

inaccessibility or a lack of forage production. Typical rockland sites are Sweetwater Rocks,

Copper Mountain, and Green Mountain. These areas are used by wildlife for escape and thermal

cover and by recreationists.

Management Challenges for Grassland and Shrubland Communities

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Vegetation – Grassland and Shrubland Communities February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 381

Management challenges for grassland and shrubland communities include addressing impacts

associated with surface-disturbing activities, livestock grazing, and fire or fire suppression.

As mineral developments and pipeline projects increase, sagebrush and grassland conditions

are adversely impacted. Additional factors such as drought and climate change have been

historically overlooked. Moreover, short-term indicators such as stubble height of vegetation in

riparian-wetland areas or utilization on uplands are only useful for determining whether livestock

grazing may continue in a given season, unless they are correlated to long-term trend data

establishing a cause and effect relationship. Long-term indicators, such as upland condition and

trend studies that would provide long-term information are in place to “Improve” category grazing

allotments, but are lacking in other allotments.

Shifting precipitation patterns and potential climate change cause additional management

challenges in grassland and shrubland communities. Cool season bunchgrasses do not resume

growth if their spring growing season is aborted due to drought, even if ideal climate conditions

for growth return. In the absence of any climate change, Wyoming undergoes climatic shifts in

precipitation, which requires monitoring, observation, and timely inventories of rangelands to

ensure proper responses to changes are implemented. Refer to the Climate Change section at the

end of this chapter for additional information on climate change in the planning area.

Increased surface disturbance from human actions, drought, and erosion have lead to the

establishment and spread of invasive species in grassland and shrubland communities, resulting in

additional management challenges. The mostly arid climate of the planning area affords little

reserve moisture during times of prolonged drought. Although native plant communities adapted

to cope with natural shifts in precipitation from wet to dry, human intervention and climate

change are altering that relationship. The loss of soil through wind and water erosion can remove

nutrients and organic matter from the ecosystem and affect grassland and shrubland communities

potentially impacting the health and viability of existing plant communities

Management challenges for grassland and shrubland communities also result from grazing.

Historic overuse of the rangeland and concentration on riparian-wetland areas by season long

livestock grazing have led to plant communities that are not meeting the potential for the site,

and possibly resulting failure to meet the Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands. In some

areas, range site vegetation has crossed a threshold and moved to a different transitional state.

It might not be possible to restore these areas through rest and/or management and they might

require mechanical intervention. Refer to the Livestock Grazing Management section of this

chapter for additional information.

Increased mineral development is affecting range conditions. Invasive plant species such as

halogeton have slowly made their way into these areas. Once established, halogeton tends to

spread, displacing desirable species. In the past, there was little monitoring and enforcement of

reclamation activities and some mines were abandoned without reclamation. Historic mining

areas are slowly being reclaimed with mixed success under a variety of programs.

3.4.3. Invasive Species and Pest Management

Invasive species is defined as “a species that is nonnative to the ecosystem under consideration

and whose introduction causes or is likely to cause economic or environmental health or harm

to human health” (NISC 2008). State of Wyoming Designated noxious weeds are those plants

that are considered detrimental or poisonous and have been placed on the Wyoming designated

noxious weed list by the procedure provided for in the Wyoming Weed and Pest Control Act of

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Invasive Species and Pest Management
382 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

1973. Typically, these weeds are perennial or biennial, difficult to control, and usually interfere

with agriculture. The State of Wyoming designates six animal species and 25 plant species

as pests and noxious weeds. This list is dynamic and additions to it are made as necessary

by the Wyoming Board of Agriculture and the Wyoming Weed and pest Council. Declaring a

plant, insect, or rodent to be an invasive weed or pest allows for joint funding for control and

assistance through the established state statute. Most of the weeds found on this list are capable

of producing monotypic stands as they may process a competitive advantage in establishing on

disturbed soils; also, some are allelopathic, producing or accumulating toxins to keep the seeds

of other species from germinating. There are 30 additional plant species listed by adjoining

states as noxious weeds, bringing the total list to 55 plants that are weedy in Wyoming or

bordering states. A number of other species are of concern for the community. The result is a

list of approximately 75 species of interest. Table 3.34, “Wyoming Weed and Pest Control Act

Designated List” (p. 382) lists the Wyoming Weed and Pest Control Act designated invasive

plant and pest species.

In 2007, invasive vegetation and invasive plant species were determined to be the dominant

vegetation on an estimated 35 million acres of public lands in the western United States (BLM

2007c). In 1996, the spread of invasive plants on all western public lands was estimated to be

2,300 acres per day (BLM 1996). It is difficult to estimate the damage invasive species cause;

however, as early as 1992, invasive species were determined to result in $2 to $3 billion in crop

losses alone (NISC 2008). West Nile virus (WNV) is an invasive pathogen which, from 1999

to 2008, had caused 1,134 deaths in the U.S. (Lindsey et al. 2010). WNV is further discussed

in the Health and Safety section. Executive Order 13112, established the Invasive Species

Advisory Committee to represent diverse constituencies around the nation in the development

of an invasive species plan. Completed in 2001, the plan has subsequently been updated with a

five-step approach to addressing invasive species: prevention, early detection and rapid response,

control and management, restoration, and collaboration (BLM 2009a).

Table 3.34. Wyoming Weed and Pest Control Act Designated List

Wyoming Invasive and Noxious Weeds

Canada thistle Houndstongue Russian knapweed

Common burdock Leafy spurge Russian olive

Common St. Johnswort Musk thistle Scotch thistle

Common tansy Ox-eye daisy Skeletonleaf bursage

Dalmatian toadflax Perennial pepperweed Spotted knapweed

Diffuse knapweed Perennial sowthistle Tamarisk

Dyers woad Plumeless thistle Yellow toadflax

Field bindweed Purple loosestrife –

Hoary cress (whitetop) Quackgrass –

Designated Pests

Beet leafhopper Ground squirrel Mountain pine beetle

Grasshopper Mormon cricket Prairie dog

Source: Wyoming Board of Agriculture and the Wyoming Weed and Pest Council 2010

Other designated plant species, such as black henbane, larkspur, and halogeton, are of special

concern because they are poisonous. Under state law, local weed and pest districts can declare

additional species to be a weed or pest in their district. Table 3.35, “Declared List of Weeds

and Pests by Counties in the Planning Area” (p. 383) identifies the secondary declared weeds

as of 2010 by county weed and pest district.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Invasive Species and Pest Management February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 383

Table 3.35. Declared List of Weeds and Pests by Counties in the Planning Area

Species Fremont County Carbon County Natrona County Sweetwater County

Army cutworm No No No Yes

Black henbane No No Yes Yes

Buffalobur No No Yes No

Cheatgrass No No Yes No

Curlycup gumweed No No Yes No

Foxtail barley No No Yes Yes

Halogeton No Yes Yes No

Lady’s bedstraw No No No Yes

Mosquito Yes Yes Yes Yes

Mountain thermopsis No No No Yes

Plains larkspur, Geyer

larkspur

No Yes No No

Plains prickly pear No Yes No No

Poplar bud-gall mite No No No Yes

Puncturevine No No Yes No

Russian olive Yes No No No

Showy milkweed No No Yes No

Swainsonpea Yes No No No

Wild licorice No No Yes Yes

Wyeth lupine No Yes No No

Source: Wyoming Department of Agriculture 2010

As of 2007, there were 11,547 acres of BLM-administered surface in Fremont County identified as

infested with invasive plant species (BLM 2009a). These infestations were found to include black

henbane and Swaisonpea. The primary location of leafy spurge infestation in the planning area

is on the Lander Slope. Natrona County has approximately 500 acres of infestations, primarily

leafy spurge. Other invasive plants like common burdock, perennial pepperweed, bull thistle, and

sulfur cinquefoil are found in the planning area, but rarely, if ever, on BLM-administered public

lands. There are also biennial thistles in the Forest oil field area. Map 46 shows the locations of

identified invasive species in the planning area. Additional information is available through the

Fremont County Weed and Pest District (Fremont County Weed and Pest District 2009).

Sweetwater County does have some problems with invasive species; black henbane is present

on roads and pipeline ROWs and is the major concern in this area. This part of the Great

Divide Basin contains primarily annual invasive plants on disturbed ground such as cheatgrass,

halogeton, and Russian thistle. There are also biennial thistles in the Forest oil field area. Black

henbane is the invasive plant of concern that appears to be spreading with the increasing oil and

gas related surface-disturbing activities in Sweetwater County.

The Lander Field Office controls invasive species on the public lands through cooperative

agreements with the Fremont and Natrona Weed and Pest Control Districts. In addition to the

county weed and pest control districts, the Lander Field Office works in cooperation with the

WGFD, State Lands Division, State Parks, local NRCS offices, and private landowners. Invasive

species are an increasing problem in the planning area and are affecting water and other resources.

The BLM invasive species program has treated between 136 and 800 acres annually over the

past decade. Energy companies treat approximately 70 to 200 acres annually for invasive plant

species in addition to general vegetation treatments for fire hazards (BLM 2009a). On average,

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Invasive Species and Pest Management
384 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

the BLM annually treats 700 acres in Fremont County and 70 acres in Natrona County with

herbicides (BLM 2009a).

There is a linear relationship with surface-disturbing activities and invasive species. Proper land

rehabilitation practices can allow native vegetation to establish and out compete annual invasive

plants in times of normal precipitation and if seedlings are protected from concentrated herbivory,

which can otherwise lead to seedling mortality.

At present, WSAs, study exclosures, and most ACECs are almost free of invasive species. Roads

and watercourses are the typical routes of invasive species invasion. The most invasive plant

infested area is the Lander Slope ACEC and, secondarily, the riparian-wetland area of Beaver

Creek. With well-established stands of leafy spurge, Russian knapweed, and hoary cress, the

strategy is to contain these invasive plants at the perimeter of the infestation, typically through

herbicides, and to introduce insect vectors in the infested areas. Gradually, since the early 1990s,

the bulk of the introduced insects have been able to adapt or travel to suitable sites where they

can survive, multiply, and diffuse to other infested areas. Some of the insects need a bit of help

still and they are collected and placed where they are needed.

Before the 1990s, leafy spurge was largely a problem confined to the Lander Slope. Leafy spurge

has since spread to ephemeral drainages to the Government Draw area and Beaver Creek. It can

also be found sporadically along the Sweetwater River and in the Sweetwater Rocks in the Split

Rock area. Horse Creek and Keester Basin in Natrona County have some isolated patches of leafy

spurge, but they do not appear to be expanding. The introduction of Aphthona flea beetles has

helped control some areas heavily infested by leafy spurge.

Russian knapweed has expanded its range in the planning area. This species occurs along

Twin and Beaver Creeks and the wide floodplain of Badwater Creek and its tributaries in the

northeastern part of Fremont County. It is also found in the ephemeral drainages between Poison

Creek, by Moneta, to Lysite, Wyoming.

Spotted and diffuse knapweed are becoming more common along highways and in campgrounds.

There is an infestation on the eastern part of Green Mountain in the Cooper Creek drainage that

appears to be related to previous surface-disturbing activities.

Tamarisk, or salt cedar, has expanded its range in the past two decades to several small drainages

north of Beaver Rim, including Big Sand Draw, and a dozen or more small reservoirs. There is

also a tamarisk infestation at Carmody Lake, atop Beaver Rim.

One formerly prevalent invasive species of the Lander Slope was musk thistle. With the

successful introduction of Rhinocyllus conicus and Trichosirocalus horridus weevils, this invasive

species is no longer found in the dense thickets that used to exist roughly 25 years ago.

Cooperative Management for Invasive Plant Species

The Lander Field Office manages invasive plant species in accordance with the goals described in

Partners Against Weeds, An Action Plan for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM 1996).

In 2007, the BLM established national priorities to be used in conjunction with local priorities for

meeting restoration goals; these priorities are expected to improve efforts to prevent the spread of

invasive species. The BLM established the following treatment priorities to promote integrated

efforts across resource programs that manage vegetation.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Invasive Species and Pest Management February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 385

● WUI protection treatments designed to reduce risk of wildland fire to the community and/or

its infrastructure, developed collaboratively.

● Treatments to restore or maintain healthy, diverse, resilient, and productive native plant

communities.

● Special status species habitat improvement projects designed to improve or protect special

status fish, wildlife, and plant habitat.

● Treatments that are planned, implemented, and/or monitored using funding from multiple

sources, both internal and external.

● Landscape treatments (more than 1,000 acres for mechanical and more than 4,500 acres for

prescribed fires), coordinated across boundaries, to improve treatment effectiveness.

● The Federal Noxious Weed Act requires that the BLM enter into cooperative agreements with

state agencies or local agencies to coordinate the management of invasive plant species or

undesirable plants on BLM-administered lands. The BLM has agreements with Fremont

County and the weed management areas.

In accordance with the above mentioned 2007 national priorities, development strategy to manage

invasive plant species is set at the local level and aligned with land use planning objectives. Close

cooperation with local community groups is a critical component of any effective strategy. Part of

the analysis of proposed invasive species treatments includes determining what post-treatment

management prescriptions need to be applied.

Vegetation treatment priorities identified in the Vegetation Treatment on BLM-Administered

Lands in Thirteen Western States EIS (BLM 2007c) still apply to invasive plant species. More

specific control priorities for current management include:

● Prevent infestation by use of certified weed-free hay, straw, seed, and reclamation material,

along with vehicle washing and weed survey of areas proposed for surface-disturbing

activities. Prevention is the first line of defense and the most cost-effective approach.

● Collaboration with other stakeholders is crucial. The BLM has been a cost-sharing sponsor

of Fremont County Weed and Pest District coordinated efforts, such as periodic newspaper

supplements about local weed control efforts and the printing of weed identification booklets

distributed to the public. The Fremont County Weed and Pest District has also given

presentations to the Lander Field Office personnel to increase weed knowledge and awareness.

Weed management areas, which are formed around areas with similar geography, weed

infestations, climate, and human-use patterns, are tools to facilitate cooperation among all land

managers and owners. The goal of weed management areas is to prevent the reproduction and

spread of weeds into and within weed management areas. The formation of a weed management

area replaces jurisdictional boundaries, which can be barriers to weed management programs,

with natural boundaries that facilitate cooperation, coordination, and implementation of an

integrated weed management program. One agency or landowner’s weed management success is

likely determined by the cooperative efforts of other landowners in the area.

At present, the Lander Field Office participates in the Popo Agie Weed Management Area and the

Dubois-Crowheart Weed Management Area, and will soon be a cooperator in the newly formed

Lower Wind River Weed Management Area. The Dubois area experiences extensive recreation

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Invasive Species and Pest Management
386 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

use and is a scenic area on a thoroughfare for Grand Teton and Yellowstone National Parks. The

Dubois-Crowheart Weed Management Area was created to prevent new infestations of invasive

species, educate the public about invasive species and the problems they cause, and to combat

invasive species in this area.

The Fremont County Weed and Pest District plans, funds, and staffs a systematic invasive plant

and pest inventory with the goal of examining all invasive plant susceptible lands at least every

five years. Thus, about 20 percent of the land surface each year is searched for new infestations of

plants and animals that are recognized as being injurious or damaging.

Cooperative Management for Pest Control

In February 2003, the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) and the

BLM signed a MOU detailing cooperative efforts between the two entities on suppression of

grasshoppers and Mormon crickets on BLM-administered lands (Appendix A (p. 1427)). This

MOU clarifies that APHIS would prepare and issue to the public site-specific environmental

documents that evaluate potential impacts associated with proposed measures to suppress

economically damaging grasshopper and Mormon cricket populations. The MOU also states that

these documents would be prepared under the APHIS NEPA implementing procedures with

cooperation and input from the BLM. The MOU further states that the responsible BLM official

would request in writing the inclusion of appropriate lands in the APHIS suppression project

when treatment on BLM-administered lands is necessary. The BLM must also approve a Pesticide

Use Proposal (Form FS-2100-2) for APHIS to treat infestations. According to the provisions of

the MOU, APHIS could begin treatments after appropriate decision documents are issued and the

BLM approves the Pesticide Use Proposal.

Wyoming designated pests (Table 3.34, “Wyoming Weed and Pest Control Act Designated

List” (p. 382)) include grasshoppers, Mormon crickets, mountain pine beetle, beet leafhopper,

prairie dogs, and ground squirrels. The preferred method for treating grasshoppers and Mormon

crickets is by Reduced Agent Area Treatments (RAATs). RAATs is a grasshopper suppression

method in which the rate of insecticide is reduced from conventional levels and treated swaths are

alternated with swaths that are not directly treated. The RAATs strategy relies on the impacts of

an insecticide to suppress grasshoppers in treated swaths while conserving grasshopper predators

and parasites in swaths not directly treated.

Grasshoppers and Mormon crickets have not reached a level needing control for more than

a decade. The local weed and pest districts and APHIS surveys determine the need for insect

control. Because other agencies make decisions about how insects will be controlled on

BLM-administered lands, this document does not further discuss invasive insect species.

Four aquatic pest species of concern in the planning area are the quagga mussel, zebra mussel,

New Zealand mud snail, and didymo. The New Zealand mud snail has been found in the Bighorn

Basin, an adjacent planning area. At present, the quagga mussel and zebra mussel are not found in

the State of Wyoming, but they have been found in Colorado and Utah. Didymo algae is present

in the planning area, but appears to be confined to a few streams, such as the Middle Fork of the

Popo Agie River. Didymo algae could form massive blooms that could smother streambeds,

affecting invertebrate species and ultimately fish populations.

Management Challenges for Invasive Species and Pest Management

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Invasive Species and Pest Management February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 387

Areas of disturbed soils and those subject to accelerated erosion are at an increased risk of

invasive species establishment. These areas include sites with oil and gas activity such as pipeline

construction in the Badwater Creek drainage, and AML projects such as large mine rehabilitation

in the Gas Hills and Green Mountain areas. The Lower Wind River Weed Management Area

was formed to combat the spread of invasive species due to mineral development activity in the

Badwater Creek and Gas Hills areas.

Wildfires and the use of prescribed fire present challenges in managing invasive plant species.

Some invasive plant species, such as cheatgrass, often spread and become established in burned

areas. Managing burned areas to reduce the spread and establishment of invasive plants species

requires BLM personnel and resources to develop and implement ES&R plans and perform

monitoring and treatments.

The use of insects to manage invasive species presents a management challenge. Insects are often

effective at treating invasive species; however, it is difficult to monitor their natural dispersal

and effectiveness, especially when chemical, mechanical, or cultural (grazing) methods might

also be occurring on the same site.

Confronting potential impacts of climate change is a management challenge for invasive species

and pest management. Increasing levels of CO2 and changing temperature and precipitation

patterns could favor invasive species. Management of invasive species and pest management in

response to climate change aids in addressing management challenges associated with changing

science. Increased surface-disturbing activities and changing weather patterns, which could

disproportionately favor invasive species, could present management challenges for invasive

species. Refer to the Climate Change section at the end of this chapter for additional information.

3.4.4. Riparian-Wetland Resources

Riparian-wetland areas are the transition zones between terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems and are

often the key sites in arid and semi-arid environments. These communities are found in areas

along perennial or intermittent drainages, seeps, and springs, and make up a relatively small, but

productive portion of the landscape. Wetlands are comprised of aquatic vegetation with unique

soil characteristics that have developed under the influence of perennial water.

The BLM defines wetlands as areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or

groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that normally supports, a

prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions.

Riparian-wetland areas include marshes, shallow swamps, lakeshores, bogs, and wet meadows,

along with lands adjacent to or contiguous with perennial and intermittent flowing rivers and

streams, lakes, and reservoirs with stable water levels. Ephemeral streams that do not exhibit

the presence of vegetation that depends on free water in the soil are usually not considered

riparian-wetland areas.

Healthy riparian-wetland areas enhance water quality, control erosion, diminish the impact of

floods, and act as a stabilizing force during drought. These areas provide biological diversity;

stable banks and shorelines; floodplain maintenance; clean and stable water supplies; aquifer

recharge; flood energy dissipation and moderation; fish and wildlife habitat; livestock forage;

opportunities for recreation; carbon sequestration; and scenery.

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Riparian-Wetland Resources
388 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Riparian-wetland communities also support a number of BLM sensitive species. In addition, Ute

ladies’-tresses is an endangered plant species only found in riparian-wetland areas.

The importance of greater sage-grouse, both as a BLM sensitive species and as identified by the

Governor’s Task Force, is receiving national attention. Riparian-wetland areas are a component

of brood-rearing habitat for greater sage-grouse because they provide needed forbs and insects

necessary for chick survival.

The BLM riparian-wetland initiative for the 1990s set goals for public land riparian-wetland

areas. These included restoring and maintaining riparian-wetland areas so that at least 75 percent

are in PFC by 1997; protecting riparian-wetland areas and associated uplands through proper land

management; and by avoiding or mitigating adverse impacts.

Riparian-wetland communities make up less than 3 percent of the BLM-administered surface

in the planning area, but their value is inversely proportional to their physical extent. Some

rangeland studies have found that even though riparian-wetland meadows and stream corridors

cover only 1 to 2 percent of a given pasture, they often supply 20 percent of the forage produced;

in steeply sloping pastures they can account for more than 80 percent of the herbaceous forage

removed by cattle. These areas also benefit wildlife; some have called riparian-wetland stream

corridors the single most productive type of habitat on the land (Kauffman et al. 1984). The

influence of riparian-wetland ecosystems to wildlife is not limited to animal species restricted

in distribution to streamside habitat, but also is important to elk, mule deer, pronghorn, greater

sage-grouse, blue and ruffed grouse, nongame species, and insects.

Riparian-wetland areas are important to wildlife migrants and to a diverse population of seasonal

residents. Most terrestrial animal and insect life depends on riparian-wetlands or wetland areas as

sources of water, forage, and cover. It is estimated that 70 to 85 percent of Wyoming's wildlife

uses riparian-wetland areas for at least a portion of their life-cycles (BLM 2009a).

There are a number of indicators to evaluate the condition of riparian-wetland areas, including

plant composition and diversity; bank stability; channel morphology and floodplain function;

erosion and water infiltration rates; groundcover; and the chemical, physical, and biological

characteristics of the water. To meet Standard 2 of the Wyoming Standards for Healthy

Rangelands, riparian-wetland communities should have structural, age, and species diversity

characteristic of the stage of channel succession and be 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. Indicators used to assess Standard 2 include

erosion and deposition rate, channel morphology and floodplain function, channel succession and

erosion cycle, vegetative cover, plant composition and diversity, bank stability, woody debris and

in stream cover, and bare ground and litter. Refer to the Livestock Grazing Management section

of this chapter for additional information on the Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands.

Riparian-wetland Communities

Forest Dominated Riparian-Wetlands

Cottonwood is the most common riparian-wetlands tree species, but aspen, boxelder, and a variety

of conifer species are also present in the planning area (BLM 2009a). Cottonwood regeneration

depends on the presence of bare, moist soil for seedling germination, so stands tend to occur on

ephemeral systems or perennial systems where the channel is braided. Cottonwood stands are

invariably the product of systems that feature highly variable streamflows that periodically scour

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Riparian-Wetland Resources February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 389

potential germination sites, and move the stream channel laterally across the floodplain. The

introduced species of salt cedar (tamarisk) is starting to show up in many riparian-wetland zones

that formerly featured willows and cottonwoods.

Shrub Dominated Riparian-Wetlands

Systems with persistent water availability and moderate gradients generally form shrub

dominated riparian-wetland areas. Several species of willow are the main shrub component of

riparian-wetland zones, but other species such as water birch and alder are common.

Herbaceous Dominated Riparian-Wetlands

Herbaceous dominated communities represent the largest percent of riparian-wetland areas in the

planning area. Wetlands and riparian-wetland areas with low gradients are typically dominated

by grasses, sedges, rushes, bulrushes, and forbs. Herbaceous dominated riparian-wetland areas

typically do not include woody species, but are dominated by herbaceous wet meadow complexes

that are grazed by wildlife. The presence of wet meadow areas within this community can result

in hummocking which may be interpreted as an indication of riparian-wetland degradation.

Proper Functioning Condition Assessment

PFC is the assessment tool used to determine the relative health of stream hydrology,

riparian-wetlands vegetation, and the aquatic fauna and flora of riparian habitats. A wetland

system that exhibits high integrity and proper function has a mosaic of well-connected,

high-quality water and habitats that support a wide assemblage of native species and the genetic

diversity necessary for long-term persistence and adaptation in a variable environment. The BLM

utilizes PFC as a tool to measure riparian-wetlands as required by Standard 2 of the Wyoming

Standards for Healthy Rangelands.

Most lotic (moving water) and lentic (standing water) riparian-wetland habitats (Map 48) were

assessed for PFC between 1994 and 2002 (BLM 1993b). PFC assessments still need to be

completed on approximately 91 acres and 51 miles of riparian-wetland habitats. Table 3.36,

“Results of Proper Functioning Condition Assessment Ratings” (p. 389) lists the PFC assessment

ratings for lotic and lentic areas on BLM-administered surface in the planning area.

Table 3.36. Results of Proper Functioning Condition Assessment Ratings

Condition Lotic Miles Lentic Acres

Proper Functioning Condition 104 1,259

Functional at-Risk Upward Trend 37 109

Functional at-Risk Not Apparent

Trend

96 202

Functional at-Risk Downward Trend 96 1,298

Non-Functional 33 195

Unknown 51 91

Total 417 3,154

Source: BLM 2009a

PFC is the minimum acceptable condition for public land riparian-wetlands, and approximately

25 percent of assessed lotic miles and 40 percent of lentic acres met this standard at the time of

the evaluations. Most of these areas have not been formally reassessed to determine the impacts

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Riparian-Wetland Resources
390 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

of the multi-year drought, although site visits and monitoring have shown a continued declining

trend on some riparian-wetland areas.

The presence or absence of wetland, sub-irrigated, and lowland sites in their proper place in the

landscape is often an indicator and product of riparian-wetland health. When a riparian-wetland

area is in a downward trend, the water table drops and the site dries out. Vegetation common to a

lowland site would encroach on the adjacent sub-irrigated site. Poor road design, water diversions,

and herbivory have been identified as factors affecting the condition of riparian-wetland areas.

Livestock prefer riparian-wetland zones during the hot summer season which can lead to

increased concentration and heavy, repeated, utilization if improperly managed. Such grazing

results in a shift from deep rooted sedges that armor stream banks to shallow rooted bluegrasses

that do not armor stream banks is an issue. This shift pre-stages a change in stream channel

morphology, where wider or deeper watercourses that drain the watershed are created.

When riparian-wetland areas that feature cottonwood stands are not functional, adult trees persist,

but reproduction tends to fail. Cottonwood seedlings are not usually palatable, but tend to

be browsed because of their position in the landscape. Cottonwood galleries become remnant

galleries, and eventually the stand is lost as the existing trees die out.

On shrub dominated systems, upland species such as big sagebrush encroach on the lowland site.

Herbaceous species on the sub-irrigated site shift from preferred species such as sedges and tufted

hairgrass to a less valuable, but grazing resistant mix dominated by bluegrasses, dandelion,

cinquefoil, and pussytoes. Older willows take on a mushroomed appearance and reproduction is

unsuccessful. The wetland site narrows, and eventually the grazing-resistant mix that formed

on the sub-irrigated site replaces the sedges.

On herbaceous dominated sites, the progression is much the same as described for shrub

dominated sites, except no shrubs are involved in the transition. The wetland site also tends to

undergo hummocking as it transitions to the lowland site.

Hummocked areas feature an uneven soil surface where steep sided mounds approximately 1

square foot in size dominate the site. Hummocked areas tend to be in low gradient lentic sites not

armored by bedrock, although it is not uncommon to find them in streamside riparian-wetland

zones. Some dispute the origin of hummocks, but their presence is correlated with repeated

concentration of cattle in the summer (BLM 2009a). The creation of hummocks leads to a shift

in plant composition; the top of the hummocks is drier than the interspaces. Wetland plants are

replaced with upland species on the tops of hummocks. Capillary action from seasonal wetting

brings salts to the surface, which has lead to the formation of alkali deposits, or soil salinization,

in some areas. Soil compaction and root shearing, caused by hoof action in the interspaces

between hummocks, accelerates erosion. As wetlands dry, they are more vulnerable to erosion

by wind and water. Wetlands with severe hummock formation do not produce riparian-wetland

values commensurate with their potential.

Lowland sites dominated by basin big sagebrush and great basin wild rye are generally not

evaluated in a PFC format because they make limited contributions to riparian-wetland features.

However, when these sites are not functional the herbaceous component is primarily annual

mustards. In recent years, cheatgrass has become a concern in these locations.

The primary reasons certain riparian-wetland areas were not assessed to be in PFC include

vegetation shifts from riparian-wetland plants to upland species; poor vegetative composition and

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Riparian-Wetland Resources February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 391

diversity; wide and shallow channels; headcuts and excessive erosion; unstable banks; narrowing

of floodplains; and excessive hummocking.

Some streams that historically supported beaver populations have no existing beaver activity due

to a loss of adequate amounts of woody plants and appropriate dam building material, and erosion

caused by surface-disturbing activities. Beaver were crucial to maintaining the dam and pond

complexes on small streams throughout the planning area; however, they are largely absent from

these former habitats. Without beaver to maintain them, the old dams have washed out, water

tables have dropped, and streams have become entrenched. These degraded ecosystems function

as drainage ditches rather than wetlands and associated riparian-wetland zones that formerly

stored water and served to spread and dissipate the energy of floods.

The PFC assessments indicate that many riparian-wetlands (23 percent of lotic miles and 41

percent of lentic acres) are in a downward trend. This downward trend has been impacted by

the drought the planning area has experienced since 2000. Drought has affected vegetation

production and water availability in riparian-wetland areas. Springs that depend on rainfall to

recharge their aquifers have experienced decreased flows in recent years. Stream reaches in some

areas have become dry or almost dry during late summer and fall due to lack of snow runoff and

below-average precipitation.

A variety of methods have been implemented to improve conditions, including the implementation

of grazing systems, installation of additional range improvement projects, stubble height

monitoring, the repair of roads and stream crossings, and vegetative treatments.

Management Challenges for Riparian-Wetland Resources

Livestock grazing in riparian-wetland areas creates management challenges. Intensive use of

riparian-wetland areas by livestock, as well as wildlife and wild horses, can degrade the condition

of riparian-wetland areas and prevent areas from meeting the rangeland health standards. As

management moves toward meeting the Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands (Appendix

J (p. 1537)) and improving the reclamation success of surface-disturbing activities, the upward

trend established in some intensely managed grazing allotments could be extended. Rangeland

health assessments completed thus far indicate that allotments not meeting health standards often

fail due to the condition of riparian-wetland habitats (Standard 2).

In general, riparian-wetland areas where intensive management of livestock grazing has been

implemented are improving. Intensive management typically includes changing the time of year

for livestock use, reducing the amount of time the areas are used, creating fenced riparian-wetland

pastures and exclosures, and developing range improvements such as offsite water and forage

through vegetative treatments.

Fencing riparian-wetland areas into exclosures and eliminating grazing, having very limited

grazing use, and prescribed grazing practices that incorporate rest and deferment into grazing

systems has improved riparian-wetland conditions in places, although fencing can result in

adverse impacts to wildlife, wild horses, recreation, and visual resources. The success of exclosure

fencing on riparian-wetland health suggests that the number of riparian-wetland exclosures and

pastures could increase to address certain management challenges. Riparian-wetland pastures

have been successful in improving conditions, but the speed of improvement appears to depend

on the length of time grazing is allowed within the pasture. Management is complicated by

the fact that the BLM often controls only small segments along stream courses, with most of

the stream under other ownership.

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Riparian-Wetland Resources
392 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Discharge of produced water can pose a management challenge associated with riparian-wetland

health, especially if the discharged water is high in salt or other dissolved solids, which reduces

water quality. However, there are locations where surface discharge of produced water can

beneficially impact a riparian-wetland area, depending on volume, water quality, topography,

vegetation, and other factors. Water discharged down an existing vegetation drainage, at a

volume that the drainage can accommodate, can beneficially impact the stream by supporting

vegetation and in other ways.

Development in the planning area has the potential to degrade riparian-wetland areas and create

management challenges. Mineral extraction requires new roads and other surface disturbance,

all of which have the potential to affect riparian-wetland areas. Although surface disturbance

must be kept 500 feet away from riparian-wetland areas, erosion from the disturbed soil still

could degrade them. The increase in surface disturbance from these permitted activities, and the

potential for additional mineral development and major ROW activities, continues to adversely

impact riparian-wetland areas throughout the planning area.

Motorized vehicle use in the planning area has also affected riparian-wetland conditions. When

use occurs off existing trails, it creates new surface disturbances and the resulting erosion causes

silt infiltration of riparian-wetlands. Motorized cross-country users can create large disturbance

areas trying to avoid muddy areas. This outcome has been observed in a number of places during

the wet spring period or where motorized hunting occurs after snowfall. motorized vehicle use

on stream banks can result in banks breaking down and additional sediment being added to

the drainage

Fish and Wildlife Resources

The BLM is responsible for managing fish and wildlife habitat on BLM-administered land in

the planning area. Management of fish and wildlife species is overseen by state and federal

wildlife management agencies. The WGFD manages resident wildlife populations in the planning

area. The USFWS provides regulatory oversight for all species listed, proposed for listing, or

candidates for listing under the ESA. The USFWS also administers the Migratory Bird Treaty

Act (MBTA), which protects migratory bird species whether they are hunted (waterfowl) or not

(songbirds). For a description of special status species, see the Special Status Species – Fish

and Special Status Species – Wildlife sections.

3.4.5. Fish and Wildlife Resources – Fish

Fish habitats are managed according to laws, regulations, BLM policies, and principles of fish

management within the BLM multiple-use mandate. Aquatic species, to the extent that they are

directly managed, are overseen by state and federal game management agencies. The WGFD

is responsible for regulating the sport and commercial take of all fish in the planning area. The

USFWS has oversight over federally threatened or endangered species. However, the BLM

directly manages the habitat that supports both game and nongame fish species where they are

found on BLM-administered lands. See the Special Status Species – Fish section for a discussion

of threatened, endangered, and BLM-designated sensitive fish species such as the Yellowstone

cutthroat trout.

Fish species known to occur in the planning area are adapted to a variety of stream habitats,

from cold, rapid waters at higher elevations to slow, turbid waters of the high desert. Most fish

populations occur in the larger rivers and their tributaries, although the WGFD stocks several

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Fish and Wildlife Resources – Fish February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 393

waterbodies. Fish are typically classified as game or nongame and native or nonnative species.

Table 3.37, “Fish Species Known to Occur in the Planning Area” (p. 393) identifies fish species

known to occur in the planning area.

Table 3.37. Fish Species Known to Occur in the Planning Area

Common Name

Burbot Longnose Dace

Brook Trout Longnose Sucker

Black Bullhead Mottled Sculpin

Black Crappie Mountain Sucker

Bluegill Mountain Whitefish

Brown Trout Shorthead Redhorse

Bonneville Cutthroat Trout Plains Killifish

Channel Catfish Rainbow Trout

Creek Chub River Carpsucker

Carp Sauger

Emerald Shiner Sand Shiner

Flathead Chub Splake

Fathead Minnow Snake River Cutthroat Trout

Green Sunfish - Bluegill Hybrid Stonecat

Golden Shiner Spottail Shiner

Iowa Darter Walleye

Johnny Darter White Crappie

Lake Trout White Sucker

Lake Chub Yellow Perch

Largemouth Bass Yellowstone Cutthroat Trout

Source: BLM 2009a

The Big Horn and North Platte watersheds are the two major drainages in the planning area

(Map 4). Fish habitat includes perennial and intermittent streams, lakes, and reservoirs that

support fish through at least part of the year (Map 49). The condition of fish habitat is related

to the hydrologic conditions of the upland and riparian-wetland areas associated with or

contributing to a specific stream or waterbody. Aquatic habitat quality varies by location and

orientation to geographic landforms and vegetation. Stream habitat conditions are closely tied

to riparian-wetland conditions and water quality. Riparian-wetland vegetation moderates water

temperatures, increases bank stability, supports insects used as important food sources, filters

sediment, provides in stream habitat for fish, and provides organic material for aquatic insects

(see the Riparian-Wetland Resources section). Point source discharge, which is managed by the

State of Wyoming, also has implications to fish and aquatic life. The listing of a waterbody as

impaired under the Clean Water Act raises concerns for potential impacts to fish and aquatic life.

Refer to the Water section in this chapter for information regarding water quality.

The WGFD estimates that approximately 367 miles of the 775 miles of streams that occur on

BLM-administered lands support fish. The remaining stream miles either are unsuitable for fish or

only support fish seasonally when conditions are suitable. The WGFD manages most of these

streams for brook, brown, cutthroat, and rainbow trout species. However, there is some focus on

managing several streams for native species.

Cold-water sport fisheries are dominated by trout; cool-water sport fisheries contain burbot,

sauger, and walleye. The WGFD classifies cold-water sport fisheries into ribbon categories based

on estimated pounds of sport fish per mile. These categories, ranging from high to low, are blue,

red, yellow, or green for streams containing cold-water sport fisheries and orange for streams

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Fish and Wildlife Resources – Fish
394 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

containing populations of cool/warm sport fish species. Of the BLM-administered stream miles

that support cold-water populations, less than 1 mile in the planning area is categorized as blue

ribbon; 6 miles are red ribbon; 54 miles are yellow ribbon; and 138 miles are green ribbon.

In general, cold- and cool-water sport fisheries are in decline and populations of nongame fish

range from stable to declining. The Sweetwater River in Sweetwater Canyon is the highest quality

fishery in the planning area. This stretch of river supports a cold-water fishery that includes

brown, rainbow, brook, and cutthroat trout species and has approximately 10 miles of contiguous

habitat on public land; such a stretch is rare in the planning area. This area provides excellent

fishing opportunities and is a popular destination for recreationists. This stream section also has

an in streamflow protection for fish and a Wyoming DEQ Class 1 water designation; such a

designation is uncommon outside wilderness areas.

The Sweetwater River and its tributaries provide spawning habitat for native and nonnative

fish. Most identified spawning areas are for trout species because they are the easiest to detect.

Spawning areas for native nongame fish communities are largely undetermined. There are very

few streams with contiguous miles of fisheries on public lands; most stream miles are on private

lands, with segments on BLM-administered lands. The premier stream sections on public lands

are in the Sweetwater Canyon stretch of the Sweetwater River.

There are three segments of rivers that have in streamflow protections for fish. These include

10.2 miles on the Sweetwater River below Wilson Bar, 5.2 miles on the Wind River below its

confluence with Jakey’s Fork, and 1.4 miles below the canyon on the Little Popo Agie River. The

Wind River and Little Popo Agie River segments do not cross BLM-administered lands; however,

approximately 9.8 miles of the Sweetwater River segment is on BLM-administered lands.

There are several reservoirs on BLM-administered lands capable of supporting a fishery; the

WGFD stocks many of these reservoirs with game fish. Some reservoirs have been dry for a

number of years and many have low and fluctuating water levels.

The WGFD stocks and manages Silver Creek and Western Nuclear Reservoirs for rainbow and

brook trout and Antelope Springs and Jensen Reservoirs for rainbow trout. The WGFD has

stocked Picket Lake with several species of fish in an attempt to find one that would thrive; at

present the WGFD manages Picket Lake for yellow perch. Carmody Lake is a playa that relies on

snowmelt and has been dry for several years. When there is enough water to sustain a population

for a year, the WGFD stocks Carmody Lake with rainbow trout. Historically, the WGFD has

stocked and managed Snyder Creek Reservoir for rainbow trout; however, due to drought and the

abandonment of the irrigation ditch that fed the reservoir, it has ceased to function as a fishery.

The WGFD manages Spring Creek Reservoir for rainbow and brook trout, but due to low water,

this reservoir has not been stocked in recent years. The WGFD used to manage Rocky Draw

Reservoir for brook trout, but the reservoir has not had water in it for approximately 15 years.

These reservoir fisheries do not have specific management prescriptions other than the 500-foot

setback from riparian-wetland areas for permitted surface-disturbing activities.

Sauger and burbot are WGFD species of concern and are found in the planning area. Actions

affecting water quality and quantity for waters in which these species occur and upstream

tributaries could adversely impact spawning success and the survival of early life stages for these

species. Early life stages are sensitive to environmental conditions and decreasing turbidity

during spring could lead to increased predation of larval fish. These species are discussed in the

Special Status Species-Fish section of this document.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Fish and Wildlife Resources – Fish February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 395

Management Challenges for Fish

Management challenges for fish include sediment loading, drought conditions, water depletions,

isolated systems, aquatic invasive species, and activities that degrade riparian-wetland areas. In

addition, the BLM manages relatively little fish habitat and very few streams have contiguous

miles of fish habitat on public lands in the planning area. Surface-disturbing activities can

contribute sediment to spawning areas and can alter stream hydrology and degrade the stream

or its water quality, which could adversely impact fish habitat, reproduction, and survival.

Changes in weather patterns (e.g., drought) could contribute to changes in stream systems such

as flow, temperature, and turbidity. Due to drought conditions and increased demands for water

on private lands, sections of secondary streams and tributaries of primary rivers can become

almost dry during late summer and early fall; which directly affects river fisheries habitat.

Aquatic invasive species (e.g., zebra mussels) degrade fish habitat (see the Invasive Species

and Pest Management section) and create management challenges to control their spread and

establishment. Continuation of activities that degrade riparian-wetland areas could result in

further declines in fish communities and shift streams from cold-water to cool- and warm-water

fish communities dominated by nongame fish species. Irregular land ownership patterns and the

inability to influence water diversions and in-streamflows limit opportunities for fish habitat

improvements on BLM-administered lands.

3.4.6. Fish and Wildlife Resources – Wildlife

Wildlife resources include big game, trophy game, furbearers, predators, small game, game

birds, migratory game birds, and nongame species (raptors, mammals, neotropical migrant

birds, reptiles, and amphibians), and their habitats. The BLM is responsible for managing

wildlife habitats, whereas management of wildlife species is overseen by state and federal

wildlife management agencies. This section includes a description of the existing conditions and

management challenges for habitat types and statutory wildlife groups in the planning area. See

the Special Status Species – Wildlife section for a discussion of threatened, endangered, and

BLM-designated sensitive wildlife species.

The health and viability of different types of wildlife and their habitats are connected. Though

each category of wildlife is described independently in this section, these species and groups

of wildlife are inherently linked by the habitat they share and the synergistic connections

in ecosystem function. As a result, management that affects one species may also result in

unanticipated impacts to other species.

Wildlife populations require healthy and connected habitats. Some wildlife species migrate

seasonally, some species use large territories to hunt, and other species travel great distances to

maintain genetic diversity in their populations. Habitat connectivity is important for wildlife to

obtain food, water, and cover, for migration, and for reproduction. Each habitat type supports an

assemblage of species. Wildlife species have unique inter-relationships, which link assemblages

on a landscape to one another and to specific habitats within the landscape.

The wildlife section is not intended to be an encyclopedic description of all wildlife species that

occur in the planning area, instead it focuses on the habitat types that occur in the planning

area and the wildlife species that are typically associated with those habitat types. Some of the

species may use other habitats during certain portions of year or during their life-cycles. In

addition, the descriptions of the habitats for one species may apply to other species not identified.

Emphasis is placed on species that are of particular interest to the public for hunting, watching, or

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Fish and Wildlife Resources – Wildlife
396 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

photography, as well as species or groups of species that serve as indicators of ecosystem health

or management activities.

Wildlife and Habitats in the Planning Area

There are diverse wildlife habitats in the planning area, primarily because of its location in

the Southern Rocky Mountain and the Intermountain Semidesert ecoregions (Bailey 1995).

Elevation in the planning area ranges from 4,750 feet to 10,400 feet, which supports a variety

of habitats including coniferous forests, juniper woodlands, aspen stands, mountain shrublands,

canyons and rim rock, badlands, sagebrush-steppe shrublands, grasslands, and riparian-wetland

areas. This variety of habitats possesses the biological and physical attributes important for

breeding, birthing, foraging, wintering, and migrating wildlife species. The habitats and wildlife

in the planning area represent the Great Basin flora and fauna. For more detailed information

on vegetation in the planning area, please refer to the Vegetation – Forests, Woodlands, and

Aspen Communities, Vegetation – Grassland and Shrubland Communities, and Riparian-Wetland

Resources sections of this chapter.

Grasslands, sagebrush, and mountain shrub vegetative types dominate the planning area

(Table 3.33, “Acreage of Vegetative Communities in the Planning Area” (p. 373)). The open

grassland, sagebrush, and shrubland vegetative types are home to many raptor species, including

the Swainson’s hawk, northern harrier, and prairie falcon. These vegetative types support many

other wildlife species, including small game, upland game birds, and numerous rodent species

upon which raptors prey. Sagebrush provides crucial winter range for big game and habitat

necessary for greater sage-grouse and other sagebrush obligate species such as the Brewer’s

sparrow, sage sparrow, and sage thrasher.

Riparian-wetland communities make up less than 3 percent of the BLM-administered lands in the

planning area, but these areas support the greatest diversity of plant and animal life of all habitat

types. Riparian-wetland communities provide forage and cover for moose, furbearers, neotropical

migrants, and amphibians, as well as corridors for wildlife migration and travel.

In the planning area, forests and woodlands are limited and are dominated by lodgepole pine,

Douglas-fir, limber pine, Rocky Mountain and Utah juniper, aspen, and cottonwood. Although

these areas are less abundant than grasslands and shrublands, they add structural and biological

diversity to the landscape. Forests and woodlands provide cover for big game and are habitats for

mountain lion, black bear, dusky grouse, marten, and northern goshawks.

The condition of wildlife habitat is related to management that impacts vegetation and habitat

connectivity. Habitat quality varies in the planning area, with areas that do not meet PFC

or the Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands (Appendix J (p. 1537)) generally being

less supportive of wildlife. Management that has occurred in the planning area to maintain or

improve habitat for wildlife includes vegetation treatments, restrictions on surface-disturbing

activities, application of mitigation measures and BMPs, fire and fuels management, limitations

on motorized vehicle use, and management of livestock grazing.

There are several important features and areas in the planning area that provide habitat and

survival of wildlife, including birthing and winter range habitats for big game, riparian-wetland

habitats, and the Whiskey Mountain bighorn sheep area. In addition, habitat integrity,

unfragmented habitat, and migration routes are important to wildlife in the planning area.

Birthing and winter range habitats are typically used each year and are usually limited in size

and availability. The East Fork elk winter range north of Dubois supports as many as 6,000 to

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Fish and Wildlife Resources – Wildlife February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 397

7,000 elk without the need for supplemental feeding. The Lander Slope and Red Canyon areas

provide the necessary winter forage for elk and mule deer that is not available on adjacent areas

due to deep snows. Green and Crooks Mountains provide year-round habitat for a predominantly

non-migratory elk herd. Elk primarily summer on top and on the south slopes, and are fairly

restricted to the north slopes during winter months because of snow depths. There are designated

calving areas on top of Green Mountain.

Many species of wildlife depend on healthy riparian-wetland habitats to provide for their

necessary forage and cover requirements. The year-round availability of clean water is essential

for maintaining wildlife and fish populations. Compared to all other habitats, these areas support

the greatest diversity of wildlife and plant species. Many species of birds, amphibians, reptiles,

and mammals are found only in riparian-wetland habitats. Riparian-wetland areas in the South

Pass, Upper Beaver Creek, and Sweetwater River Valley are important moose habitat.

The Whiskey Mountain bighorn sheep area near Dubois supports one of the largest and most

visible bighorn sheep herds in North America. BLM-administered lands provide crucial winter

range for bighorn sheep in this area (Map 50). The only active habitat management plan in the

planning area, A Comprehensive Bighorn Sheep Management Plan (Bighorn Sheep Technical

Committee 2006), guides the management responsibilities for the Whiskey Mountain Bighorn

Sheep Winter Range to perpetuate and emphasize bighorn sheep and their habitat (Map 55).

The WGFD developed a conservation strategy, A Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy

for Wyoming (WGFD 2005), to provide a long-range conservation plan to conserve Wyoming’s

Species of Greatest Conservation Need and meet the requirements of the Congressionally

authorized State Wildlife Grants Program. The BLM was a partner in this effort. The species

and habitats identified in the conservation strategy, along with the associated challenges and

conservation actions, define the focus of cooperative efforts to conserve and manage Wyoming’s

wildlife.

Terrestrial vertebrate wildlife species in the planning area represent all major vertebrate classes:

mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians. Terrestrial wildlife species are described below

under the WGFD statutory wildlife categories of big game, trophy game, furbearing animals,

predatory animals, small game, game birds, migratory game birds, and nongame species (raptors,

neotropical migrants, mammals, and reptiles, and amphibians). Refer to the Special Status

Species – Wildlife section for information on wildlife species of special concern (threatened,

endangered, and sensitive species).

Big Game

Big game species include pronghorn, mule deer, white-tailed deer, elk, moose, and bighorn sheep.

Much of the planning area is big game habitat and because the BLM manages much of this habitat,

the BLM regularly consults with the WGFD, which manages the populations. The WGFD big

game herd management objectives are based on herd units. Boundaries of the herd unit areas are

established to encompass all of the seasonal ranges and habitats or special life function areas (such

as calving and lambing) utilized by a more or less discreet population or herd. Table 3.38, “Big

Game Herd Units, Acreage, and Population Estimates in the Planning Area” (p. 398) provides

information on the herd units and big game populations in the planning area.

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Fish and Wildlife Resources – Wildlife
398 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table 3.38. Big Game Herd Units, Acreage, and Population Estimates in the Planning Area

Herd Unit

Name

Total

Herd

Unit

Acres

Herd Unit

Acres in

Lander

Field

Office

Percent of

Herd Unit

in Lander

Field

Office

Herd Unit

acres on

BLM-administered

Land

Percent

of Herd

Unit on

BLM-administered

Land

Herd Unit

Population Objective

Herd Unit

Population

2005

Herd Unit

Population

2007

Pronghorn

Badwater 648,299 407,181 63 269,915 42 3,000 3,900 3,645

Beaver Rim 2,618,700 2,422,184 92 1,590,126 61 25,000 25,900 24,504

Copper

Mountain

1,458,546 14,155 1 5,419 1 4,800 5,000 5,152

North Ferris 328,978 21,968 7 10,478 3 5,000 4,800 5,200

Project 1,949,591 1,949,292 100 258 < 1 400 308 288

Rattlesnake 630,441 37,149 6 21,504 3 12,000 Unknown Unknown

Red Desert 2,181,405 469,685 22 411,393 19 15,000 12,400 13,200

Sublette 6,850,689 87,467 1 29,080 1 48,000 49,100 62,200

Wind River 796,952 790,994 99 36,781 5 400 Unknown 627

Total - 6,200,075 - 2,374,954 - - - -

Mule Deer

Beaver Rim 831,894 712,714 86 547,696 66 2,600 900 1,150

Chain Lakes 699,791 22,731 3 22,089 3 500 500 480

Dubois 1,232,962 791,750 64 36,833 3 10,000 7,900 7,085

Ferris 783,489 21,965 3 10,479 1 5,000 2,700 3,288

Project 1,953,011 1,952,714 100 81 < 1 500 402 480

Rattlesnake 825,740 152,671 18 107,716 13 5,500 4,700 4,540

Southwest

Bighorns

1,953,173 420,324 22 275,320 14 28,000 25,900 26,455

South Wind

River

1,238,837 1,085,162 88 575,338 46 13,000 10,200 10,267

Steamboat 2,562,699 29,234 1 27,714 1 4,000 4,000 4,520*

Sublette 3,901,897 27,281 1 0 0 32,000 28,900 31,241

Sweetwater 1,015,088 987,151 97 771,693 76 6,000 5,800 5,643

Total - 6,203,697 - 2,374,959 - - - -

White-tailed Deer

Bighorn

Basin

8,177,677 277,852 3 5,516 0 No

Objective

Unknown Unknown

Central 9,230,982 152,671 2 107,716 1 No

Objective

Unknown Unknown

Total - 430,523 - 113,232 - - - -

Elk

Ferris 797,724 21,991 3 10,489 1 350 500 510

Green

Mountain

1,774,154 1,627,184 92 1,252,837 71 500 1,300* Unknown

Jackson 1,119,001 24,148 2 0 0 11,000 12,500 12,881

Rattlesnake 810,866 152,564 19 107,660 13 200 Unknown Unknown

Shamrock 699,943 22,762 3 22,119 3 75 130 120

South

Bighorn

3,251,163 406,015 12 273,021 8 2,900 3,300 5,450

South Wind

River

1,519,564 985,502 65 484,405 32 3,300 4,000 3,696

Steamboat 2,529,713 201,885 8 185,251 7 1,200 1,250 1,300

Green River 530,153 3,055 1 0 0 2,500 2,300 2,452

Wiggins Fork 2,771,646 2,765,470 100 36,924 1 6,000 6,000* 5,974

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Fish and Wildlife Resources – Wildlife February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 399

Herd Unit

Name

Total

Herd

Unit

Acres

Herd Unit

Acres in

Lander

Field

Office

Percent of

Herd Unit

in Lander

Field

Office

Herd Unit

acres on

BLM-administered

Land

Percent

of Herd

Unit on

BLM-administered

Land

Herd Unit

Population Objective

Herd Unit

Population

2005

Herd Unit

Population

2007

Total - 6,210,576 - 2,372,706 - - - -

Moose

Dubois 798,105 792,204 99 36,832 5 400 Unknown Unknown

Jackson 962,708 23,975 2 0 0 3,600 1,500 1,691

Lander 2,712,810 2,095,132 77 1,367,605 50 450 327 315

Sublette 3,717,236 3,239 0 0 0 5,500 4,000 4,629

Total - 2,914,550 - 1,404,437 - - - -

Bighorn Sheep

Franc’s Peak 1,797,318 494,160 27 17,003 1 1,360 1,400 1,386

Jackson 1,065,568 23,940 2 0 0 500 400 406

Temple Peak 770,471 511,807 66 40,040 5 250 40

Whiskey

Mountain

898,151 347,238 39 8,290 1 1,350 650 681

Yount’s Peak 849,174 172,297 20 53 0 900 900 923

Total - 1,549,442 - 65,386 - - - -

Source: BLM 2009a; BLM 2012a

Note: Acreage totals may be different than other totals depicted throughout the document as a

slightly different ownership layer was used to calculate the acreage.

< less than

BLM Bureau of Land Management

The planning area contains 1,055,702 acres of crucial winter range for big game, of which

605,898 acres are on BLM-administered surface. Winter is a stressful time for wild ungulates;

therefore, crucial winter range is often the focus of management for big game populations.

During winter months, snow depths, forage availability, and cold temperatures stress big game

populations. Snow depths can impede the movement of big game and forage is limited and

may be lacking nutritional elements needed by these species. These elements plus the cold

temperatures cause winter to be stressful for big game and can lead to starvation. Winter ranges

typically provide more food and cover during the winter months. In addition to crucial winter

range, the planning area provides summer ranges and parturition areas for big game. Summer

ranges provide thermal and visual cover and adequate forage, particularly for females with young.

Parturition areas are important for reproductive success and this habitat is limited in the planning

area. Table 3.39, “Acres of Big Game Seasonal Habitats on BLM-Administered Surface in

the Planning Area” (p. 399) identifies big game seasonal habitats in the planning area. Maps

55–59 and Map 61 identify the WGFD herd units for pronghorn, mule deer, white-tailed deer,

elk, moose, and bighorn sheep, respectively.

Table 3.39. Acres of Big Game Seasonal Habitats on BLM-Administered Surface in the

Planning Area

Seasonal

Range

Pronghorn Mule Deer White-tailed

Deer

Elk Moose

Bighorn

Sheep

Spring/

Summer/Fall

560,593 236,489 - 62,663 101,739 22,176

Yearlong 496,348 545,944 - 92,384 11,270 -

Winter/

Yearlong

906,318 427,070 - 102,541 13,200 5,704

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Fish and Wildlife Resources – Wildlife
400 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Seasonal

Range

Pronghorn Mule Deer White-tailed

Deer

Elk Moose

Bighorn

Sheep

Winter - 843 - 48,196 17,759 -

Crucial Winter/

Yearlong

351,178 200,407 - 38,355 38,100 9,151

Crucial Winter - - - 28,570 5,429 -

OUT1 59,699 963,372 114,413 1,986,068 1,214,563 38,235

Severe Winter

Relief

- - - 13,092 - -

No Herd Unit - - 2,259,725 2,262 972,072 2,298,866

Parturition

Areas2

- - - 22,708 - 4,803

- - - - - -

Total BLM

Acres

2,374,136 2,374,125 2,374,138 2,374,131 2,374,132 2,374,132

Sources: BLM 2009a; BLM 2012a

1 These areas do not contain enough animals to be important or the habitats are of limited importance to the species.

2 Parturition areas overlap other seasonal ranges.

Note: Acreage totals may be different than other totals depicted throughout the document as a slightly different

ownership layer was used to calculate the acreage.

BLM Bureau of Land Management

Several diseases, including chronic wasting disease, epizootic hemorrhagic disease, and

pneumonia, are known to affect big game species, although none of these diseases is prevalent in

the planning area. Chronic wasting disease is a contagious neurological disease affecting deer, elk,

and moose. It causes a degeneration of the brain of the infected animal and results in emaciation,

abnormal behavior, loss of bodily functions, and death. Epizootic hemorrhagic disease causes

spontaneous hemorrhaging in the muscles and organs and results in death. Pneumonia, a

respiratory disease, can be transmitted between domestic sheep and bighorn sheep. At present, no

animals in the planning area suffer from chronic wasting disease, but the disease is spreading

toward the area. Disease can impact big game populations and lead to long-term reduction in

survival and recruitment resulting in stagnant or declining populations over many years.

Management challenges for big game species include poor habitat conditions, fire management,

drought, increased development and urbanization, habitat fragmentation, motorized travel,

disease, and the impacts of grazing on the frequency, quality, and composition of key forage

species. The BLM and the WGFD continually coordinate and evaluate actions affecting herd

units and habitat conditions to determine appropriate management direction.

Some holders of BLM livestock grazing permits and/or leases have supported wildlife and habitat

in a number of ways. Base properties are often used by wildlife as habitat in a manner that

would be lost if the property were subdivided. As identified in the Socioeconomic Resources

section, habitat has been adversely affected by the subdivision of former ranches. Many ranchers,

particularly in the Lander Slope area, have placed wildlife conservation easements on their

private properties, which protects their use for wildlife habitat. This appears to be a trend that

is increasing. The management challenge is for BLM to find ways to partner with ranchers to

encourage and support the conservation efforts that benefit wildlife, particularly in the WUI.

Pronghorn

Pronghorn are a unique animal of the western plains and are the only living species in their

taxonomic family (Antilocapridae). Wyoming is the center of the pronghorn’s range. Pronghorn

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Fish and Wildlife Resources – Wildlife February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 401

inhabit a variety of open rangeland habitat types throughout the planning area and forage

primarily on shrubs, especially on sage species. Common year-round throughout the planning

area, pronghorn populations are generally below levels in the mid-1980s, but have been increasing

slowly over the past decade and are currently at or above objectives throughout most of the

planning area.

Mule Deer

Mule deer are found year-round throughout the planning area. Mule deer use woody

riparian-wetland, shrubland, juniper woodland, and aspen woodland habitat types during spring,

summer, and fall. During winter, mule deer can be found in juniper and limber pine woodlands,

big sagebrush/rabbitbrush, sagebrush steppe, and riparian-wetland habitat types. Mule deer

populations are generally below herd unit objectives, but some herds have experienced population

increases in recent years due to conservative hunting seasons and licenses. Many factors can

contribute to lower populations, including drought, historic heavy forage utilization by livestock,

and habitat fragmentation. An increase in juniper establishment in many key mule deer habitats

increases cover but decreases desirable browse in these areas. Declines in overall habitat quality

have affected the reproduction and survival rates, resulting in less recruitment of young.

Because of the concern for the loss and degradation of mule deer habitat across the West, the

Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA) convened a Mule Deer Working

Group to look at the various issues affecting mule deer populations (WAFWA 2003). In addition,

the WGFD developed the Wyoming Mule Deer Initiative (WGFD 2009b), which is tiered to

WAFWA’s work in 2009. This initiative looks at the same issues and challenges for mule deer

management in Wyoming, such as large-scale developments, housing developments, and oil/gas

fields that are altering and fragmenting mule deer habitats.

White-tailed Deer

White-tailed deer use woody riparian-wetland habitats (willow and cottonwood) along the major

creeks and rivers for both forage and cover. The status of white-tailed deer is unknown, but

populations are likely increasing in riparian-wetland habitats and associated agricultural fields.

Elk

Elk are common year-round throughout the planning area. In summer, elk use aspen and conifer

woodlands for security and thermal cover, ranging out into upland meadows, sagebrush/mixed

grass, and mountain shrub habitat types to forage. In winter, elk move to lower elevations,

foraging especially in sagebrush/mixed grass and mountain shrub habitat types, especially in

windswept areas where snow depth is less. Elk generally have stable to increasing populations

and are at or above objective numbers for all herd units in the planning area. Elk forage on

grasses, which have had fewer impacts from drought conditions than woody plants. Drought

conditions have least affected elk herds that migrate from high elevation summer habitats to lower

elevation winter habitats.

Moose

Moose are found primarily in the riparian-wetland habitats along the Sweetwater River, Wind

River, and Popo Agie River corridors. Moose populations are stable to declining and well below

historic levels and herd objective numbers. Contributing to the population decline is the poor

condition of many riparian-wetland areas because of drought and historic heavy forage utilization

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Fish and Wildlife Resources – Wildlife
402 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

by grazing animals. Reduced aspen, cottonwood, and willow health in riparian-wetlands and

uplands also adversely impact moose. Other contributors to lower moose populations include

diseases and parasites and increased mortality from vehicles, fences, and predators.

Bighorn Sheep

Bighorn sheep are present predominantly in the Whiskey Mountain and East Fork areas near

Dubois, although there are small populations in the Sinks and North Fork Canyons near Lander

and on Green Mountain. Bighorn sheep populations are stable and are at or near population

objectives for most herd units. The Whiskey Mountain herd unit is below the population objective,

but appears to be increasing. The human presence and disruption associated with the operation

and maintenance of the communication site on Whiskey Mountain stresses the bighorn sheep at

a time when they are at their most vulnerable due to winter weather conditions. Improvements

to habitat, including vegetation treatments, which are unusual in WSAs, have been authorized

to improve forage and nutrition. Bighorn sheep typically occur in steep, high mountain terrain.

Ridges and slopes, which are normally free of snow, provide forage, while steep rims, and canyon

walls provide escape cover (Bighorn Sheep Technical Committee 2006). They prefer herbaceous

forage and typically use alpine slopes and meadows and mountain shrub habitat types, primarily

foraging on forbs and grasses and converting to browsing on shrubs when snow depths dictate.

Trophy Game

Mountain lion and black bear are classified as trophy game animals in the planning area.

Mountain lions are present in habitats with dense cover and rocky, rugged terrain habitats where

deer, their primary prey, are present. Mountain lions have been observed throughout the planning

area, but are mainly observed along the Wind River front, in the Dubois area, and the Bridger,

Rattlesnake, and Green Mountains. Black bear are present in coniferous forests, aspen, and

riparian-wetland shrub habitats, and in mountain grasslands. The planning area supports limited

black bear habitat. The species is typically found along the Wind River front and in the Dubois

area. Mountain lion and black bear populations are relatively stable. It is difficult to estimate the

population sizes of these two species due to their secretive nature. Management challenges for

trophy game include loss or alteration of habitat from surface-disturbing activities.

Furbearing Animals

Furbearing animals in the planning area include badger, beaver, bobcat, mink, muskrat, marten,

and weasel. These species can be found in a variety of habitats throughout the planning area.

Population estimates are available on a statewide basis. Trapping seasons have been established

for most furbearers, with badgers being taken year-round; other species (e.g., bobcat, muskrat,

mink, and weasel) are typically trapped in winter. Trapping dates vary for beaver and marten.

Muskrat and mink are usually associated with streams, lakes, and riparian-wetland habitats.

Martens inhabit coniferous forests and badgers are common throughout sagebrush/grass habitats.

Beaver are common in perennial waters where willows and aspen are plentiful and can be found

associated with streams of the Upper Sweetwater, Beaver Creek, and Twin Creek drainages,

streams on Lander Slope (including the Popo Agie River drainages), and streams on Green

Mountain. Beaver depend on aspen, willow, and cottonwood trees to build and maintain their

dams and lodges.

Data on distribution of mink and muskrat populations are not available, but their populations have

likely decreased due to a loss of water in some riparian-wetland systems. It is expected that

beaver, mink, and muskrat populations are declining due to degraded riparian-wetland conditions

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Fish and Wildlife Resources – Wildlife February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 403

and drought. Water volumes have decreased in many riparian-wetland systems from a loss of

water storage capability and from a lack of precipitation. Beaver are no longer present in some

streams that historically supported colonies and many beaver dams are not being maintained. Due

to a drop in the water table and drier conditions at some riparian-wetland areas, conifers have

invaded some riparian-wetland areas adjacent to streams. Conifers take up available water and

space, both surface and subsurface, choking out aspen, willow, and cottonwood communities.

The reduction in beaver populations has had an impact on the health of the riparian-wetland

communities this species formerly occupied.

Drought conditions and loss and degradation of habitats, especially riparian-wetland areas, for

furbearing animals present management challenges for these species.

Predatory Animals

According to Wyoming statute, predatory animals include jackrabbit, porcupine, coyote, red fox,

raccoon, and skunk. These predator species are found throughout the planning area in a variety

of habitats. Populations tend to fluctuate with the availability of prey species and no population

estimates exist. Although classified as predators, jackrabbits typically consume grasses, sedges,

forbs, and shrubs, and porcupines consume the inner bark of trees, evergreen needles and buds,

leaves, small twigs, and herbs. Coyote populations are typically consistent with prey cycles.

When rabbit and ground squirrel populations are high, coyote populations also tend to be high.

Red fox populations appear to be expanding into new areas. Red fox typically feed on mice,

insects, and plant matter in the summer and rabbits in the winter. Raccoons are omnivorous,

feeding on a variety of plants and animals, particularly aquatic animals and insects. Skunks feed

primarily on grasshoppers, beetles, crickets, butterfly larvae, deer mice, voles, bird eggs, berries,

and fruit. It is expected that populations of skunk, raccoon, and porcupine are static to increasing.

Predators are not protected by seasons or bag limits; consequently, any number of animals can

be hunted or trapped at any time. USDA APHIS-Wildlife Services performs predator control

on public lands with little input from the BLM. There are no specific management challenges

for predatory animals in the planning area.

Small Game

Common small game species in the planning area include cottontail rabbit, snowshoe hare, and

red squirrels. Cottontail rabbits and red squirrels are found throughout the planning area and

snowshoe hare are found in the transition area between mountain shrub habitats and coniferous

forests. These species are hunted during fall and winter. There are no estimates of population size,

mortality, or natality rates for these species. Rabbit and squirrel populations are cyclic, so trends

are difficult to determine. Populations generally appear to be stable. Due to the wide distribution

of small game species, there are no management challenges in the planning area.

Game Birds

The Upland Game Bird Habitat Management Plan (BLM 1992a) provides game bird management

direction for the BLM. All game bird species in Wyoming are managed for recreational use (e.g.,

hunting, bird watching, etc.). Upland game birds include greater sage-grouse, dusky grouse,

chukar partridge, gray partridge, pheasant, sandhill crane, and mourning dove. See the Special

Status Species – Wildlife section for a discussion of greater sage-grouse. Dusky grouse are

found in preferred habitats on Green Mountain and on the east end of Crooks Mountain. The

forest-woodland edges near South Pass, Lander Slope, and the upper Wind River Valley (Dubois)

also support stands of preferred habitat and limited populations of blue and ruffed grouse. Chukar

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Fish and Wildlife Resources – Wildlife
404 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

and gray partridges are found most abundantly among the rolling breaks and sparse grasslands

near Lander. The highest quality habitat is in the Sheep Mountain area along Twin Creek, in and

adjacent to the canyons in the Lander Slope and Red Canyon areas, and along the south slopes

and drainages of the Lysite and Copper Mountains. Pheasants are limited primarily to areas near

agricultural fields in the Riverton, Lander, and Shoshoni areas.

Blue and ruffed grouse habitat conditions vary from poor to excellent in different sites. In

areas with established populations, chukar populations appear to fluctuate primarily with the

severity of winter conditions and weather conditions during spring nesting. There are no specific

management challenges for game birds in the planning area.

Migratory Game Birds

There are many waterfowl species in the planning area, including ducks, geese, coots, snipe, and

rails. The entire planning area is part of the Central Flyway (one of four major north-south routes

for migratory birds, generally avoiding mountain ranges or areas with limited food availability).

Natural lakes, streams, and human-made reservoirs are important resting areas for a variety of

ducks, geese, and shorebirds. The abundance of waterfowl varies from year to year depending on

the availability of water. Generally, waterfowl populations are stable on large waterbodies that

have consistent water. All species of geese have had increasing population trends over the last 10

years (BLM 2009a). Drought has affected the availability of water in ponds, small reservoirs, and

streams historically used to support broods, thereby reducing the availability of habitat.

Nongame

Nongame species include raptors, neotropical migrants, non-migratory songbirds, mammals, and

reptiles and amphibians. Such species are numerous and diverse, especially given the diversity of

habitats present in the planning area.

Raptors

Raptor species in the planning area include turkey vultures, osprey, red-tailed hawk, Swainson’s

hawk, northern harrier, Cooper’s hawk, sharp-shinned hawk, rough-legged hawk, golden eagle,

merlin, American kestrel, prairie falcon, and numerous owls, including great-horned, long-eared,

short-eared, great gray, barn, western screech, northern pygmy, boreal, and northern saw-whet.

These species are found in a variety of habitats throughout the planning area. Raptors are sensitive

to environmental disturbance and occupy an ecological position at the top of the food chain; thus,

they act as biological indicators of environmental quality. Raptor Habitat Management on Public

Lands (BLM 1992b) guides management of these species. Refer to the Special Status Species –

Wildlife section of this document for information regarding special status raptor species (e.g., bald

eagle, ferruginous hawk, northern goshawk, peregrine falcon, and burrowing owl).

The nesting season is considered the most critical period in the raptor life-cycle because it

determines population productivity, short-term diversity, and long-term trends. Most species

have specific nest site requirements that are key factors in nest site selection and in reproductive

success. These include nesting strata, available prey base, and nest site disturbance. Raptors build

nests in a myriad of habitats, including steep cliffs and rock ledges, trees, and on the ground.

Raptors also use human-made structures such as barns, utility poles, and tanks as nesting habitat.

Golden eagles and prairie falcons usually build their nests on steep cliffs and rock ledges, but

other species, such as red-tailed hawks and great-horned owls, often build on these sites. Turkey

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Fish and Wildlife Resources – Wildlife February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 405

vultures will nest on cliffs, but may also use caves or hollow stumps. Golden eagle populations

have increased.

Several species of raptors typically nest in trees and most known raptor nests in the planning

area are located in cottonwood trees. Swainson’s hawks, red-tailed hawks, American kestrels,

great horned owls, and screech owls prefer the more open plains and usually nest in trees along

drainages. Cooper’s hawks, sharp-shinned hawks, long-eared owls, and northern saw-whet owls

usually nest in lodgepole pine stands, mixed conifer forests, or aspen woodlands. Because of the

dense canopy cover, these nests are difficult to find. Consequently, intensive inventories of these

species have been limited to areas targeted for habitat alteration.

Several species of raptors are ground nesters. Short-eared owls typically nest in tall grasslands

with sparse sagebrush or shrubland cover. Northern harriers generally nest on the ground in

riparian-wetland or marsh habitats.

Management challenges for raptors include habitat degradation and loss. Habitat management

has been limited to maintaining upland range sites in satisfactory ecological condition. Range

management practices that maintain ranges in good condition will provide an adequate prey base

for raptor species. Raptors prey on a variety of species including small mammals, fish, and other

birds; the turkey vulture feeds primarily on carrion.

Neotropical Migrants

Neotropical migrants include shorebirds, water birds, and songbirds found throughout

the planning area. Every vegetative community type supports various bird species, with

riparian-wetland communities having the most diverse array of species. There are no population

estimates for many of these species; however, the WGFD has been conducting breeding bird

surveys that provide limited information. The Nongame Migratory Bird Habitat Conservation

Plan (BLM 1992c) and the Wyoming Partners in Flight Wyoming Bird Conservation Plan

(Cerovski et al. 2001) guide management of neotropical migrants in the planning area.

Audubon Wyoming established four Important Bird Areas (IBAs) in the planning area. These

areas provide essential habitat for one or more bird species. The areas include Ninemile Draw,

Red Canyon Ranch, Red Desert, and the Sweetwater River Project. The Ninemile Draw and Red

Desert IBAs identify habitats for sagebrush-obligate species and the Red Canyon Ranch and

Sweetwater River Project IBAs focus on habitats for riparian-wetland migrants.

Species that depend on woody plant communities are generally declining in numbers due to

declines in habitat quality and quantity. Species that require herbaceous plants for forage

and cover have stable to increasing populations. Due to the declining condition of many

riparian-wetland areas, species that depend on these areas for all or part of their life-cycle likely

have been impacted. Populations of sagebrush obligate species are declining. Juniper obligate

species have generally seen stable to upward trends based on the increase in amount of juniper

present throughout the planning area. Management challenges include maintaining the habitat

types upon which these species depend.

Mammals

Nongame mammals include species such as mice, rats, voles, ground squirrels, shrews, bats, and

prairie dogs, which are found in a variety of habitats throughout the planning area. Bat surveys

have been conducted in suitable caves and mines. There are several known maternity roosts and

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Fish and Wildlife Resources – Wildlife
406 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

hibernacula identified in the planning area, primarily the historic mines in South Pass and the

Copper Mountains. No estimates of population size are available for any of these nongame

mammal species. Refer to the Atlas of Birds, Mammals, Amphibians, and Reptiles in Wyoming

(Cerovski et al. 2004) for complete habitat descriptions and distribution of nongame mammals.

Nongame mammals play an important role as prey species for many other wildlife. Large

carnivores, raptors, and other predatory animals rely on nongame mammals as a food source. As

nongame mammal populations fluctuate, so may the populations of the predators that prey on

them.

Nongame mammal species that depend on woody plant communities are generally declining in

numbers due to declines in habitat quality and quantity. Species that require herbaceous plants

for forage and cover have stable to increasing populations. There is no or very little population

data for many of these species, so trends cannot be determined. Management challenges include

the lack of population data for these species, and maintaining or enhancing the presence of these

species and the habitats upon which they depend.

Reptiles/Amphibians

Reptile species in the planning area include greater short-horned lizard, northern sagebrush lizard,

eastern yellow-bellied racer, bullsnake, wandering garter snake, and prairie rattlesnake. These

species are found throughout the planning area, but typically occur in the more arid shrub-steppe

and grassland habitats. The lizard species feed on ants, beetles, grasshoppers, and other insects.

The snake species feed on insects, small mammals, frogs, and fish. The greater short-horned

lizard, wandering gartersnake, and prairie rattlesnake bear live young, while the other reptiles

listed lay eggs. There are no estimates of population size for any of these species. However, it is

likely that populations trend downward due to the overall increase in habitat alteration and loss.

Amphibian species in the planning area include tiger salamander, plains spadefoot toad, and

boreal chorus frog. In addition, northern leopard frog, Great Basin spadefoot toad, boreal toad,

and spotted frog, Wyoming BLM listed Sensitive Species, are also found in the planning area

and are discussed in the Special Status Wildlife section. These species are typically found in

riparian-wetland areas. Tiger salamanders are terrestrial and live in deep burrows near ponds

or lakes. They usually only return to the water to breed. The plains spadefoot toad occurs in

grassland and shrubland areas and excavates a deep burrow in winter. The boreal chorus frog

occurs in marshes, ponds, and small lakes. Amphibians deposit eggs in lakes, reservoirs, marshes,

bogs, rain pools, and flooded areas. Tiger salamander larvae remain in water for two months to

two years before metamorphosis occurs. Plains spadefoot tadpoles complete metamorphosis in 36

to 40 days, while boreal chorus frogs complete metamorphosis in approximately 60 days. There

are no estimates of population size for any of these species. The declining condition of many

riparian-wetland areas, combined with drought, has adversely impacted amphibian populations

and populations are likely on a downward trend. Management challenges include maintaining a

variety of habitat types and components in proximity to provide for the requirements of reptiles

and amphibians.

Special Status Species – Introduction

Special status species include species listed or proposed for listing under the ESA, together with

species designated internally as BLM sensitive by the State Director. Species designated as

BLM sensitive must be native species found on BLM-administered lands for which BLM has

the capability to significantly affect the conservation status of species through management, and

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Fish and Wildlife Resources – Wildlife February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 407

either (1) there is information that a species has recently undergone, is undergoing, or is predicted

to undergo a downward trend such that the viability of the species or a distinct population segment

of the species is at a risk across all or a significant portion of the species range, or (2) the species

depends on ecological refugia or specialized or unique habitats on BLM-administered lands, and

there is evidence that such areas are threatened with alteration such that the continued viability

of the species in that area would be at risk.

Several policies and agreements guide management of special status species and their habitats

in the planning area. In March 1990, the WGFD and the BLM signed an MOU with the

purpose of strengthening 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 BLM prepares the Wyoming Sensitive Species Policy and List (BLM 2010b) to focus

species management efforts toward maintaining habitats for these species. The goals of this

policy include:

● Maintaining vulnerable species and habitat components in functional BLM ecosystems

● Ensuring special status species are considered in land management decisions

● Preventing a need for species listing under the ESA

● Prioritizing needed conservation work with an emphasis on habitat

BLM Manual 6840, Special Status Species Management, establishes policy for management

of species listed or proposed for listing pursuant to the ESA and BLM sensitive species on

BLM-administered lands. The goals and objectives of this policy are to (1) conserve listed

species and the ecosystems on which they depend and (2) ensure that actions requiring BLM

authorization or approval are consistent with the conservation needs of special status species and

do not contribute to the need to list special status species either under the provisions of the ESA or

BLM Manual 6840. In addition, management actions for federally listed species are often derived

through the consultation process (Section 7 of the ESA).

The USFWS provides regulatory oversight for all species that are listed, proposed for listing,

or are candidates for listing under the ESA. Following status review of proposed or candidate

species, the USFWS determines whether a species warrants protection under the ESA. A species

that does not warrant protection may remain or be placed on the Wyoming BLM Sensitive

Species list. The USFWS also administers designation of critical habitat for listed species and

the MBTA, which protects migratory bird species whether they are hunted (e.g., waterfowl) or

not (e.g., songbirds). In accordance with the ESA, the USFWS oversees the management of

federally listed species and the designation of critical habitats. Any action a federal agency

proposes that (1) could adversely impact a federally listed species or (2) will result in jeopardy or

adverse modification of critical habitats requires formal consultation. Any action a federal agency

proposes that (1) could affect – not likely to adversely affect or (2) could affect – could have

beneficial impacts to a federally listed species requires informal consultation.

The BLM is responsible for managing habitat; state and federal wildlife management agencies

oversee the management of special status wildlife and fish species. The WGFD has developed a

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Fish and Wildlife Resources – Wildlife
408 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

list of species of greatest conservation need for Wyoming. Information regarding these species

can be found on the WGFD website (http://gf.state.wy.us/index.asp).

The Wyoming BLM mitigation guidelines for surface-disturbing and disruptive activities include

wildlife mitigation guidelines (Appendix M (p. 1595)). These guidelines identify seasonal

restrictions on surface disturbance that have the potential to affect special status species habitat,

such as greater sage-grouse habitat.

Standard 4 of the Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands ensures that habitats that support

or could support threatened, endangered, and BLM-designated special status species will be

maintained or enhanced. Indicators that are used to assess standard 4 include the presence

of invasive plant species, species diversity, age class distribution, population trends, habitat

fragmentation, and other indicators associated with upland and riparian-wetland standards

(Appendix J (p. 1537)).

In the planning area, the BLM determines the presence of special status species on a case-by-case

basis. In addition, the BLM relies on the Wyoming Natural Diversity Database inventory and

modeling to help in determining the presence of special status species in areas where survey

information is not available. The Wyoming Natural Diversity Database maintains a list of

Wyoming species of special concern and provides information on global and state abundance,

legal status, and state distribution. WYNDD considers species in Wyoming to be of special

concern if (1) the species is vulnerable to extinction at the global or state level due to inherent

rarity, (2) the species has experienced a substantial loss of habitat, or (3) the species is sensitive to

human-caused mortality or habitat disturbances.

Special status plants, fish, and wildlife species considered in this analysis are those listed as

threatened or endangered under the ESA, those proposed for listing or are candidates for listing

under the provisions of the ESA, or those designated by the BLM State Director or the State of

Wyoming as sensitive (BLM sensitive species).

3.4.7. Special Status Species – Plants

The BLM is responsible for managing habitat for special status plant species. The planning area

contains potential habitat for 15 special status plant species. One species is listed as endangered,

2 species are listed as threatened, 1 species is a candidate, and 11 additional species are on

the Wyoming BLM sensitive species list. Table 3.40, “Special Status Plants in the Planning

Area” (p. 408) identifies these special status plant species. There is designated critical habitat

for one species (desert yellowhead) in the planning area. In addition, the western prairie fringed

orchid is a threatened plant that does not occur in the planning area but occurs in downstream

riverine habitat in Nebraska. This species is considered when analyzing water depletion activities

in the Sweetwater River watershed in the planning area.

Table 3.40. Special Status Plants in the Planning Area

Common Name Scientific Name Status

Blowout penstemon Penstemon haydenii Endangered

Desert yellowhead1 Yermo xanthocephalus Threatened

Ute ladies’-tresses Spiranthes diluvialis Threatened

Whitebark pine Pinus albicaulis Candidate

Barneby’s clover Trifolium barnebyi BLM Sensitive

Beaver Rim phlox Phlox pungens BLM Sensitive

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Special Status Species – Plants February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 409

Common Name Scientific Name Status

Cedar Rim thistle Cirsium aridum var. purpureus BLM Sensitive

Dubois milkvetch Astragalus gilviflorus BLM Sensitive

Fremont bladderpod Lesquerella fremontii BLM Sensitive

Limber pine Pinus flexilis BLM Sensitive

Meadow pussytoes Antennaria arcuata BLM Sensitive

Owl Creek miner’s candle Cryptantha subcapitata BLM Sensitive

Persistent sepal yellowcress Rorippa calycina BLM Sensitive

Porter’s sagebrush Artemisia porteri BLM Sensitive

Rocky Mountain twinpod Physaria saximontana var.

saximontana

BLM Sensitive

Source: BLM 2010b

1 There is designated critical habitat for this species in the planning area.

BLM Bureau of Land Management

The various climates, topography, soils, rock cliffs, and outcrops provide a diverse landscape in

the planning area for special status plant species. These species can be found in grassland and

shrubland communities, riparian-wetland and wetland habitats, and other habitats, including rocky

outcrops and badlands. Due in large part to their rarity and lack of comprehensive inventories,

precise information regarding the location, population size, and condition of each population in

the planning area is relatively unknown. A brief description of each of the 15 special status

plant species follows. Unless otherwise noted, there is no specific information on trends and

occurrences for each of the species.

Blowout Penstemon

Blowout penstemon is listed as an endangered species. No blowout penstemon populations have

been identified in the planning area; however, this species does occur in the neighboring BLM

Rawlins planning area. This member of the figwort family takes its name from its typical type of

habitat; a “blowout” depression is a sparsely vegetated area in sand dunes caused by wind erosion.

Blowout penstemon is found primarily on the rim and lee slopes of blowouts, and associated steep

slopes deposited at the base of foothills. This species occurs at elevations of 5,860 to 7,440

feet (Heidel 2008). Approximately 100 acres of identified sand dune habitat exists for blowout

penstemon south of Green Mountain in the planning area, however a 2000 survey conducted by

WYNDD personnel yielded no plants. Threats to this species might include habitat loss and

degradation from sand mining, water development, energy development, motorized travel and

associated destabilization, or spread of invasive species (Heidel 2008).

Desert Yellowhead

Desert yellowhead, listed as a threatened species, occurs in the planning area. The planning area

contains the only known populations and designated critical habitat for desert yellowhead in the

world. The initial population was discovered in 1990 and occurs in an area of approximately 8

acres that appears to be associated with a specific geologic formation. The population increased

from approximately 9,300 plants in 1995 to approximately 13,200 plants in 2000. The plant occurs

in sparsely vegetated cushion plant communities on low slopes, rim margins, colluvial fans, and

bottoms in deflation hollows (Fertig and Heidel 2002). The USFWS has designated critical habitat

for this population; the area is closed to vehicle traffic and withdrawn from locatable mineral

exploration and development (Map 67). In 2010, a new population was discovered approximately

4 miles northeast of the original population. Plants in this population occupy approximately 1

acre. There are approximately 400 plants located within 7 subpopulations that are scattered on

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Special Status Species – Plants
410 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

escarpment slopes, generally south-facing, and on gravelly silt loam derived from the White River

Formation. The two populations vary in the geology and vegetative composition of the sites. The

second site is not included within the critical habitat boundary. Threats to this species include

trampling and incidental grazing by livestock and wild horses, mineral development, ROW

authorizations, and cross-country vehicle travel. Conservation measures have been developed as

part of the Biological Assessment and the USFWS is working on a recovery plan for the species.

Ute Ladies’-tresses

Ute ladies’-tresses is listed as a threatened species. Ute ladies’-tresses is found on moist peat,

sand, silt, or gravel soils near wet meadows, springs, lakes, ponds, or perennial streams. No Ute

ladies’-tresses have been identified in the planning area; however, there is potential habitat for

this species. Ute ladies’-tresses is known to occur in the neighboring BLM Rawlins planning

area. Threats to this species include energy development, subdivision development, invasive plant

species, and water developments (Heidel 2007).

Whitebark Pine

Whitebark pine, a USFWS candidate species, primarily occurs on cold and windy subalpine

and alpine sites above 8,000 in elevation. Potential habitat exists in the Dubois area near the

interface with the Shoshone National Forest; however, the species has not been confirmed on

BLM-administered lands. Whitebark pine is declining throughout its range from mortality

associated with mountain pine beetle and white pine blister rust. Whitebark pine is a major food

source for the grizzly bear, a species listed as threatened under ESA.

Barneby’s Clover

Barneby’s clover is a BLM sensitive species. A local endemic known only from the southeastern

foothills of the Wind River Range and southern Beaver Rim, this plant occurs on ledges,

crevices, and seams on reddish-cream Nugget Sandstone outcrops at 5,600 to 6,700 feet elevation

predominantly in the Red Canyon area. In 1986, it was estimated the Red Canyon populations,

which occur predominantly on BLM-administered lands, consisted of approximately 11,000

plants. Subsequent surveys indicate the population is stable and the species is long-lived. Threats

such as livestock grazing are very low due to the plant's largely inaccessible habitat. Herbivory by

rabbits, rodents, and insects may occur, but would not be considered threatening to this species.

Barneby’s clover may be displaced in advanced succession or die back in drought (Heidel 2009a).

Beaver Rim Phlox

Beaver Rim phlox is a BLM sensitive species. Endemic to the Wind River basin and the

southeastern foothills of the Wind River Range, this plant occurs on sparsely vegetated slopes

on sandstone, siltstone, or limestone substrates at 6,000 to 7,400 feet elevation. The species is

currently known from 31 occurrences in the state. In 1990, the population was estimated to be

200,000 plants within 2 populations, predominantly on BLM-administered lands in the Beaver

Rim area. Since that time, additional populations have been discovered in the Red Canyon

and Sand Draw areas as well as in Colorado, more than doubling the population estimate.

Observations suggest populations are stable. Potential threats include surface disturbance

associated with oil and gas development, and road, pipeline, pump station, and transmission

line construction (Heidel 2009b).

Cedar Rim Thistle

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Special Status Species – Plants February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 411

Cedar Rim thistle is a BLM sensitive species. Known from 12 occurrences in Wyoming with

populations estimated at 50,000 plants in 1995, this species prefers barren, chalky hills, gravelly

slopes, and fine textured, sandy-shaley draws at 6,700 to 7,200 feet elevation. It is found in the

Beaver Rim area in the planning area. Populations are likely stable, although long-term trend

data are lacking. Eleven of the 12 sites are entirely on BLM-administered lands and the twelfth

site is on BLM and State of Wyoming Lands. Threats to Cedar Rim thistle include herbicide

treatment or release of biocontrol insects intended to control other thistle species, and soil erosion

or displacement of plants by OHVs (Fertig 2000a).

Dubois Milkvetch

Dubois milkvetch is a BLM sensitive species. Known only in the area around Dubois, this species

occurs near barren shale, limestone, or redbed badlands, on slopes and ridges from 6,900 to

8,800 feet in elevation. As of May 2011, WYNDD identified 11 occurrences of the species

totaling approximately 100,000 to 150,000 plants. Because of the interspersed land pattern in the

Dubois area, the species occurs on BLM, State of Wyoming, private, WRIR tribal, and Wyoming

Game and Fish Commission lands. No trend data are available, but there is little evidence to

suggest a large-scale population decline. Potential threats to this species include soil erosion and

compaction by OHVs and urban expansion in the Dubois area (Fertig 2000b).

Fremont Bladderpod

Fremont bladderpod is a BLM sensitive species. Endemic to the east slope of the Wind River

Range, this sensitive species can be found on rocky limestone slopes and ridges at 7,000 to 9,000

feet elevation. As of 2000, the species was known from 9 occurrences with a total population

size estimated at 50,000 to 60,000 individuals. The species is found on BLM-administered lands

near Limestone Mountain and north of Sweetwater Canyon, and on adjacent Shoshone National

Forest lands. Potential threats to this species include limestone quarrying and road construction

(Fertig 2000c).

Limber Pine

Limber pine is a BLM sensitive species. This plant is widespread but patchy across the West and

occurs at timberline and at lower elevations with sagebrush. Associated species are lodgepole

pine, Engelmann spruce, whitebark pine, Douglas-fir, subalpine fir, Rocky Mountain juniper,

mountain mahogany, and common juniper. Occurrences are not typically documented in rare

plant databases, making population estimates difficult. Limber pine is found predominantly in

the planning area along the Wind River Range near Dubois, Lander, and South Pass, and in the

Green Mountain area. Potential threats include blister rust, mountain pine beetle, dwarf mistletoe,

and climate change.

Meadow Pussytoes

Meadow pussytoes is a BLM sensitive species. This plant species occurs in moist, hummocky

meadows, near seeps or springs surrounded by sagebrush/grasslands at 4,950 to 7,900 feet

elevation. There are 23 known occurrences of meadow pussytoes in Wyoming, with all but 1

population located in Fremont County. The species is found predominantly on BLM-administered

lands in the South Pass and Sweetwater Canyon areas within the planning area. In 1995, the

population estimate was approximately 130,000 individuals, and data indicates a slight downward

trend. Potential threats to this species include trampling by OHVs, mineral development, and

water projects (Fertig 2000d).

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Special Status Species – Plants
412 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Owl Creek Miner’s Candle

Owl Creek miner’s candle is a BLM sensitive species. Considered endemic to the Owl Creek

Mountains and Bridger Mountain Range and northern Wind River Basin, this species occurs on

sandy-gravelly slopes and desert ridges on Wind River formation sandstones at 4,700 to 6,000 feet

elevation. The species is known from five sites in Fremont County that are on BLM-administered

and WRIR tribal lands. In 1995, the total population was estimated at approximately 38,000

plants on less than 1,500 acres. The current population trend is assumed to be stable. Threats to

this species are low due to its habitat being inaccessible; however, this small natural range of this

species makes it vulnerable to extirpation from natural events (Fertig 2000e).

Persistent Sepal Yellowcress

Persistent sepal yellowcress is a BLM sensitive species. This riparian-wetland species occurs

along riverbanks and shorelines, usually on sandy soils near the high water line at 3,660 to 6,800

feet elevation. There are 28 known occurrences in Wyoming with 1 occurrence located on private

land in the planning area. Total population size for the species in Wyoming is estimated at 25,000

plants; long-term trend data are not available. Individual colonies can vary in size in response to

yearly flooding levels. Potential habitat for this species is generally protected by a prohibition

on disturbance or development within 500 feet of riparian-wetland areas. Threats to this species

include changes in water management that reduce the periodicity of flooding, competition from

invasive species, herbicide spraying, trampling by livestock, recreation activities, and coal mining

(Handley and Heidel 2008).

Porter’s Sagebrush

Porter’s sagebrush is a BLM sensitive species. This sensitive plant inhabits sparsely vegetated

badlands of ashy or tufaceous mudstone and clay slopes at 5,300 to 6,500 feet elevation and is

endemic to the Wind River basin. Known from eight occurrences in Wyoming, six occurrences

are located on BLM-administered lands in the planning area. Although computer modeling

suggests that there might be suitable habitat for this species across much of the planning area,

the species has primarily been found in the Sand Draw and Lysite areas of the planning area.

Population estimates vary from the low hundreds to low thousands, and short-term data suggest

that populations are stable. Threats to this species include habitat modification due to oil and gas

development, road building, and vehicle disturbance (Fertig 2000f).

Rocky Mountain Twinpod

Rocky Mountain twinpod is a BLM sensitive species. Known from 18 occurrences in Wyoming,

mostly in Fremont and Hot Springs Counties, this species occurs on sparsely vegetated rocky

slopes of limestone, sandstone, or clay at 5,600 to 8,300 feet elevation. Of the six sites in the

planning area, one is on BLM-administered lands, and the rest are on private lands. Populations

tend to be small and are assumed to be stable. Potential threats to this species include road

construction, pipeline construction, and OHV use (Fertig and Mills 2000).

Management Challenges for Special Status Species – Plants

The special status plant species described above are difficult to survey except during their

flowering periods and might be disturbed by activities (e.g., grazing, motorized travel, and

energy development) proposed or permitted during other seasons of the year. Management

challenges for special status plant species include declining populations for select species;

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Special Status Species – Plants February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 413

drought and other natural events; climate change; the spread of invasive species; maintaining

PFC for riparian-wetland habitats; vegetation treatment with prescribed fire or herbicides; lack

of periodic disturbance events (e.g., fire and flood); physical trampling (e.g., OHV use); loss

of habitat resulting from altered hydrology; and challenges presented by special status plant

populations occurring over multiple land ownerships. While threats to some species may remain

low due to the remoteness of habitat, threats to other species could increase despite distance

or restricted access. The BLM requires surveys for special status plants prior to authorizing

surface disturbance on site-specific locations. The initially discovered larger population of desert

yellowhead is protected with a motor vehicle closure and mineral withdrawal.

3.4.8. Special Status Species – Fish

Fish habitats in the planning area include perennial and intermittent streams that support fish

through at least part of the year. The Wind River and North Platte watersheds are the two major

drainages in the planning area. The condition of fish habitat is related to hydrologic conditions

of the upland and riparian-wetland areas associated with or contributing to a specific stream or

waterbody. Aquatic habitat quality varies by location and orientation to geographic landforms and

vegetation. Refer to the Fish and Wildlife Resources – Fish section of this document for more

information about fish habitat in the planning area.

No federally listed fish species are known to occur in the planning area. The Yellowstone

cutthroat trout is the only BLM sensitive fish species and only native trout in the planning area.

This species is found in the Wind River drainage near Dubois. This drainage lies in the southern

extent of the Yellowstone ecosystem. The species is found in relatively clear, cold streams such as

the East Fork of the Wind River and its tributaries.

Sauger and burbot are WGFD species of concern and are found in the planning area. Actions

affecting water quality and quantity for waters in which these species occur and upstream

tributaries could adversely impact spawning success and the survival of early life stages for these

species. Early life stages are sensitive to environmental conditions and decreasing turbidity

during spring could lead to increased predation of larval fish.

Sauger are present in the Wind River, Little Wind River, Popo Agie River, Little Popo Agie River,

and Boysen Reservoir. Core spawning areas for sauger are in the Little Wind River downstream

of the confluence with Beaver Creek and in the Popo Agie River upstream of its confluence with

the Little Wind River. Lower Beaver Creek is ephemeral, which results in turbid spring flushes.

Actions that could cause a shift toward perennial flow in Beaver Creek could result in clearer

discharge and would be undesirable. Actions affecting water quantity and quality in the lower

reaches of Beaver Creek could affect spawning success for sauger.

Burbot are present in Torrey Creek, Wind River, Popo Agie River, and Boysen Reservoir. Burbot

spawn in January and February and prefer clear water. Threats that could affect spawning success

for burbot would be activities that increase warm water or increase turbidity and sedimentation

during late fall and winter.

In addition, the Sweetwater River drainage in the planning area is part of the North Platte

system, which is subject to water depletion limitations to protect threatened and endangered

species, including special status fish species, downstream and outside the planning area. Water

depletions upstream can change the velocity, volume, and timing of downstream river water

flows. Water development projects (e.g., dams, reservoirs, water and sediment control basins,

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Special Status Species – Fish
414 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

irrigation diversions, sand and gravel mining, and wetland creation) have altered historic surface

water hydrographs (e.g., water flow timing, volume, and velocity) in the North Platte River

ecosystem through consumption and evaporation. The BLM consults with the USFWS for

activities that might result in water depletions occurring in the Sweetwater River watershed.

Additional information regarding Platte River-dependent special status species is available at

http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/wtr/PlatteRiver.htm.

Management Challenges for Special Status Species – Fish

Management challenges for the Yellowstone cutthroat trout include drought and other natural

events, low water flows, sediment loading, declining population trends, and maintaining habitat

for this species. Drought conditions have affected the volume of water available in streams that

support Yellowstone cutthroat trout and have generally led to declines in the population. Low

water flows can affect the timing and success of spawning efforts and lead to reduced reproduction

rates. Some streams have experienced a loss in the number of deep pools needed to over-winter

fish. In recent years, high water runoff that flushes sediment out of the deep pools and cleans

spawning beds has been lacking. As the danger of wildfire increases, the likelihood of habitat

degradation from the use of fire retardants also increases. Although there are no management

protections specific for this species, Yellowstone cutthroat trout could be afforded some protection

from sediment loading through the restriction of surface-disturbing activities within 500 feet

of riparian-wetland areas.

Surface-disturbing activities can contribute sediment to spawning areas and can alter stream

hydrology and degrade the stream or its water quality, which could adversely impact sauger and

burbot habitat, reproduction, and survival. Changes in weather patterns (e.g., drought) could

contribute to changes in stream systems such as flow, temperature, and turbidity. 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.

3.4.9. Special Status Species – Wildlife

One endangered wildlife species (black-footed ferret), two threatened wildlife species (grizzly

bear and Canada lynx), and one candidate species (greater sage-grouse) are known to occur in the

planning area. Twenty-five additional BLM sensitive species are known to occur or have potential

habitat in the planning area. The USFWS identified the North American wolverine as a candidate

species in December 2010. The North American wolverine generally inhabits areas at or above

timberline and there are no BLM‐administered public lands in the planning area that support this

type of habitat. Therefore, the North American wolverine will not be discussed further in this

document. Table 3.41, “Special Status Wildlife Known to Occur in Suitable Habitat” (p. 415) and

the discussion of special status wildlife species in this section are organized by the applicable

Wyoming statutory categories identified in the Fish and Wildlife Resources – Wildlife section.

There is critical habitat for Canada lynx in the planning area; however, the critical habitat is on

USFS-managed land, not BLM-administered land. Map 66 identifies Canada lynx analysis units

in the planning area; Governor’s greater sage-grouse Core Area and greater sage-grouse leks

are displayed on Map 63.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Special Status Species – Wildlife February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 415

Table 3.41. Special Status Wildlife Known to Occur in Suitable Habitat

Wyoming Statutory Wildlife

Category

Common Name Status

Trophy Game Grizzly bear Threatened

Predatory Animals Gray wolf Non-essential, Experimental

(delisted September 30, 2012)1

Trumpeter swan BLM Sensitive

Game Birds Greater sage-grouse Candidate

BLM Sensitive

Bald eagle BLM Sensitive

Northern goshawk BLM Sensitive

Ferruginous hawk BLM Sensitive

Peregrine falcon BLM Sensitive

Nongame Raptors

Burrowing owl BLM Sensitive

White-faced ibis BLM Sensitive

Mountain plover BLM Sensitive

Long-billed curlew BLM Sensitive

Yellow-billed cuckoo BLM Sensitive

Sage thrasher BLM Sensitive

Loggerhead shrike BLM Sensitive

Brewer’s sparrow BLM Sensitive

Nongame Neotropical Migrants

Sage sparrow BLM Sensitive

Canada lynx Threatened

Black-footed ferret Endangered

Long-eared myotis BLM Sensitive

Spotted bat BLM Sensitive

Townsend’s big-eared bat BLM Sensitive

Pygmy rabbit BLM Sensitive

White-tailed prairie dog BLM Sensitive

Nongame Mammals

Swift fox BLM Sensitive

Northern leopard frog BLM Sensitive

Great Basin spadefoot toad BLM Sensitive

Boreal toad BLM Sensitive

Nongame Amphibians

Spotted frog BLM Sensitive

Sources: USFWS 2008a; BLM 2010b

1 The delisting of the gray wolf occurred between the release of the Draft RMP and EIS and the

Proposed RMP and Final EIS. Pursuant to BLM Manual 6840, all federal candidate species, proposed species, and

delisted species in the five years following delisting will be conserved as BLM sensitive species; therefore, the

analysis of the gray wolf in this document has been carried forward.

BLM Bureau of Land Management

Special status wildlife species in the planning area occupy a variety of habitat types, including

sagebrush shrublands, grasslands, and riparian-wetland and wetland habitats. There are no

comprehensive data on population numbers and distribution in the planning area for most special

status species. Unless otherwise noted, specific information on distribution and occurrences for

each of the species is not available. The BLM consults with the USFWS before implementing any

project that might impact federally listed species or their habitats. Measures to protect special

status wildlife species are noted below, as applicable.

Trophy Game

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Special Status Species – Wildlife
416 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

The grizzly bear, a threatened species, is the only trophy game animal known to occur in the

planning area. The USFWS delisted the grizzly bear in April 2007, but a court decision vacated

the delisting rule and the species was relisted in September 2009. The grizzly bear can be present

in dense forests to sub-alpine meadows and arctic tundra. Grizzly bear encounters with domestic

livestock have been recorded in the Dubois area. Grizzly bears have expanded their range due in

part to increasing population numbers resulting from protections for this species. In addition,

during drought years, forage shortages have caused individual grizzly bears to range farther in

search of adequate food supplies. Threats to the grizzly bear include loss and fragmentation of

habitat, conflicts between grizzly bears and recreationists, and conflicts between grizzly bears and

livestock. These conflicts typically result in the removal or death of the bear.

Furbearing Animals

No furbearing special status species are known to occur in the planning area.

Predatory Animals

The gray wolf was delisted by the USFWS on September 30, 2012. It was previously listed as an

experimental population, non-essential, and this species primarily inhabits forested areas. Wolves

were reintroduced to the Greater Yellowstone region in 1994 and the reintroduction has been

successful in establishing a wide-ranging population with many packs in northwestern Wyoming.

At present, the WGFD classifies gray wolves as predatory animals (Cerovski et al. 2004). Gray

wolves could be classified as trophy game animals in the northwestern part of the planning

area near Dubois if they are delisted from the ESA. Outside of this area, gray wolves would be

classified as predatory animals and managed as furbearers. Gray wolves are known to occur in the

northwestern corner of the planning area and are believed to occur elsewhere in the planning area.

Threats to gray wolves include conflicts between gray wolves and livestock, conflicts between

gray wolves and humans, and habitat loss and fragmentation.

Game Birds

Two special status game birds, the trumpeter swan and the greater sage-grouse, occur in the

planning area. In March 2010, the USFWS designated the greater sage-grouse as a candidate

species for listing. Both species are BLM sensitive species.

The trumpeter swan is generally associated with larger waterbodies such as lakes and rivers. In

the planning area, most observations of trumpeter swans have been along the Sweetwater and

Wind Rivers.

The greater sage-grouse is the most common and widespread game bird in the planning area

and occurs in sagebrush habitats. As of 2011, there were 178 documented occupied strutting

grounds (leks) in the planning area, with another 50 leks on the WRIR, and 5 leks on Bureau

of Reclamation land.

The planning area has been identified as supporting some of the best greater sage-grouse habitat

in Wyoming and throughout the species range (Connelly et al. 2004). Of particular importance

is the area between the Hudson and the Sweetwater River, which contains important breeding,

nesting, brood-rearing, and winter habitats. The area is mostly undeveloped; thus habitats are

mainly intact and not fragmented. The Audubon Wyoming designated the Ninemile Draw area

south of Hudson as an IBA for greater sage-grouse. The area has been identified as a greater

sage-grouse stronghold for breeding populations in western North America and contributes to the

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Special Status Species – Wildlife February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 417

conservation of the species. Given the area’s relatively undisturbed greater sage-grouse habitat,

several research projects have been conducted in the area that have statewide application. Because

of the knowledge about greater sage-grouse numbers and population trends, their seasonal ranges,

and the opportunity to use the area to study greater sage-grouse, this area was nominated by

the Wind River‐Sweetwater River Sage‐Grouse Local Working Group for ACEC designation.

Subsequently, the WGFD requested that a much larger area that extends east and south of the

Local Working Group nomination be considered for ACEC designation.

The Governor of Wyoming issued Executive Order 2008-2, which was superseded by 2010-4 and

subsequently replaced by 2011-5, for increased protection of greater sage-grouse. The Executive

Order delineates Core Area in the state, including the planning area, and places limits on surface

disturbance and habitat fragmentation in Core Area. Map 63 identifies the greater sage-grouse

leks and the Governor’s Core Area in the planning area. The Governor’s greater sage-grouse Core

Area covers 2,664,509 acres (all ownership types) in the planning area.

Greater sage-grouse populations have been declining across the western United States, prompting

several petitions to list them as threatened under the ESA. In March 2010, the USFWS announced

its 12-month finding that listing of the greater sage-grouse is “warranted but precluded.” Thus, the

species is designated as a candidate for listing with the USFWS and will be reviewed annually to

determine if the listing status should be changed. As identified in the USFWS 2010 finding, the

greater sage-grouse population in the planning area is part of Management Zone II, one of seven

Management Zones for greater sage-grouse delineated by the WAFWA based upon ecological and

biological attributes, which includes greater sage-grouse populations throughout the Wyoming

Basin (USFWS 2010). Threats to greater sage-grouse in Management Zone II are discussed at

length in the USFWS finding and would apply to the planning area.

Since USFWS made their 2010 finding of “warranted but precluded” for greater sage-grouse,

additional guidance has come out of the BLM’s Washington and Wyoming State Offices regarding

management of greater sage-grouse habitats. In December 2011, a greater sage-grouse National

Technical Team developed science-based recommendations and regulatory mechanisms to

conserve or restore greater sage-grouse habitat that are to be considered in RMPs (BLM 2011a).

In February 2012, the Wyoming State Office issued policy for management of greater sage-grouse

habitats that incorporates the management outlined in Executive Order 2011-5 (BLM 2012d).

Wildfire and prescribed fire have been identified as risks to sagebrush in areas receiving less than

12 inches of precipitation per year. More than 75 percent of greater sage-grouse Core Area

receives less than 12 inches of annual precipitation.

Greater sage-grouse population numbers are difficult to estimate, but long-term data collected

from counting males on leks provides insight to population trends. Based on population estimates,

greater sage-grouse population numbers in the late 1960s and early 1970s were likely two to three

times greater than current numbers. Noticeable declines in greater sage-grouse populations

occurred in the 1920s and 1930s, and then again in the 1960s and 1970s (Connelly and Braun

1997). Connelly et al. (2004) reported range-wide declines, averaging 2 percent per year, from

1965 through 2003. Other researchers have concluded that range wide, greater sage-grouse have

experienced long-term population declines in the past 43 years.

Greater sage-grouse population levels throughout the planning area plummeted during the 1990s

and then experienced a resurgence in the 2000s. This resurgence is thought to be related to

precipitation events that promoted grass growth, thus aiding survival of young. Populations

in areas of extensive energy development, including fields near Lysite, Moneta, and below

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Special Status Species – Wildlife
418 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Beaver Rim in the Wind River Basin, have not seen the same degrees of growth as other parts

of the planning area. Some areas in Wyoming have experienced substantial greater sage-grouse

mortality related to the presence of mosquitoes that carry WNV. Water impoundments associated

with oil and gas fields and water reservoirs are mosquito breeding grounds and have been linked to

WNV. A few cases of greater sage-grouse deaths as a result of WNV have been documented in the

planning area; however, it is not possible to quantify the extent of mortality because scavenging

animals often consume the greater sage-grouse carcass shortly after death. The BLM recently

identified WNV as a threat of extirpation in the Buffalo Field Office planning area. Populations

and patterns of greater sage-grouse are quite different, and long-term impacts, such as whether

surviving birds develop an immunity to the virus in themselves or offspring, are not known.

At present, human-caused disturbance is seasonally restricted within 2 miles of greater

sage-grouse strutting grounds to mitigate impacts to breeding and nesting. Additionally, NSO

restrictions apply within a quarter-mile of an occupied lek. Based on recent research suggesting

the current protective buffers do not provide adequate protection for nesting greater sage-grouse,

and that greater sage-grouse tend to avoid nesting near vertical structures (e.g., overhead

utility lines, and wind turbines), the BLM is considering extensive modifications to greater

sage-grouse protections nationwide. Threats to greater sage-grouse include degradation, loss, and

fragmentation of habitat, predation, WNV, and human disturbance during sensitive periods.

Nongame (Raptors)

The bald eagle, northern goshawk, ferruginous hawk, peregrine falcon, and burrowing owl are

BLM sensitive raptor species known to occur in the planning area. All raptors are protected under

the MBTA, as are most avian species. For all raptor species, seasonal BLM stipulations that

limit human-related activities near nests have been applied to surface-disturbing activities such

as ROWs and oil and gas development. “Raptor-proofing” of electrical transmission facilities

is required to prevent electrocution of raptors. Threats to special status raptor species include

human disturbance during sensitive periods and loss of habitat.

Bald eagle

The bald eagle inhabits large bodies of open water, including lakes, marshes, and rivers, where

there is an abundance of tall trees to roost and fish to eat. Along the Middle and Little Popo Agie

Rivers and the Wind River, winter sightings of bald eagles have occurred since as early as 1974.

At present, there are no known nests on BLM-administered lands; however, there is one nest on

USFS-managed land in the planning area. Identified active bald eagle nests and winter roost sites

are protected from disturbance within a half-mile of the nest or site. A seasonal protection from

disturbing activities is applied from February 1 through August 15 for active nests and from

November 1 through April 1 for identified winter roosting areas. Additional restrictions on

disturbance within suitable habitat may apply.

Northern goshawk

The northern goshawk is found in coniferous forests, especially Douglas-fir, lodgepole pine, and

aspen (Cerovski et al. 2004). The northern goshawk forages in a variety of habitats. There is

suitable habitat for the northern goshawk primarily on Green Mountain and Lander Slope. Nests

have been documented on Green Mountain.

Ferruginous hawk

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Special Status Species – Wildlife February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 419

The ferruginous hawk occurs in basin-prairie shrublands and mountain-foothills grasslands

and usually nests on rock outcrops, tall sagebrush, or in trees. Nests have been documented

throughout the planning area. Ferruginous hawk populations maybe declining; many previously

active nests have been unoccupied in recent years.

Peregrine falcon

Peregrine falcons nest on tall cliffs and prey mainly on other bird species. Suitable habitat for

peregrine falcons in the planning area includes the steep canyons along the Lander Slope and

sites near Warm Springs Canyon and Arrow Mountain; they have also been documented in

the Dubois area.

Burrowing owl

Burrowing owls are found in grasslands and basin-prairie shrublands. This species uses burrows

built by other animals such as prairie dogs for nesting and roosting. Burrowing owls can be found

in suitable habitat throughout the planning area.

Nongame (Neotropical Migrants)

There are eight BLM sensitive neotropical migrants in the planning area: white-faced ibis,

long-billed curlew, yellow-billed cuckoo, sage thrasher, loggerhead shrike, Brewer’s sparrow,

sage sparrow, and mountain plover. These species occur in a variety of habitats throughout the

planning area. The MBTA protects all of these species. Any additional protections are noted

below for specific species. Threats to special status neotropical migrants include degradation,

fragmentation, and loss of habitat.

White-faced ibis

This species is generally associated with marshlands and has been observed in suitable habitats

in the planning area.

Mountain plover

This species is generally found in habitats with little or no vegetation structure, such as grasslands,

alkali flats, or low shrubs (e.g., saltbush). Mountain plovers may nest on sites where vegetation

is sparse to bare or closely cropped. This species is protected from disturbance during its

nesting period (April 10 to July 10). Mountain plover habitat is found throughout the planning

area but the most extensive habitat is located in the northeast part of the planning area in the

Shoshoni-Moneta-Lysite areas. Prior to May 2011, the mountain plover was a proposed species

for listing under ESA. On May 12, 2011, the USFWS announced its decision to withdraw the

proposed listing of the mountain plover as a threatened species (76 Federal Register 27756). The

mountain plover is a species on the BLM sensitive species list.

Long-billed curlew

The long billed curlew is associated with wetlands, but may nest in dry meadows. This species

has been observed in suitable habitats in the planning area.

Yellow-billed cuckoo

The yellow-billed cuckoo is associated with wooded riparian-wetland habitats. There are no

occupied habitats for the yellow-billed cuckoo identified in the planning area.

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Special Status Species – Wildlife
420 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Sage thrasher, loggerhead shrike, Brewer’s sparrow, and sage sparrow

These species are associated with sagebrush-steppe or shrubland habitats and can be found

throughout the planning area in suitable habitat. Threats to these species are similar to threats

for the greater sage-grouse due to occupying similar habitats.

Nongame (Mammals)

There are eight nongame special status mammal species in or with potential habit in the planning

area: black-footed ferret (endangered), Canada lynx (threatened), long-eared myotis (BLM

sensitive), spotted bat (BLM sensitive), Townsend’s big-eared bat (BLM sensitive), pygmy

rabbit (BLM sensitive), white-tailed prairie dog (BLM sensitive), and swift fox (BLM sensitive).

These species occupy a variety of habitats in the planning area. The BLM consults with the

USFWS on all proposed activities that could impact threatened and endangered species. BLM is

committed to the conservation measures for Canada lynx and black-footed ferret in the Statewide

Programmatic species-specific consultations. Threats to special status nongame mammals

include human disturbance, pesticides that reduce the insect prey base, and degradation, loss,

and fragmentation of habitat.

Canada lynx

Canada lynx generally occur in dense coniferous forests at high elevations. Canada lynx have

not been documented on BLM-administered land in the planning area; however, there are five

Lynx Analysis Units that encompass BLM-administered lands and adjacent larger tracts of

USFS-managed land in the northwestern part of the planning area (Map 66). There could be

some special status wildlife species, such as the lynx, in the Dubois area, but none have been

documented on BLM-administered lands.

Black-footed ferret

The black-footed ferret is found in association with prairie dog colonies in basin-prairie

shrublands, sagebrush-grasslands, and foothills grasslands. Prairie dogs constitute the main prey

source for black-footed ferrets. Although historically distributed throughout much of Wyoming,

the only black-footed ferrets now in the state are in the Shirley Basin/Medicine Bow Management

Area in Laramie (outside the planning area). These animals are a reintroduced, experimental

population of descendents of the last wild ferrets trapped near Meeteetse in 1981. The only part of

the planning area with potential to reintroduce black-footed ferrets is the Pathfinder White-tailed

Prairie Dog Complex at the junction of Fremont, Natrona, and Carbon Counties. This area is

proposed as an ACEC for protection of the black-footed ferret.

Declines in prairie dog populations, conversion of grasslands to agricultural uses, and prairie dog

eradication are tied to the decline of black-footed ferret populations.

Long-eared myotis

The long-eared myotis seasonally inhabits coniferous forests and woodlands and forages over

water in these habitats, primarily feeding on beetles and moths. The long-eared myotis is sensitive

to human disturbance during hibernation. Habitat alteration, modification or loss of roosting

habitat, and toxic chemicals are threats to bat species.

Spotted bat

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Special Status Species – Wildlife February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 421

The spotted bat is known to seasonally roost in cliff crevices near perennial water. The spotted bat

is sensitive to human disturbance during hibernation. Habitat alteration, modification or loss of

roosting habitat, and toxic chemicals are threats to bat species.

Townsend’s big-eared bat

This species requires caves or mineshafts throughout its life-cycle. Suitable habitat in the planning

area is limited to abandoned mineshafts. Many mineshafts and adits that support bats have been

fitted with “bat grates” that allow use by bats but prevent human entry. The Townsend’s big-eared

bat is sensitive to human disturbance during hibernation. Habitat alteration, modification or loss

of roosting habitat, and toxic chemicals are threats to bat species.

Pygmy rabbit

The pygmy rabbit inhabits dense, tall stands of sagebrush in deep soil. This species has been

observed primarily in the area south of the Sweetwater River to the southern Lander Field Office

boundary. Because pygmy rabbits do not venture far from these habitats, projects that remove

this habitat could affect the pygmy rabbit. Avoiding pygmy rabbit habitat might be sufficient

to sustain the population.

White-tailed prairie dog

This species inhabits rolling and level sagebrush-steppe and grassland habitats. Recreational

shooting and management as an agricultural pest have contributed to the decline of this species.

Conservation measures include avoiding surface-disturbing activities near occupied burrows.

Swift fox

Historically, this species occupied short- or mixed-grass prairies on level to moderately rolling

terrain in the Great Plains. Although there is suitable swift fox habitat in the northeastern most

part of the planning area, there are no recent observations of this species in the planning area.

Nongame (Amphibians)

There are four BLM sensitive amphibians in the planning area: northern leopard frog, Great Basin

spadefoot toad, boreal toad, and spotted frog. These species are associated with riparian-wetland

habitats and have been observed in suitable habitat in the planning area. No population

estimates are available for these species, although declining populations and/or loss of habitat

are the primary reasons for their inclusion on the Wyoming BLM Sensitive Species list. These

amphibians are protected by prohibition of surface disturbance or development within 500 feet of

riparian-wetland areas. Threats to special status amphibians include changes to water quality and

degradation and loss of riparian-wetland areas.

Management Challenges for Special Status Species – Wildlife

Most of the trends that affect other species of wildlife in the planning area also affect special

status species. These include habitat degradation and fragmentation, livestock grazing, invasive

species, motor vehicles, and climate. Management challenges for special status wildlife species

include habitat degradation, fragmentation, and loss; invasive species; and human disturbance

during sensitive periods. Limited habitat for some special status species presents challenges

to managing for multiple use. For grizzly bears and the gray wolf, limiting human/bear and

human/wolf interactions are also management challenges for the BLM. The BLM is committed to

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Special Status Species – Wildlife
422 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

implementing the conservation measures for grizzly bear and gray wolf according to the Statewide

Programmatic consultations for these species. Fencing can provide perches for raptors that prey

on special status species such as greater sage-grouse. Management challenges for special status

raptor species also include collision and electrocution from powerlines. For most neotropical

migrants, there is no specific protection other than protections afforded under the MBTA.

3.4.10. Wild Horses

The BLM protects, manages, and controls wild horses and burros under the authority of the Wild

Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971. This law ensures that healthy herds thrive on

healthy rangelands. Horses originally evolved on this continent and disappeared some 10,000

to 12,000 years ago. Spanish explorers introduced modern horses to the west in the 1500s. The

BLM manages wild horses as part of its multiple-use mission.

Most wild horses in the nation are found on BLM-administered lands. The BLM is responsible

for managing the size and distribution of the herds. Wild horses provide a historic resource of

particular interest to the public. However, this species also competes with other grazing species

for forage within its range.

As required by the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971, the BLM designated

30 Herd Management Areas (HMAs) with populations totaling approximately 4,400 horses.

Those 30 areas comprised roughly 6.6 million acres of public land, 400,000 acres of State of

Wyoming land, and 2.5 million acres of privately owned lands. In recognition of the need to

consolidate herds to ensure long-term genetic diversity, the BLM combined and consolidated

these management areas. At present, there are 16 HMAs in the state and the statewide target is for

a wild horse population of 2,700. The planning area has approximately 1,000 horses in seven

HMAs (Map 68); there are no burros.

Table 3.42, “Herd Management Areas and Appropriate Management Levels in the Planning

Area” (p. 423) identifies the HMAs, appropriate management levels, and the ROD dates. The

appropriate management levels were established in 1993 and 1994, from a process that included

five years of intensive monitoring, data evaluation, public input, and environmental analysis.

Since that time, some boundary adjustments and realignments to the HMAs have been made

via the RMP maintenance process. The appropriate management level is the herd population

objective for the HMA that would ensure a thriving ecological balance among all the users and

resources of the HMA (e.g., wildlife, livestock, wild horses, vegetation, water, and soil). A

2003 Consent Decree between the BLM and the State of Wyoming described the appropriate

management level for each HMA in Wyoming as of the date of the decree. A copy of the Consent

Decree is available on the BLM Wyoming website. By its terms, the Consent Decree terminates

no later than 10 years after its effective date in 2003. The decree addresses inventories of wild

horses and gathers. Appendix V (p. 1805) provides additional information regarding wild horse

management in the planning area.

Indicators of health for wild horses can be broken down into two main areas: the health of the

horses and the vegetative health of the habitat in which they live. Each is a reflection of the other.

Physical and genetic health can be estimated during inventory by observation of body conditions

(e.g., the presence of physical abnormalities) at various times of the year. With the elimination

of virtually all natural predators, wild horse herd size, unless artificially controlled, would

increase. As herd sizes increase, individuals and herds may migrate outside of the existing

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Wild Horses February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 423

boundaries of HMAs. As a result, increased herd size may or may not increase forage utilization

within the boundaries of HMAs. Increased forage utilization within HMAs may exceed the

established appropriate management levels and may result in over-utilized forage. The health of

the vegetative communities in the HMAs is assessed using the Wyoming Standards for Healthy

Rangelands (BLM 1997b).

Wild horses graze on the range throughout the year. The BLM uses an animal unit month (AUM)

rate of 1.15 for horses. Using this rule, the 1,000 wild horses in the planning area consume

13,800 AUMs annually. By comparison, for the 20-year period 1989 through 2008, the BLM

billed an average of 204,507 domestic livestock AUMs per year for authorized livestock grazing

in the planning area.

Table 3.42. Herd Management Areas and Appropriate Management Levels in the Planning

Area

Herd Management Area

Appropriate Management Level

(Number of Horses)

Record of Decision

Date

Green Mountain 170 to 300 February 1993

Conant Creek 60 to 100 February 1993

Rock Creek Mountain 50 to 86 February 1993

Dishpan Butte 50 to 100 February 1993

Muskrat Basin 160 to 250 February 1993

Crooks Mountain 65 to 85 May 1994

Antelope Hills/Cyclone Rim 60 to 82 May 1994

Source: BLM 2009a

Population control is maintained by periodic gathers in which the health of the population

is assessed and horses removed to keep the population within the limits of the appropriate

management levels and in compliance with the Consent Decree. Fertility control is administered

to mares by the anti-fertility vaccine Porcine Zona Pellocida, which has declining impassiveness

over time. By the fourth year following injection, the drug has only limited impassiveness.

Study has determined that administering the drug does not cause early foaling (BLM 2009a).

Natural predation on wild horses does occur in the Antelope Hills/Cyclone Rim HMA, Crooks

Mountain HMA, and Green Mountain HMA with documentation showing that mountain lions

are the principle predator. Table 3.43, “Wild Horse Removals from 1980 through 2006 by Herd

Management Area” (p. 423) lists wild horse removals in the planning area from 1980 through

2006 by HMA.

Table 3.43. Wild Horse Removals from 1980 through 2006 by Herd Management Area

Year Number Removed

Antelope Hills/Cyclone Rim HMA

1986 88

1987 184

1988 63

1989 154

2000 59

2001 50

2004 208

2009 77

2012 80

Crooks Mountain HMA

1985 708

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Wild Horses
424 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Year Number Removed

1996 319

1998 220

2002 103

2006 74

2009 0

2012 17

Green Mountain HMA

1980 255

1984 199

1993 318

1995 88

1996 105

1997 145

2002 155

2003 75

2005 490

2006 89

2009 330

2012 240

Muskrat Basin HMA

1983 157

1985 285

1986 314

1988 159

1993 195

1995 206

1997 128

2001 152

2004 127

2009 385

Dishpan Butte HMA

1985 145

1995 214

2001 57

2004 123

2009 109

Rock Creek Mountain HMA

1985 131

1986 58

1995 10

2001 47

2004 0

2009 27

Conant Creek HMA

1985 115

1986 21

1993 89

1995 10

2001 66

2004 95

2009 283

Source: BLM 2009a

HMA Herd Management Area

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Wild Horses February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 425

Monitoring of wild horse habitat includes the collection of precipitation data, rangeland condition

and trend information, forage utilization data, data for permitted and actual use by livestock

by grazing allotment, wildlife use data, and forage requirements. Data collected on wild

horses include population counts, reproductive rates, age/sex structure, fertility control work,

identification of high use or concentration areas, and other factors that would develop as the

herds are studied.

Herd Management Areas

Antelope Hills/Cyclone Rim HMA

The Antelope Hills HMA encompasses 158,609 acres, of which 96,071 acres are

BLM-administered surface. The appropriate management level for this HMA is 60 to 82 adult

horses. The area is approximately 15 miles south-southeast of Atlantic City at approximately

7,200 feet elevation. The Continental Divide National Scenic Trail (CDNST) bisects the HMA.

The area receives 5 to 7 inches of precipitation annually. The predominant vegetation type is

sagebrush/grass. Riparian-wetland zones are infrequent but very important to wild horses. The

topography ranges from rolling flatlands south of Cyclone Rim to uplifted ridges along Cyclone

Rim and abrupt rocky zones interspersed with rolling lands north of the rim to the Sweetwater

River.

Many of the horses in this HMA exhibit traits of the Spanish mustang and are a variety of colors.

As genetic research continues on the wild horse populations in the Red Desert meta-population

(Green Mountain, Crooks Mountain, Stewart Creek, Antelope Hill/Cyclone Rim, and Lost Creek

HMAs), the necessity to maintain the population of wild horses in the Antelope Hills/Cyclone

Rim HMA in genetic isolation might change, if it is determined that populations adjacent to the

HMA share enough genetic material so that the uniqueness of the herd will not be compromised

with interbreeding. If surrounding HMAs do not share the uniqueness, further interbreeding could

cause this genetic resource to disappear. Continued monitoring and research could result in

adjustment to management decisions for the Antelope Hills/Cyclone rim and Lost Creek HMAs.

This HMA is an appropriate location for a wild horse viewing scenic loop.

Crooks Mountain HMA

The Crooks Mountain HMA is directly southeast of Sweetwater Station and encompasses

approximately 58,425 acres, of which 54,726 acres are BLM-administered surface. The

appropriate management level for this HMA is 65 to 100 adult horses. Elevations range

from 6,900 to 8,100 feet. The lower elevations receive approximately 10 to 14 inches of

precipitation annually; the upper elevations receive 15 to 20 inches. The major vegetation types

are sagebrush-grass, woodland, and riparian-wetlands. Topography is generally rolling hills

and slopes to the north and south of Crooks Mountain. The Crooks Mountain portion of the

herd area is quite steep and broken with mountainous terrain. The area supports substantial

wildlife populations of elk, deer, and pronghorn. Most of the horses are bays or blacks, with an

occasional paint and/or grey.

Muskrat Basin, Conant Creek, Rock Creek, and Dishpan Butte HMAs

These four HMAs are in the central part of Fremont County. They encompass approximately

375,300 acres of land, of which 337,305 acres are BLM-administered surface. Topography in the

area includes high ridges and steep terrain with grand vistas. Beaver Rim, on the western edge

of the HMAs, is a high escarpment with sweeping views of the Wind River Mountains, Copper

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Wild Horses
426 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Mountains, and Owl Creek Mountains. Elevations in the HMAs range from 5,300 to 7,200

feet. The area receives 5 to 12 inches of precipitation a year, depending on elevation, most

of it in the form of snow. Domestic cattle and sheep utilize the area during spring, summer,

and fall. Vegetation is dominated by various sage and grass species. Elk, deer, and pronghorn

also inhabit this area.

While the four HMAs are managed with recognized individual populations, there is no geographic

separation of the HMAs and the gates between them remain open for most of the year. As a

result, the horses move regularly among the HMAs, helping to ensure their overall genetic

health. Horses in these HMAs are a range of colors, most being solid, and their health is good

with few apparent problems. Muskrat Basin/Dishpan Butte is an appropriate location for a wild

horse viewing scenic loop.

Green Mountain HMA

The Green Mountain HMA encompasses 116,680 acres, of which 99,231 acres are

BLM-administered surface. The appropriate management level for this HMA is 300 horses. A

full range of colors is present. Most horses are a solid color, but a noticeable number of tobiano

paints are present. The horses range from 11 to 15 hands and 750 to 1,000 pounds mature weight.

Health is good with few apparent problems.

Topography in the HMA is generally gently rolling hills and slopes north and south of Green

Mountain. Green Mountain itself is quite steep, with mountainous terrain and conifer/aspen

forests. Elevations range from 6,200 to 9,200 feet, with grand vistas of the Red Desert,

Sweetwater Rocks, and the Oregon and California NHTs from the higher elevations. Precipitation

ranges from 10 to 14 inches at lower elevations to 15 to 20 inches at higher elevations. Most of

the precipitation is in the form of snow. Domestic cattle and sheep utilize the area in all seasons,

with summer cattle use predominating. Vegetation around the mountain is dominated by various

sage, grass, woodland, and riparian-wetland species. The area supports substantial populations

of elk, deer, pronghorn, and moose.

Management Challenges for Wild Horses

Fluctuations in precipitation and drought conditions create management challenges for wild

horses by reducing the food available for wild horses. Drought also increases the conflict between

wild horses and livestock grazing, an already contentious situation in some parts of the planning

area. While the trend for forage reduction started by the drought is expected to continue, drought

alone would probably not cause a decrease in herd population below the levels needed to maintain

genetic diversity. Successful wolf reintroduction could have an impact on herd size, particularly

in harsh winter conditions that limit the horses’ ability to evade predators. Wider dispersal of

livestock grazing through range developments puts stress on upland range forage, providing

competition to wild horses. Fences and cattleguards pose hazards to horses because these features

limit the horses’ ability to survive winter conditions.

Increasing mineral development affects wild horses as forage is reduced by surface-disturbing

activities and the expansion of invasive plants. In HMAs where genetic mixing is desired,

development and fragmentation of wild horse habitat can also separate herds and lead to reduced

genetic variation, which can affect the long-term health of herd populations. Fragmentation also

causes concentration of herd distribution, which can strain available forage.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Wild Horses February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 427

Although monitoring data indicate horses have some localized impacts on vegetation in some

areas near water, current management of the horse herds should not affect these vegetation

communities. There could be impacts to rangelands if the horses populations are allowed to

increase. Continuing to implement fertility control during gathers would help maintain and

improve the rangeland resources. Ongoing studies could verify impacts to riparian-wetland areas.

An additional management challenge is the intrusion of modern development, particularly mineral

development, which has the potential to reduce the recreational aspect of viewing wild horses.

3.5. Heritage and Visual Resources

This section addresses the individual resources of cultural, paleontological, and visual resources.

Each resource section includes a description of the resource, the existing condition of the

resource, and management challenges.

3.5.1. Cultural Resources

Cultural history in the Rocky Mountain west began at least 11,500 years ago, when the first

human groups entered this region. Since that time, human occupation of the area appears to have

continued to the present without serious interruption.

Prehistoric, Historic and Spiritual/Sacred/Traditional Cultural Properties

Generally, cultural resources can be grouped into three categories: prehistoric resources, historic

resources, and spiritual/sacred/Traditional Cultural Properties (TCPs).

● Prehistoric cultural resources are sites, structures, objects, or materials deposited or left

behind prior to the entry of non-American Indian (European) explorers and settlers into an

area. In this part of Wyoming, the prehistoric stage spanned from approximately 11,500

years BP to approximately 250 years BP.

● Historic cultural resources are sites, structures, objects, or materials deposited or left behind

after the European presence was established.

● Spiritual/sacred/TCPs can include prehistoric or historic resources, structures, topographic

features, habitats, plants, wildlife, and/or minerals that Native Americans or other groups

consider essential for the preservation of traditional culture.

The Prehistoric Stage

The Prehistoric Stage dates from at least 11,500 years BP to around 250 years BP. The Prehistoric

Stage is characterized by a stable cultural phase in which the way of life appears to have changed

little throughout the period. The peoples utilizing this region were hunters and gatherers who

adapted their lifestyle to the high-plains environment and roamed the region in search of food

and shelter. The movements of these nomadic peoples were generally determined by seasonal

changes in resource availability. These peoples probably traveled mostly in small bands, spending

only a limited amount of time in any one location. For the most part, the material goods of

these groups were made from naturally available resources, including stone, wood, bone, pelts,

sinew, and plant fibers.

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Heritage and Visual Resources
428 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Within the Prehistoric Stage, there are three broadly defined periods. The Paleoindian Period,

from about 11,500 to 8,500 years BP, is the period for which the first evidence of humans in the

region is found. The Paleoindian Period is characterized by big game hunting traditions utilizing

typically well-made spear points. At the beginning of the period, the Paleoindians hunted animals

that are now extinct, such as mammoth and giant bison, and used Clovis, Folsom, and Agate

Basin projectile points, among others. As conditions became drier and warmer and as many of

these Pleistocene species died out, Paleoindians had to adapt to hunting more modern species

such as bison, deer, and mountain sheep. Paleoindian sites and artifacts are rarely found in the

planning area.

The Archaic Period, from about 8,500 to 1,800 years BP, signals a shift to a wider use of available

resources and less specialization. The climate had changed from an earlier wetter and cooler

regime to dryer and hotter conditions. Projectile points changed in response to this shift, and

generally became smaller through time. This period is broken down into the following divisions:

the Great Divide Phase (8,500 to 6,000 years BP), the Opal Phase (6,200 to 3,700 years BP), the

Pine Springs Phase (3,700 to 2,900 years BP), and the Deadman Wash Phase (2,900 to 1,800 years

BP). The Opal Phase, with its housepits and reuse of site areas, is especially well represented

in the planning area.

The Late Prehistoric Period, from about 1,800 to 250 years BP, begins with an apparent increase

in population and a technological change signaled by the introduction of the bow and arrow. The

Uinta Phase of this period (about 1,800 to 1,000 years BP) is characterized by Rose Springs

projectile points and numerous short-term foraging and processing camps, sometimes with

house-floor types of features. The Uinta is followed by the Firehole Phase (1,000 to 250 years

BP). This phase is characterized by a sudden shift to small, tri-notched and side-notched projectile

points, and a change in site types. Population densities also appear to have decreased in the

Firehole Phase, and it is postulated that old and new cultural groups were moving and/or being

displaced. Uinta Phase sites, with their cylindrical roasting pits and shallow floor features, are

well represented in the planning area.

Because there are no written records for prehistoric resources, most of these types of resources are

evaluated under NRHP Criterion D. That is, they are evaluated on their potential for information

about the lifeways and practices of prehistoric peoples. Prehistoric resources can also be

evaluated as spiritual or sacred properties or TCPs if they are thought to be important to specific

modern cultural groups. Occasionally, prehistoric resources are evaluated under Criterion C if

there are distinctive stylistic, artistic, or architectural components present. Loss of integrity

for prehistoric resources can result from long-term deterioration or erosion, direct or indirect

disruption by modern activities, or vandalism/looting.

Common cultural resources of the prehistoric stage include lithic scatters, stone circle habitations,

petroglyphs and/or pictographs, open campsites, fire hearths or firepits, lithic quarries, and

housepit habitations.

The Historic Stage

This stage is commonly considered to be the time for which there is written documentation of

the events that occurred in the area. The Historic Stage is generally considered to have begun in

the early 1800s, when there are records of the arrival of Euro-American explorers and traders

into the region. Fur trappers, missionaries, emigrants, miners, ranchers, farmers, and merchants

followed the explorers. The history of the lands within the planning area shares in many of the

major themes in Western American history:

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Cultural Resources February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 429

● Fur trade (1811 to 1840)

● Exploration (1811 to 1870s)

● Historic military (1830s to 1890s)

● Emigration (1840 to 1869)

● Historic mining (1867 to 1930s)

● Native American Reservation (1868 to present)

● Settlement (1870s to present)

● Ranching (1870s to present)

● Homesteading (1870s to 1930s)

● Expansion era, early commerce and industry (1880s to 1928)

● Historic oil and gas exploration (1884 to 1930s)

● Regional railroad (1906 to present)

● Irrigation ditches and districts (1880s to present)

● Automobile roads (1910s to present)

● Tie-hack industry (1880s to 1940s)

● The Great Depression (1929 to 1939)

● Modern mining and oil and gas exploration (1940s to present)

Highlights of Western American history specific to the planning area include the discovery of

South Pass and a feasible overland route over the continental divide in 1812 and again in 1824;

the great overland migrations on the Oregon, Mormon, and California Trails from 1840 to 1869;

the mapping of the Oregon Trail by John C. Fremont in 1842; the creation of the Pony Express

and the transcontinental telegraph line along the California Trail in the early 1860s; the founding

of South Pass City, Atlantic City, and Miner’s Delight during the South Pass gold rush of 1867 to

1872; the creation of the WRIR in 1868, and the later incorporation of Northern Arapahos into the

reservation; the early settlement of the Lander Valley in the 1870s; the founding of the Sun Ranch

in 1872, the first ranch in Sweetwater Valley; settlement of the Wind River Basin in the 1880s; the

first oil well west of the Mississippi River, at Dallas Dome, in 1884; the founding of Riverton,

Shoshoni, and Moneta and the railroad reaching those towns and Lander in 1906; the creation of

the Riverton Irrigation Project in 1905/1906; establishment of the early Yellowstone National

Park automobile tour routes in the 1910s and 1920s; the Hudson coal mining boom from 1907 to

the 1920s; the tie-hack industry around Dubois and Riverton from 1907 to the 1940s; and the

uranium boom in the Gas Hills, Crooks Gap, and Jeffrey City in the 1950s.

Historic resources can be evaluated under any of the NRHP criteria. Some historic resources

can be associated with important historic events or persons (Criterion A and B), while others

can contain important archeological information (Criterion D). Historic resources can also be

evaluated under Criterion C if there are distinctive architectural or artistic components present.

In rare instances, historic resources are evaluated as spiritual or sacred cultural properties if

they are important to specific modern cultural groups. Loss of integrity for historic resources

can result from deterioration or erosion, direct or indirect disruption by modern activities, or

vandalism/looting.

The following historic cultural resources are commonly found in the planning area: ranching

developments; trash scatters and dumps; mining prospects, developments, and mines; emigrant

and stage trails, sites, and landmarks; livestock herder campsites; and abandoned homesteads.

Spiritual/Sacred/Traditional Cultural Resources and Properties

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Cultural Resources
430 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Spiritual, sacred, and traditional cultural resources and properties can be from both the prehistoric

and historic phases. They include prehistoric or historic resources, structures, topographic

features, habitats, plants, wildlife, and/or minerals that Native Americans or other groups consider

essential for the preservation of traditional culture. These properties often are the sites of events

important to a cultural group or sites of past or present spiritual/sacred practices. They might also

be the locations of traditional practices, such as gathering plants for use in ceremonies. TCPs are

understood to be eligible for listing on the NRHP as defined in the National Historic Preservation

Act (NHPA), but other, non-eligible traditional use resources might be protected under the Native

American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the American Indian Religious

Freedom Act (AIRFA), or BLM policy. When addressing spiritual, sacred, or traditional cultural

resources, more ephemeral indicators of condition can come into play. These types of properties

can be considered significant to specific cultural groups, even if the integrity of the properties

has been compromised. Indicators in these cases depend more on the cultural importance of a

property, as defined by traditional elders or authorities.

Sacred sites might or might not be still used by the group, while spiritual sites and TCPs are still

used by at least some members of the particular group. Sacred and spiritual sites and TCPs are

not common, but do occur in the planning area. They usually have not been publicly identified,

but some are known to the BLM and are protected in a discreet manner. The location of most of

these sites is kept undisclosed because of their vulnerability to looting or vandalism, and because

the groups have requested they remain unidentified. Rock figures and unusual shapes, burials,

medicine wheels, and vision-quest sites are examples of these kinds of sites. Martin’s Cove, a site

sacred to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, could also be considered a TCP. The

conditions of these types of properties can range from good to poor.

Sacred and spiritual sites and TCPs derive their significance from their importance to specific

modern cultural groups, such as Native American tribes or religious groups. The BLM relies on

traditional elders or authorities from these groups to help evaluate the importance and condition

of the properties.

The following resource or property types, found in the planning area, might have spiritual, sacred,

and/or traditional values: burials; battlefields; medicine wheels; sun dance locations; prayer

circles and lodges; sweat lodges; and altars, cairns, and rock alignments. When these types

of resources are found, traditional elders or authorities are consulted to determine if they are

considered spiritual, sacred, or traditional properties, and if they qualify as TCPs.

Resources Requiring Special Management

This section highlights those resources and resource types in the planning area that require special

management beyond that mandated in the NHPA. Table 3.44, “Selected Cultural Resource

Sites and NRHP Status in the Planning Area” (p. 431) lists these cultural resources, which

are sensitive or significant enough that standard NHPA regulations are not adequate for their

management. These resources require proactive management to maintain the qualities that make

them significant (see Map 69 for locations of these resources).

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Cultural Resources February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 431

Table 3.44. Selected Cultural Resource Sites and NRHP Status in the Planning Area

Resource Name Type Designation Status Location of Resource

Section of Affected

Environment

Chapter Where

Site is Discussed

1. Castle Gardens

Petroglyph/

Pictograph Site

Prehistoric Rock Art

Site

Listed on the NRHP Eastern Fremont

County near the Gas

Hills

Cultural Resources –

Prehistoric Resources

and

Areas of Critical

Environmental

Concern – Proposed

ACECs

2. Oregon, Mormon

Pioneer, California,

and Pony Express

National Historic

Trails

Historic Emigrant

Trails

Congressionally

Designated National

Historic Trails; also

an existing ACEC

Along the Sweetwater

River, from near

Independence Rock to

Burnt Ranch, south of

Atlantic City

Congressionally

Designated Trails

– National Historic

Trails

● Martin’s Cove Historic Emigrant Site Listed on the NRHP Southwestern Natrona

County

Congressionally

Designated Trails

– National Historic

Trails

● Devil’s Gate Historic Emigrant Site Part of a National

Historic Landmark

Southwestern Natrona

County

Congressionally

Designated Trails

– National Historic

Trails

● Split Rock Historic Emigrant Site Listed on the NRHP Southwestern Natrona

County

Congressionally

Designated Trails

– National Historic

Trails

● Ice Slough Historic Emigrant Site Considered eligible

for the NRHP

Southcentral Fremont

County

Congressionally

Designated Trails

– National Historic

Trails

● Rocky Ridge Historic Emigrant Site Considered eligible

for the NRHP

Southwestern

Fremont County

Congressionally

Designated Trails

– National Historic

Trails

● Rock Creek

Hollow

Historic Emigrant Site Considered eligible

for the NRHP

Southwestern

Fremont County

Congressionally

Designated Trails

– National Historic

Trails

● Gilespie Place Historic Emigrant Site Considered eligible

for the NRHP

Southwestern

Fremont County

Congressionally

Designated Trails

– National Historic

Trails

3. Warm Springs

Canyon Flume,

Natural Bridge, and

Geyser

Historic Tie Flume

and natural features

Considered eligible

for the NRHP

Northwestern

Fremont County near

Dubois

Cultural Resources –

Historic Resources

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Cultural Resources
432 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Resource Name Type Designation Status Location of Resource

Section of Affected

Environment

Chapter Where

Site is Discussed

4. South Pass Historic

Mining Area

Historic Gold Mining

District, with mines,

settlements, and

military outposts

Miner’s Delight and

South Pass City listed

on the NRHP; the

entire historic mining

area and several sites

within it are NRHP

eligible

Southwestern

Fremont County,

on the southern edge

of the Wind River

Mountains

Cultural Resources –

Historic Resources

and

Areas of Critical

Environmental

Concern – Existing

ACECs With

Proposed Expansions

● Miner’s Delight Historic MiningRelated Site

Listed on the NRHP Southwestern

Fremont County,

on the southern edge

of the Wind River

Mountains

Cultural Resources –

Historic Resources

and

Areas of Critical

Environmental

Concern – Existing

ACECs With

Proposed Expansions

● South Pass City Historic MiningRelated Site

Listed on the NRHP Southwestern

Fremont County,

on the southern edge

of the Wind River

Mountains

Cultural Resources –

Historic Resources

and

Areas of Critical

Environmental

Concern – Existing

ACECs With

Proposed Expansions

5. Regionally

Significant Historic

Trails

● Bridger Trail

Historic Wagon Trail Considered eligible

for the NRHP

Northeastern Fremont

County near Lost

Cabin

Cultural Resources –

Historic Resources

and

Areas of Critical

Environmental

Concern – Proposed

ACECs

● Rawlins to Fort

Washakie Stage

Trail

Historic Wagon Trail Considered eligible

for the NRHP

South of Green

Mountain to Lander

Cultural Resources –

Historic Resources

and

Areas of Critical

Environmental

Concern – Proposed

ACECs

● Casper to Lander

Road

Historic Wagon Trail Considered eligible

for the NRHP

Eastern Fremont

County, near Deer

Creek to near Alkali

Butte

Cultural Resources –

Historic Resources

and

Areas of Critical

Environmental

Concern – Proposed

ACECs

● Point of Rocks to

South Pass Stage

Road

Historic Wagon Trail Considered eligible

for the NRHP

Southwestern

Fremont County,

from Burnt Ranch to

South Pass City

Cultural Resources –

Historic Resources

and

Areas of Critical

Environmental

Concern – Proposed

ACECs

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Cultural Resources February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 433

Resource Name Type Designation Status Location of Resource

Section of Affected

Environment

Chapter Where

Site is Discussed

● Green River to

South Pass to Fort

Washakie Stage

Trail

Historic Wagon Trail Considered eligible

for the NRHP

Southwestern

Fremont County,

from South Pass City

to Lander

Cultural Resources –

Historic Resources

and

Areas of Critical

Environmental

Concern – Proposed

ACECs

● Birdseye Pass

Stage Trail

Historic Wagon Trail Considered eligible

for the NRHP

Northeastern Fremont

County, near Wind

River Canyon

Cultural Resources –

Historic Resources

and

Areas of Critical

Environmental

Concern – Proposed

ACECs

6. Regionally

Significant Historic

Highways

● Yellowstone/

National Park to

Park Highway

Historic Auto

Highway

Considered eligible

for the NRHP

Northeastern Fremont

County, from east of

Moneta to Shoshoni

Cultural Resources –

Historic Resources

and

Areas of Critical

Environmental

Concern – Proposed

ACECs

7. Cedar Ridge

Traditional Cultural

Property

Prehistoric ‐ Historic,

sacred Traditional

Cultural Property

Considered eligible

for the NRHP

Northeastern Fremont

County near Lost

Cabin

Cultural Resources

– Native American

Spiritual, Sacred and

Traditional Resources

and

Areas of Critical

Environmental

Concern – Proposed

ACECs

Sources: BLM 2009a, BLM 2012a

ACEC Area of Critical Environmental Concern

BLM Bureau of Land Management

NHT National Historic Trail

NRHP National Register of Historic Places

Prehistoric Era Resources Requiring Special Management

Castle Gardens Petroglyph/Pictograph Area

The Castle Gardens Petroglyph/Pictograph site is a well-known rock art area in the eastern part

of the planning area. The site contains a large number of prehistoric drawings etched in and/or

painted on sandstone. The rock art is recognized as some of the best in the Wyoming region, and

has become well known in the Northwestern Plains. Several styles of art are evident, and many

excellent shield motif representations are present. The prehistoric rock art is estimated to date

from the Late Prehistoric Period (about 1,800 to 250 years BP), and the functions of the drawings

are assumed to be mostly concerned with spiritual beliefs or a record of important events. The

rock art can be found over a large portion of the Castle Gardens uplifted area, which covers an

area 6 miles long by 1 mile wide. The majority of the rock art is, however, located at the far

eastern end of the Castle Gardens area. The site is considered to be a spiritual site to the Eastern

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Cultural Resources
434 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Shoshone, Northern Arapaho, and other tribes and modern traditional use of the site has been

documented as well.

The Castle Gardens Petroglyph/Pictograph site was first recorded in the early 1940s (Sowers

1941). Since then, it has become well known to the general public, and the rock art has suffered

from vandalism and weathering. In the 1970s, the BLM constructed a road into the site. At that

time, it was thought that increased access and fencing would slow the damage, and a road, parking

lot, toilets, picnic tables, fences around panels, and signs were installed. However, instead of

decreasing the vandalism, the development caused it to increase. Today the site is damaged but

retains much of its character and spiritual value.

The Castle Gardens Rock Art Site is listed on the NRHP and is managed for cultural and

recreational values. The immediate site vicinity is protected from oil and gas development,

locatable mineral exploration (segregated from mining), grazing (fenced exclosure), and is closed

to motorized travel. Castle Gardens has been nominated for ACEC designation.

Historic Era Resources Requiring Special Management

Congressionally Designated Trails

The Congressionally Designated Trails section discusses the CDNST and the Oregon, Mormon

Pioneer, California, and Pony Express NHTs.

Warm Springs Canyon Flume, Natural Bridge, and Geyser

The Warm Springs Canyon Flume, Natural Bridge, and geyser are in a unique historical and

natural area on the lower slopes of the northern Wind River Mountains near Dubois. The natural

and historical elements of this area are closely related, and management must consider both

aspects.

The historical element is a flume that runs down Warm Springs Canyon. In the 1920s, there

were no adequate haul roads; instead, the Warm Springs Canyon Flume was built to transport

hand-hewn railroad ties down to the Wind River. Once on the Wind River, the ties were floated

downstream to a processing plant in Riverton, where railroad companies picked them up for use

on the many railroad lines in the region. The flume, completed in 1928, was part of an early

system of railroad-tie procurement that relied on few machines. Instead, mountain camps were

established, and woodcutters hewed the ties from trees, mostly by hand. The flume spanned nine

steep, twisting miles and was often suspended on the walls of the canyon because of the stream’s

narrow course. The flume utilized water to run the ties down to the Wind River and during its

active life carried hundreds of thousands of ties out of the mountains. The flume was abandoned

in 1942, when a haul road was completed and trucks became a more economical way to transport

the ties (Pinkerton 1981).

The natural element of this resource lies on BLM-administered land near the lower end of Warm

Springs Canyon. It is here that the flume crosses the “Natural Bridge.” This natural bridge is a

limestone cavity through which Warm Springs Creek flows. The flume was built through the

natural bridge and is suspended on its walls. Another nearby natural phenomenon unique to the

area is an inactive geyser, which lies just above the canyon. This geyser resembles a warm

spring situated deep inside the old geyser pipe.

Weather and landslides have deteriorated portions of the flume on BLM-administered lands.

Despite these ongoing processes, some of the flume is still in good condition, and the segment

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Cultural Resources February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 435

within the natural bridge has been shielded and remains in good condition. The inactive geyser

has some modern trash around it but is otherwise in good condition. Limited access to the area

has probably deterred much damage to the area’s features, and this would probably continue to be

the situation in the future.

The Warm Springs Canyon Flume site is managed for historical and natural values. The site is

protected from oil and gas development (NSO) and from other uses incompatible with its historic

qualities. The Warm Springs Canyon Flume was recommended in the existing Lander RMP to

be withdrawn from locatable mineral entry; however, the withdrawal has not been completed.

Though the site was the subject of an engineering and stabilization study, the management plan

and stabilization has not been completed. Warm Springs Canyon Flume has been nominated for

ACEC designation.

Most of the original flume was on USFS-managed land. A small part near the lower end of the

flume’s course lies on BLM-administered and private land. The natural bridge and geyser are

on BLM-administered lands. The Warm Springs Flume, Natural Bridge, and geyser area are

considered eligible for listing on the NRHP, but no formal nomination procedures have been

completed for this site.

South Pass Historic Mining District and Associated Features

This area consists of approximately 12,576 acres of BLM-administered surface encompassing

a historic gold mining region southwest of Lander on the southern end of the Wind River

Mountains, and is protected as an ACEC. It is discussed here because of its relevance to the

history of the area. Characterized by both sagebrush steppe and forested areas with steep to

rolling hills, the area contains important historic resources and geological hazards resulting from

mining activities. South Pass was and is the largest gold mining area in Wyoming. The influences

of this marginal gold mining area on the early development of the Wyoming Territory and the

State of Wyoming were considerable.

South Pass Historic Mining Area

A trapper with the American Fur Company first discovered gold in the South Pass area in

1842. This was followed by limited prospecting in the 1850s and early 1860s, but no organized

operations were established because of Indian hostilities and/or unprofitable diggings. It was not

until 1867 that large numbers of prospectors entered this area, which was known at that time as

the “Sweetwater Mines” area. The year 1867 was notable for the discovery of most of the major

gold deposits in the area, including the Carrissa, Miner’s Delight, and King Solomon Lodes. By

1868, up to 1,000 people might have lived in the area, and the towns of South Pass City, Atlantic

City, and Miner’s Delight were established. However, the mining boom died quickly, and by 1872

the original gold prospects were played out and the area (including the towns) became almost

deserted. There were recurrent periods of gold mining activity in the South Pass region in the

1880s, from 1907 to 1911, and in the 1930s, but the efforts were never very profitable.

Although the mining activities proved short-lived and mostly unprofitable, development in the

South Pass region resulted in social and cultural impacts to Wyoming. The South Pass towns

were some of the first permanent European settlements and generated a new economic base. The

economic stimuli from mining operations also encouraged growth of the regional economy.

Freighting companies, merchants, and speculators benefited from the import of equipment and the

sales of basic supplies, land, and claims. Stagecoach lines also sprang up to carry people, goods,

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Cultural Resources
436 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

and mail to and from the mining area market. The increased economic activity affected markets

as far away as Salt Lake City and Denver. Settlement of the Wind River Basin and development

of Lander Valley’s economy were also highly influenced by the South Pass mining activity.

The first settlers in the Lander area came mainly from the South Pass settlements, and the early

farming communities in the valleys were able to rely on the mining area markets for much of their

livelihoods. The mining settlements also provided added impetus to the coming cattle industry by

contributing capital and markets for some of the first cattle ranching outfits in the state.

Along with the mining industry came early military and transportation endeavors. Camp

Stambaugh, built in 1870, was an army post constructed near Atlantic City to offer protection

to the miners and other settlers from hostile Indians. Occupied until 1877, the camp was not

involved in hostilities; instead, it became an important supply station for the local area.

Stagecoach lines sprang up to serve the needs of the miners and bring new people into the area.

Stage roads from the Green River, Point of Rocks, and Lander all went through the South Pass

area. They continued to provide an important service until the early 1900s.

The South Pass settlements have survived up to the present by supporting limited gold mining

operations, cattle and sheep grazing, small commercial concerns, and recent iron-ore extraction

operations. In the 1960s and 1970s, historical interest in the area sparked a movement to preserve

the old towns and mines. Some of the more important sites in the South Pass Historic Mining

District were stabilized or reconstructed. At present, the area has several historical sites that

visitors frequent, but several others are deteriorating due to weathering and lack of care.

Weathering, collection, and occasional vandalism are deteriorating the South Pass Historic

Mining Area. Some of the more important sites in the district were stabilized or reconstructed.

At present, the area has several historic sites that attract visitors, but others are suffering from

weathering degradation. The same is true for Miner’s Delight, where stabilization efforts have

slowed deterioration to some extent but not stopped the effects of weathering and vandalism. In

contrast, South Pass City is stable or improving, because coordination with the State of Wyoming

has resulted in improved management and stewardship of the historic site.

Without additional stabilization efforts at certain sites in the South Pass Historic Mining Area,

standing structures would eventually be lost as they deteriorate beyond repair. As physical

degradation continues and requires more effort and funding to reverse, the necessary efforts to

stabilize and restore these resources would continue to increase. Looting and vandalism would

also continue to affect sites in the historic mining area unless they are controlled.

The South Pass Historic Mining Area is eligible for listing on the NRHP and is managed as an

ACEC for cultural and recreational values. The area has an NSO restriction on mineral leasing; is

segregated from locatable mineral exploration (requires a Plan of Operations); is an avoidance

area for utility ROWs; and motorized travel is limited.

Miner’s Delight Townsite

Miner’s Delight Townsite is a historic site associated with the South Pass Historic Mining Area.

Established in 1868, it was one of the three original towns that sprang up in the initial gold rush

at the south end of the Wind River Mountain Range. Despite several small booms (followed

by busts), the town never became established and lingered on with only a few residents into

the 1930s. By the 1960s, the townsite was abandoned and falling into disrepair. In the 1980s,

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Cultural Resources February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 437

there were limited stabilization efforts, and today the site is in fair condition; the BLM manages

the site as a “ghost town.”

Miner’s Delight is listed on the NRHP. Approximately 100 acres of this site are on

BLM-administered surface and are managed for historical and recreational values. The site is

protected from oil and gas development (NSO), locatable mineral exploration (segregated from

mining), major utility systems, and from other uses incompatible with its historic qualities. A

cultural resources management plan was developed and approved for Miner’s Delight; some

fencing, historic surveys, structural stabilization, protection, and archeological excavations have

been performed at the site, but further work is needed at the site to maintain and protect it.

South Pass City

A success story for cultural resources in the planning area is South Pass City, another historic site

associated with the South Pass Historic Mining Area and in the ACEC. About 8 miles southwest

of Miner’s Delight, South Pass City was the original settlement when the gold rush occurred and

was the largest town in the original mining district. South Pass City also experienced booms and

busts and was mostly abandoned by the middle of the 20th Century.

Local interest in the town’s preservation eventually resulted in the State of Wyoming purchasing

some of the town. With substantial funding, historic buildings were reconstructed and the site was

developed as a heritage tourism destination. Additional historic structures from the old town site

were on BLM-administered surface and leased to the State of Wyoming to enhance its historic

preservation efforts. At present, the Wyoming Department of State Parks and Cultural Resources

manages the site to portray life in an early mining town. Recently, the BLM-administered

surface lands have been transferred to the state for consolidation with its state park for improved

management. The BLM may consider additional transfers to the state in the future.

Regionally Significant Historic Trails and Early Highways (excluding National

Historic Trails)

Regionally significant historic trails and early highways are historic era resources requiring special

management in the planning area. This section discusses NRHP eligible linear transportation

features in the planning area that are not part of the National Trails System. The Congressionally

Designated Trails section discusses the CDNST and the Oregon, Mormon Pioneer, California,

and Pony Express NHTs.

There are a number of regionally significant historic trails and early highways in the planning

area (Map 69). These linear resources were important in the early development of Wyoming

and Montana, and include the Bridger Trail, the Rawlins-Fort Washakie Stage Trail, the

Casper to Lander Stage Road, the Point of Rocks to South Pass to Lander Stage Trail, the

Birdseye Pass Stage Trail, the Green River to South Pass to Fort Washakie Stage Trail, and the

Yellowstone/National Park to Park Highway. All have been determined eligible for listing on

the NRHP and all have been nominated for ACEC designation and proposed as a single regional

trails ACEC. To some extent, all these routes are eligible for listing on the NRHP based on

their association with events important to understanding American history on either the national

or local level, links to historically significant people, and their potential to yield information

important to history.

A historic trail can be vulnerable and fragile if its qualities of integrity are easily threatened.

One of the qualities of integrity for a historic trail can be its setting. The term “setting” comes

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Cultural Resources
438 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

from criteria developed and commonly used for the NRHP. As defined by the NPS, setting is

the physical environment of a historic property. Setting refers to the character of the place in

which the property played its historical role. It involves how, not just where, the property is

situated and its relationship to surrounding features and open space. The physical features that

constitute the setting of a historic property can be either natural or man-made, including such

elements as topographic features (a gorge or the crest of a hill); vegetation; simple man-made

features (paths or fences); and relationships between buildings and other features or open space.

These features and their relationships should be examined not only within the exact boundaries of

the property, but also between the property and its surroundings. This is particularly important

for districts and landscapes.

Both the BLM and State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) evaluate historic trails for the

integrity of their historic settings. When a historic trail or early highway has an intact historical

setting, that setting becomes an important aspect of its integrity. Modern impacts and disturbances

can threaten a historic trail’s setting by introducing elements that are out of character with that

setting. For example, a visible oil well pad, tank, wellhead, or pump jack could adversely affect

the intact historic setting of the Rawlins-Fort Washakie Stage Trail by introducing elements that

were not part of the landscape when the trail was being used as a stage trail. Those intrusions

would degrade the integrity of the trail and could permanently degrade the NRHP-eligible

qualities of the trail to the point where that segment of trail would have to be determined not

eligible for listing on the NRHP.

Although the regional historic trails and early highways have not been as intensively studied as

the NHTs, much is known about their conditions and settings. Map 79 shows the remaining intact

segments of each regionally significant historic trail or early highway; however, in some cases

the historic settings have not been analyzed.

Regionally Significant Historic Trails

Bridger Trail

The Bridger Trail is a historic wagon trail that connected the Oregon Trail near Casper to the

Montana gold fields. This trail passes through the northeastern portion of the planning area, and

runs from the southeast past Lost Cabin and up over the Bridger Mountain Range near Bridger

Pass. Jim Bridger blazed this regionally significant historic trail in 1864 as an alternative to the

Bozeman Trail. It later became an important route for settlers headed for the Bighorn Basin.

After the railroad arrived in the early 1900s, this trail became a local access route, and its intact

historic setting remained for the next 50 years.

The physical condition and historical settings of the Bridger Trail have been analyzed over its

entire length in Fremont County. Nine segments totaling 13.5 miles (49 percent) were determined

to be Contributing to its NRHP eligibility, and 10 segments totaling 9 miles (32 percent) were

determined to be Non-Contributing. One segment of 5.3 miles (19 percent) has not yet been

evaluated. BLM and SHPO have agreed on these determinations.

Because the Bridger Trail’s location had not been specifically identified, oil and gas activities

were allowed to affect the trail in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. Once the trail’s location was

clarified, protection measures began. Recently, oil and gas activity has increased around the trail;

at the same time, protection measures have been instituted that are designed to help protect its

historical character. Most of the trail through the planning area is still visible as a single set of ruts

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Cultural Resources February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 439

or as a swale. Because of increased oil and gas activity in the last 15 years, the Bridger Trail’s

condition trend is down. More recent mitigation measures have slowed the rate of intrusions.

Rawlins-Fort Washakie Stage Trail

The Rawlins-Fort Washakie Stage Trail connected the transcontinental railroad at Rawlins with

the new settlements of Fort Washakie and Lander. This trail was established in the 1870s and

was a major transportation link until 1906, when the railroad reached Lander. Used by freighters,

stagecoaches, and the military, this route was an important early link to the outside world for the

Sweetwater Valley, the South Pass Mines, and the Lander Valley.

The physical condition and historical settings of the trail have been analyzed over a good portion

of southern Fremont County. At present, the trail ranges from slightly-to-moderately-to-severely

damaged by modern intrusions, and some parts of the trail have been completely obliterated.

About two-thirds of the original trail is still visible as one or more ruts or as one or more swales.

Seven segments of approximately 40 miles (55 percent) were determined to be Contributing to its

NRHP eligibility, and 8 segments totaling approximately 24 miles (33 percent) were determined

to be Non-Contributing. Two segments of 9 miles (12 percent) have not yet been evaluated. BLM

and SHPO have agreed on most of these determinations; however, some of the data are outdated

and needs to be updated. The condition trend is slowly down. Occasional oil and gas development

and ROWs have threatened the trail over the last 25 years, and this trend is expected to continue.

Casper to Lander Road

The Casper to Lander Road became an important transportation artery between Casper and the

Lander Valley after the railroad arrived in Casper in the 1880s. It, too, lasted until the railroad

reached Shoshoni, Riverton, and Lander in 1906. It was a freight and stagecoach route and an

important part of the development of the Wind River Basin.

The physical condition and historical settings of the Casper to Lander Road (both routes)

have been analyzed in a piecemeal fashion, and data on this road are based on aerial

photography where ground studies have not been performed. At present, the road ranges from

slightly-to-moderately-to-severely damaged by modern intrusions, and some parts have been

completely obliterated. Approximately 59 miles (77 percent) of trail are still visible as a single set

of ruts or as a swale with good historical settings. However, approximately 18 miles (23 percent)

of the trail has been affected and are likely to be Non-Contributing to its NRHP eligibility. The

condition trend is slowly down. Occasional development and ROWs have threatened the trail

over the last 25 years; this trend is expected to continue, although mitigation measures have

slowed the rate of intrusions.

Point of Rocks to South Pass to Lander Stage Trail

The Point of Rocks to South Pass to Lander Stage Trail was a supply route for the South Pass

area mines in the 1870s. This transportation corridor was an important link for the entrepreneurs

developing the South Pass mining area, but was supplanted when a main rail depot was

established at Green River.

The physical condition and historical settings of this trail have been analyzed in southwestern

Fremont County. At present, the trail ranges from slightly-to-moderately damaged by modern

intrusions, and some parts of the trail have been completely obliterated. One segment of

approximately 5 miles has intact ruts and good historical settings. The condition trend is very

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Cultural Resources
440 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

slowly down. Developments and ROWs have threatened the trail over the last 25 years, and this

trend is expected to continue. Part of the Point of Rocks to South Pass to Lander Trail is in

the South Pass Historic Mining Area ACEC.

Green River to South Pass to Fort Washakie Stage Trail

The Green River to South Pass to Fort Washakie Stage Trail was an important trail from the

railroad at Green River to the mines at South Pass and the Lander Valley. It began in the 1870s

and was used until 1906, when the railroad reached Lander. Together with the Rawlins-Fort

Washakie Stage Trail, this was the major supply route into the South Pass and Lander areas

for several decades.

The physical condition and historical settings of the trail have been analyzed in southwestern

Fremont County. At present, the trail ranges from slightly-to-moderately-to-severely damaged

by modern intrusions, and some parts of the trail have been obliterated. One segment of

approximately 12 miles has intact ruts and good historical settings. The condition trend is slowly

down. Occasional development and ROWs have threatened the trail over the last 25 years; this

trend is expected to continue, although mitigation measures have slowed the rate of intrusions.

Parts of the Green River to South Pass to Fort Washakie Stage Trail pass through the South

Pass Historic Mining Area and Red Canyon ACECs. The trail itself has been nominated for

ACEC designation.

Birdseye Pass Stage Trail

The Birdseye Pass Stage Trail connected the Wind River Basin to the Bighorn Basin in the late

1800s. It was the main route from the Lander and Riverton areas to Thermopolis and points

farther north until the early 1900s, when the railroad reached Worland.

The physical condition and historical settings of this trail have been analyzed in northern Fremont

County. At present, the trail ranges from slightly-to-moderately-to-severely damaged by modern

intrusions, and major parts of the trail through the planning area have been obliterated. Two

segments of approximately 7 miles have intact ruts and good historical settings. The condition

trend is slowly down. Occasional development and ROWs have threatened the trail over the

last 25 years. This trend is expected to continue, although mitigation measures have slowed

the rate of intrusions.

Early Highways

Yellowstone/National Park to Park Highway

The Yellowstone/National Park to Park Highway is an early auto road in central Wyoming. It was

publicized as a road system that connected National Parks all over the western United States.

Local towns attempted to generate tourist income from automobile tourists through improved

roads and advertisements, claiming that this route was the best way to Yellowstone and Rocky

Mountain National Parks. The Yellowstone/National Park to Park Highway was used in the 1910s

and 1920s until Wyoming State Highways supplanted it as a tourist route.

The physical condition and historical settings of the highway have been analyzed for most of its

length in northern Fremont County. At present, the highway ranges from slightly-to-moderately-to

severely damaged by modern intrusions, and major parts of the highway through the planning

area have been completely obliterated. Six segments totaling 16.3 miles (80 percent) were

determined to be Contributing to its NRHP eligibility, and 4 segments of 4.2 miles (20 percent)

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Cultural Resources February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 441

were determined to be Non-Contributing. BLM and SHPO have agreed on these determinations.

The condition trend is down. Oil and gas development and ROWs have dramatically increased

effects to this early automobile road over the last 25 years; this trend is expected to continue,

although mitigation measures have slowed the rate of intrusions.

Native American Spiritual, Sacred, and Traditional Resources

There are a few Native American spiritual, sacred, or TCPs in the planning area and these

are being managed for their corresponding values. The sites are protected on a case-by-case

basis from oil and gas development (NSO) and from other uses incompatible with their special

qualities. Sites that might also have cultural, traditional, or sacred importance include rock art and

rock alignments, including medicine wheels, burials, and vision quest sites. Cairns, habitations,

rock shelters, and caves might also have special importance to Native Americans.

Cedar Ridge Complex

Cedar Ridge Complex is a specific spiritual/sacred/TCP in the northeastern portion of the planning

area. Most of Cedar Ridge lies within the BLM Casper Field Office planning area to the east, but

its western limits extend into the Lander Field Office planning area. Cedar Ridge is protected by

special management in the Casper Field Office RMP. In the Lander planning area, Cedar Ridge is

not part of any existing ACEC, but it has been nominated and proposed as an ACEC.

Cedar Ridge was used for more than 5,500 years as a ceremonial site for prayers and rituals and

continues to be a sacred place for Eastern Shoshone to conduct religious observances. The site is

considered integral to the proper functioning of contemporary Shoshone ways of life, a right that is

specified in Executive Order 13007, Indian Sacred Sites (May 24, 1996), and AIRFA. The part of

the ridge in the planning area has not experienced much modern development. The Cedar Ridge

complex is also culturally important to the Crow and possibly other tribes. It was established as a

TCP in 1997 after extensive consultation with the Eastern Shoshone and the Wyoming SHPO.

Other Sacred Sites

There are other sacred sites within the planning area in addition to Cedar Ridge. They are

occasionally discovered and are protected as required by laws, regulation, and Executive Orders.

The sensitivity of these sites precludes disclosure of their locations.

Resource Management

Cultural Resources Significance

Cultural resources are evaluated in the context of eligibility for listing on the NRHP. Eligibility

is based on whether the resource meets the criteria for evaluation as defined by the NHPA

(36 CFR Part 60.4). For NHPA purposes, cultural resources, including both prehistoric- and

historic-era sites, that meet one or more of these criteria are called historic properties. The criteria

as identified in the NHPA are:

The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archeology,

engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and

objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship,

feeling, and association; and

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Cultural Resources
442 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

(a) that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the

broad patterns of our history; or

(b) that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or

(c) that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of

construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic

values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components

may lack individual distinction; or

(d) that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory

or history.

Cultural resources might also have status under a number of other legislative and regulatory

standards, or as conferred by a specific religious or cultural group.

Identified Cultural Resources

File search inventories (Class I) and intensive field inventories (Class III) have been conducted

for BLM sponsored or sanctioned projects since about 1975. Inventories within the planning area

have primarily been related to oil and gas exploration and development, utility ROWs, and mining.

The Lander Field Office maintains a file of known cultural resources with records dating back to

1948. The data have been gathered from various sources, including universities, archeological

and historical contractors, local informants and sources, the BLM and state government

agencies, and historical accounts. The files include information about many types of prehistoric

and historic cultural resources. Table 3.45, “Cultural Resource Statistics for the Planning

Area” (p. 442) briefly describes those resources.

Table 3.45. Cultural Resource Statistics for the Planning Area

Total Acreage of

Class III Inventories

Total Documented

Cultural Resource

Sites

Total Number of

Sites Listed on or

Eligible for the

NRHP

Total Number of

Sites Not Eligible

for the NRHP

Total Number

of Sites of

Undetermined

Eligibility for the

NRHP

179,000 Acres 5,486 Sites 885 Eligible Sites 2,397 Ineligible Sites 2,204 Undetermined

Sites

Source: BLM 2010c

NRHP National Register of Historic Places

BLM Cultural Resources Management

The BLM is legally mandated to identify, evaluate, and manage cultural resources under at least

10 federal laws and four Presidential Executive Orders, most prominently the Antiquities Act of

1906, the NHPA of 1966, the NEPA of 1969, the FLPMA of 1976, as amended, and Executive

Order 11593, Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment (1971). BLM policy

and cultural resource program guidance are outlined in BLM Manuals 8100, 8110, 8120, and

8130. The BLM approach to managing NHTs was detailed in 1986 in the Oregon/Mormon

Pioneer National Historic Trails Management Plan. The Congressionally Designated Trails

section discusses the Oregon, Mormon Pioneer, California, and Pony Express NHTs, but the same

principles can be applied to management of regionally significant historic trails, in accordance

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Cultural Resources February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 443

with Appendix IV of the plan (BLM 1986), which addresses overall concerns and management

issues. The BLM intends to revise the plan to meet current preservation needs.

In 1997, the BLM developed an agreement to address the means of complying with NHPA,

expressed in the 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 1997c). Pursuant to this national Programmatic Agreement,

the BLM Wyoming State Office developed a specific process by which NHPA compliance

is accomplished, detailed in the State Protocol Agreement Between the Wyoming BLM State

Director and the Wyoming State Historic Preservation Officer (BLM 2006). Apart from certain

considerations derived from specific cultural resource statutes, management of cultural resources

on public lands is primarily based on FLPMA, and is fully subject to the same multiple-use

principles and the same planning and decision-making processes applied to managing other

public land resources.

Specific objectives for cultural resource management are expressed in BLM Manual 8130,

Planning for Uses of Cultural Resources (incorporating Information Bulletin No. 2002-101,

Cultural Resource Considerations in RMPs), which states that all RMPs will include at least

the following goals:

● Preserve and protect significant cultural resources and ensure that they are available for

appropriate uses by present and future generations. This goal requires use allocation decisions

in the RMP, in which all cultural properties in the planning area must be allocated to the

following uses according to their nature and relative preservation value: Scientific Use

– preserved until research potential is realized; Conservation for Future Use – preserved

until conditions for use are met; Traditional Use – long-term preservation; Public Use –

long-term preservation and onsite interpretation; Experimental Use – protected until used; and

Discharged from Management – no use after recordation and not preserved.

● Seek to reduce imminent threats from natural or human-caused deterioration or potential

conflict with other resource uses by identifying priority geographic areas for new field

inventory, based upon a probability for unrecorded significant resources. This goal requires a

Class I regional overview of the planning area to identify priority areas in need of new field

inventory where unrecorded significant resources could be found.

Use Categories

BLM Manual 8110, Identifying Cultural Resources, defines six use categories: scientific use,

conservation for future use, traditional use, public use, experimental use, and discharged from

management. “A cultural property may be allocated to more than one use category. Allocations

should be reevaluated and revised, as needed, when circumstances change or new data become

available” (BLM 2004d).

Scientific Use

Scientific use implies that the value of the property lies in information that can be extracted from

the property. This use category usually corresponds to NRHP Criterion D, which recognizes the

value to society of properties that can yield or have yielded information important to expanding

understanding of history or prehistory. Archeological sites are generally evaluated under this

criterion, although other kinds of cultural resources can also be evaluated under this criterion.

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Cultural Resources
444 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

NRHP Criterion D eligibility is the regulatory threshold for management of a cultural resource for

its scientific values; management opportunities include in situ preservation and protection, or

extraction of the scientific information by means of excavation and analysis.

Conservation for Future Use

BLM Manual 8110 defines conservation for future use as “reserved for any unusual cultural

property which, because of scarcity, a research potential that surpasses the current state of the

art, singular historic importance, cultural importance, architectural interest, or comparable

reasons, is not currently available for consideration as the subject of scientific or historical study

that would result in its physical alteration.” This use category pertains to all cultural resources

regardless of age or thematic associations, unless the resources have been formally determined to

be ineligible for listing on the NRHP under all of the NRHP criteria for evaluation. Sites that

might be of scientific value but are not immediate candidates for study under the scientific use

category are managed under the conservation for future use category. The Lander Field Office

cannot feasibly perform site testing for all archeological sites and otherwise evaluate the NRHP

eligibility of all of the recorded cultural resources in the planning area. Therefore, conservation

for future use involves monitoring of other public land uses, evaluation of specific proposed

activities that might disturb specific cultural resources, erosion control of the resources, and active

stabilization of the resources as appropriate.

Traditional Use

Traditional use of cultural resources is the use of the cultural resource itself, rather than uses of a

property that do not rely directly on the existence of the cultural resource. Cultural resources can

include TCPs, which are properties that are critical to a living community’s beliefs, customs, and

practices. The regulatory threshold for management of a property as a TCP is eligibility for listing

on the NRHP under any of the criteria for evaluation, although Criterion A is the most commonly

appropriate for representation of an event or broad pattern in history. Cedar Ridge Complex is the

only explicitly identified TCP as defined in NRHP Bulletin 38 (Parker and King 1998). However,

rock art localities throughout the planning area are candidates for the traditional use category.

Public Use

Long-term preservation and onsite interpretation are most appropriate for cultural resources

that have visually obvious manifestations of the site’s historical or archeological importance.

This resource type is represented by rock art occurrences in the planning area. The intent of

interpretive efforts is that education will help preserve the site and similar examples.

All BLM-administered surface lands are managed in the public interest and there is no distinct

regulatory threshold for management of cultural resources through long-term preservation

and onsite interpretation. Considerations for management in this manner are: (1) the relative

significance of the resource within historical, archeological, or other cultural context(s), (2) the

sensitivity of the cultural resource to loss or degradation as a result of increased public access,

and (3) the ability of the BLM to install and maintain interpretive features and support facilities

while protecting the cultural values of the site. Management under this use category is therefore

driven more by practical considerations than by regulatory requirements. Onsite interpretation is

also not appropriate for most Native American TCPs because of the possible degrading effects of

public presence on the setting and feeling of these locations.

Experimental Use

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Cultural Resources February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 445

Experimental use is rarely appropriate for cultural resources because of the singular,

nonrenewable, and typically fragile nature of the resource. However, certain archeological sites,

particularly rock shelters that contain well-defined stratified deposits might be appropriate for

management under this use category. The regulatory threshold for management of cultural

resources for experimental use is likely to be eligible under NRHP Criterion D, which involves

the likelihood of yielding information important to expanding knowledge of history or prehistory.

Archeological sites that could be adversely affected by development or other factors might also be

candidates for experimental use as mitigation for adverse effects.

Discharged from Management

This use category applies to any cultural resource that the BLM and the Wyoming SHPO have

determined to be ineligible for nomination to the NRHP. Sites placed in this use category “remain

in the inventory, but they are removed from further management attention and do not constrain

other land uses” (BLM 2004d).

Management Challenges for Cultural Resources

Prehistoric Resources

As a nonrenewable resource, cultural resources in general and prehistoric resources in particular

are vulnerable to effects from use and other management actions. While the protection of cultural

resources has some of the strongest regulatory basis of any of the multiple uses, increasing

development, particularly oil, gas, and mineral extraction and ROW development, presents a

long-term threat to the resources. Over the last 20 years, effects from development to prehistoric

resources have increased in the planning area. Undiscovered buried sites are especially vulnerable

to destruction during construction. Increased awareness of the potential for buried resources and

improved data recovery measures have increased the knowledge of the prehistoric resources

present in the planning area. Consultation prior to development and avoidance are the best

management approaches.

Natural impacts to prehistoric cultural resources from weather and exposure amplify effects

related to development or other management actions and public use. Within the last two decades,

public knowledge of the existence and location of cultural resources has increased, while

management techniques necessary to protect the resources for the future are still being developed.

Collecting, looting, and vandalism of prehistoric sites have been and continue to be serious

problems and have contributed to the deterioration of sites through the loss of scientific

information and effects on site integrity and context. Certain types of sites, such as rock art and

historic structures have been seriously damaged from these kinds of activities. For example,

Castle Gardens continues to deteriorate despite attempts to protect it. Vandalism is an ongoing

problem that threatens the site, as does erosion. Vandalism has not abated, partially because the

site has not been actively managed. Development and implementation of a carefully developed

management plan is essential to reverse this trend. Recent analysis of the Castle Gardens site by a

conservation expert will provide insight to managing this property in the future (BLM 2009a).

Historic Resources

As with prehistoric resources, increasing development presents a long-term threat to historic

cultural resources. However, historic resources have not been affected as much as prehistoric

resources, attributable in part to the location of historic-period resources away from present-day

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Cultural Resources
446 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

development activities. Over the last 20 years, effects from development to historic resources

have remained unchanged but could change in the future if development begins near historic

areas and sites.

Vandalism of historic sites is a greater concern than development, and continues to be a problem.

Vandalism has contributed to the deterioration of several sites, especially sites that are easy to

access. Certain types of historic sites, such as abandoned towns, mines, and ranches have been

damaged, as is the case for the Warm Springs Canyon Flume, Natural Bridge, and geyser, where

the condition continues to deteriorate. Landslides and natural weathering continue to destroy and

degrade the remaining intact portions of the flume. Unless stabilization and preservation measures

are implemented, the entire flume might be lost.

Management Challenges for Regionally Significant Historic Trails and Early Highways

(excluding National Historic Trails)

The regionally significant historic trails and early highways discussed in this section face

management challenges similar to identified cultural resources, as described above. These trails

are fragile and managing surface disturbance associated with motorized travel to limit degradation

of the trails is a challenge.

Spiritual, Sacred, and Traditional Resources and Properties

This resource type is hard to quantify, because locations might not be well known or monitored

by federal agencies. As development activities continue, impacts to spiritual and sacred sites

and TCPs have increased. However, perhaps the best known resource in this category, Cedar

Ridge, remains stable. The portion of Cedar Ridge in the planning area has not had much modern

development and is being managed to protect its spiritual and sacred values.

General Issues and Management Challenges for Cultural Resources

Under current management, the BLM will continue to try to meet cultural resource management

goals. Pressures on cultural resources will likely increase from continued oil and gas exploration

and other development, and direct and cumulative effects will continue to degrade a portion of the

cultural landscape. Case-by-case inventory in compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA will

prevent harm to most individual sites, but the lack of comprehensive inventory coverage will

continue to hamper broad-scale interpretation and assessment of cumulative effects. Inventories

would probably continue at roughly 250 or more projects per year, with inventories covering

approximately 7,500 acres per year.

Impacts to prehistoric resources that cannot be mitigated could be expected to occur once every

5 to 10 years; however, as oil and gas exploration and development increases, the potential for

difficult cultural resource issues also increases. Impacts to trail resources that cannot be fully

mitigated are expected to occur once each year, and the historic integrity of these resources is

expected to continue to degrade as time goes on.

The demand for consumptive use of cultural resources through tourism and archeological research

projects is low, but anticipated to increase over time. This reflects an increasing interest in history

and the fragile nature of the resource. Historic trails, particularly those falling under the NHT

system, could see increased visitation. Maintaining the historic setting is critical to providing

a quality experience for visitors. The setting is an essential component in determining whether

a trail segment contributes to the trail’s overall significance.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Cultural Resources February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 447

The effects of natural weathering also will continue; these effects do not proceed in a linear

fashion. As conditions deteriorate, there is a loss of plant cover and weather resistance, and the

rate of deterioration increases. As physical degradation becomes more apparent and requires

more effort (money) to restore, the necessary efforts to stabilize and restore these resources

would continue to increase.

Collecting, looting, and vandalism of prehistoric and historic sites, which are difficult to quantify,

is nevertheless forecast to continue to be a serious problem in the planning area. These activities

contribute to the deterioration of sites. Certain types of sites, such as rock art sites, rock shelters,

certain open sites, and historic structures would continue to suffer damage from these kinds of

activities.

New types of motorized and nonmotorized vehicles have increased the access to remote parts

of the planning area. This factor has accordingly increased the vulnerability of remote cultural

resource sites through human-caused activities and degradation.

3.5.2. 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. Paleontological resources (or fossils) can be

the altered remnants of plants or animals (body fossils), or reflect their presence or actions

(impressions and trace fossils). Fossils are typically preserved in sedimentary rocks, or in unique

situations, igneous rocks. Paleontological resources can be microscopic (such as single-celled

animals [bacteria] or pollen), or macroscopic (such as fossils of leaves, petrified wood, shells

of invertebrate animals, bones, teeth, tracks, feeding traces, and burrows) and include fossils of

animals including dinosaur bones or teeth and petrified wood.

Paleontological Resources Management

Management of paleontological resources is focused on protecting vertebrate and other

scientifically significant fossils for the benefit of the public. Significant fossils include all

vertebrate fossil remains, and plant and invertebrate fossils determined on a case-by-case basis to

be scientifically unique. Abundance of these resources varies, with some geologic formations

containing few or no significant fossils, and other formations known to commonly produce

significant numbers of fossils throughout the formation.

Recently signed legislation supplements existing laws and guidance regarding paleontological

resources on BLM-administered lands (e.g., FLPMA, 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 (IM dated June 11, 2012, “Collecting

Paleontological Resources under the Paleontological Resources Preservation Act of 2009” and IM

dated June 11, 2012, “Confidentiality of Paleontological Locality Information under the Omnibus

Public Lands Act of 2009”) (BLM 2012e, BLM 2012f).

Paleontological Collection Permits and Monitoring

Collecting fossils on BLM-administered lands is allowed with some restrictions, depending

on the significance of the fossils. Hobby collecting of common invertebrate or plant fossils is

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Paleontological Resources
448 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

allowed in reasonable quantities, using only hand tools. Commercial collecting of fossils is not

permitted. Collection of all vertebrate and any administratively designated plant or invertebrate

fossils may be conducted only under permits issued to qualified researchers for reconnaissance

work and collection of surface finds, with a 1 square meter surface disturbance limit. If the

disturbance will exceed 1 square meter or require mechanized equipment, the researcher must

apply for an excavation permit, which requires NEPA analysis. All paleontological resources

collected under a paleontological resource use permit remain public property and must be curated

in an approved repository.

The BLM Wyoming State Office issues permits and monitors these permits on an as-needed

basis. Only a qualified paleontologist can be issued a paleontological resources use permit. At

present, there are 31 active paleontological permits for various types of work in the planning area.

Thirteen are for consultants working for land users; 17 are for research institutions performing

surveys; and one is for a researcher performing excavation. The number of paleontological

permits is expected to remain stable. Mitigation actions performed by qualified paleontological

consultants would lead to an increase in known fossil localities and recovery of significant fossils

that would otherwise have been undiscovered. This would result in an improvement of scientific

knowledge and better management of the resource in the long term.

Potential Fossil Yield Classification

The BLM utilizes the Potential Fossil Yield Classification (PFYC) system to classify the potential

to discover or effect significant paleontological resources. The PFYC is intended to assist in

determining proper mitigation approaches for surface-disturbing activities, disposal or acquisition

actions, recreation possibilities or limitations, and other BLM-authorized activities. The system

also highlights areas likely to be a focus of paleontological research efforts or illegal collecting.

There are five classes of potential fossil yield, ranging from Class 1 (“No Potential”) to Class

5 (“Very High Potential”), for vertebrate or scientifically important paleontological resources.

The formations listed in Table 3.46, “Formations Containing “High” and “Very High” Potential

Fossil Yield Classifications in the Planning Area” (p. 448) have been identified as having “high”

or “very high” potential for containing fossil remains.

The formations that have high or very high potential for paleontological resources might be key

features and could guide land use allocations or management decisions in the planning area

(Map 70). Table 3.46, “Formations Containing “High” and “Very High” Potential Fossil Yield

Classifications in the Planning Area” (p. 448) identifies these formations. Of known specific

interest are the Wind River Formation (especially in the Lysite area), Mesozoic deposits in the

Gas Hills and along Lander Slope, and Tertiary deposits near Bison Basin and Beaver Rim.

Table 3.46. Formations Containing “High” and “Very High” Potential Fossil Yield

Classifications in the Planning Area

Formation Age Potential Fossil Yield Classification

White River Group Oligocene and Eocene 5 – Very High

Wiggins Formation Upper Eocene 5 – Very High

Washakie Formation Upper Eocene 5 – Very High

Tepee Trail Formation Upper Eocene 5 – Very High

Aycross Formation Middle Eocene 5 – Very High

Wagon Bed Formation Middle Eocene 5 – Very High

Bridger Formation Middle Eocene 5 – Very High

Wind River Formation Lower Eocene 5 – Very High

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Paleontological Resources February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 449

Formation Age Potential Fossil Yield Classification

Indian Meadows Formation Lower Eocene 5 – Very High

Lance Formation Upper Cretaceous 5 – Very High

Niobrara Formation Upper Cretaceous 5 – Very High

Cloverly Formation Lower Cretaceous 5 – Very High

Morrison Formation Upper Jurassic 5 – Very High

Sundance Formation Upper Jurassic 5 – Very High

Thermopolis Shale Lower Cretaceous 4 – High

Wasatch Formation Lower Eocene 5 – Very High

Source: BLM 2009a

Formations of Class 3 potential are fossiliferous units where fossil content varies in significance

and abundance. For Class 3 units the management concern is moderate or cannot be determined

from existing data. Class 3 units include a broad range of paleontological potential. They include

geologic units of unknown potential, as well as units of moderate or infrequent occurrence of

significant fossils. Management considerations cover a broad range of options and could include

predisturbance surveys, monitoring, or avoidance. Surface-disturbing activities will require

sufficient assessment to determine whether significant paleontological resources occur in the area

of a proposed action, and whether that action could affect the paleontological resources. In

addition, these units may contain areas that would be appropriate to designate as hobby collection

areas due to the higher occurrence of common fossils and a lower concern about affecting

significant paleontological resources.

As shown on Map 70, the majority of the planning area is classified as Class 3 and Class 5

geological formations.

Identified Paleontological Resources

Known fossil deposits represent a relatively young period of geologic history, starting with the

Upper Jurassic Era, approximately 145 million years BP. During management analyses, these

formations are being scrutinized more closely for their paleontological resources. Projects in areas

with the above formations exposed at or near the surface might require further paleontological

assessment before or during surface-disturbing activities.

Additional knowledge of paleontological resources in the planning area would be useful to

managing and protecting these resources. Site-specific areas are undergoing intense investigation

from academic institutions and consulting paleontologists. Areas of interest include Cenozoic

formations exposed between Boysen Reservoir and Madden, between the Antelope Hills and

Crooks Mountain, near Bison Basin, and Beaver Rim, and Mesozoic formations along the Lander

Front and in the Gas Hills.

Indicators of location are based on the presence of the geologic formations. Indicators of

condition measure the loss of characteristics that make the fossil locality or feature important for

scientific use. Natural weathering, decay, erosion, improper collection, and vandalism can remove

or damage characteristics that make the resource scientifically important.

The most prolific vertebrate-bearing formations are the Wind River, Wagon Bed, White River,

and Morrison Formations. The Wind River Formation has produced early mammal fossils and

is the focus of several national paleontological institutions. The Wagon Bed and White River

Formations contain marine vertebrate fossils such as turtles. The Morrison Formation has been

shown in this area to contain dinosaur remains.

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Paleontological Resources
450 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Special Management for Paleontological Resources

Recently, paleontological resource management policies have been updated for the entire BLM.

Additional information about formations known to contain significant fossil resources is being

gathered and applied to better manage these resources. The BLM is now actively managing

paleontological resources on public land, and land uses in high or very high potential fossil yield

formations might be subject to survey, monitoring, avoidance, or recovery of significant fossil

resources. There is active hobby collecting of invertebrate fossils in the planning area, although

information documenting this type of use is limited.

Five specific areas have been identified as “High Potential Paleontological Areas,” as follows:

Bonneville to Lost Cabin

This large area contains extensive exposures of the Wind River Formation, a high-potential

formation for fossil resources. In this area, the Wind River Formation contains significant fossils

of early mammals and plants from the Eocene Epoch, which dates from about 55 to 34 million

years BP. The development of early mammals after the demise of the dinosaurs is the main

research focus of several institutions that work in this area.

Gas Hills

This area contains exposures of the Sundance Formation, a high-potential formation for fossil

resources. In this area, the Redwater Shale of the Sundance Formation, which dates from about

155 to 160 million years BP, occasionally contains significant fossils of sea-going reptiles from

the Upper Jurassic. The development of marine reptiles in North America is the main research

focus of institutions that work in this area.

Lander Slope

This area contains exposures of the Morrison Formation, a high-potential formation for fossil

resources from the Upper Jurassic Era. In this area, the Morrison Formation, which dates from

about 156 to 147 million years BP, occasionally contains significant fossils of dinosaurs. The

development of dinosaurs in North America is the main research focus of institutions that work in

this area.

Beaver Rim Proposed National Natural Landmark

This proposed landmark covers an area of 1,120 acres and lies along the western end of the Beaver

Divide in Fremont County. This area is considered significant for its well-defined stratigraphic

sequence of Tertiary deposits, which are exposed along the slopes of the rim. The proposed

National Natural Landmark (NNL) includes representative exposures of virtually complete Early

Eocene Epoch through Miocene Epoch stratigraphic sequences. This nearly complete sequence is

very rarely exposed and is important to the understanding of Wyoming Tertiary geology. The

area also is highly representative of the geological difference between the degrading Wind River

Basin to the north and west and the more stable upland Sweetwater Plateau. The possibilities of

exposed fossil materials and the stark scenic beauty of the area also add to the significance of

this area. The proposed NNL is composed entirely of BLM-administered public lands and the

agency manages this area for protection of its natural values.

Bison Basin Proposed National Natural Landmark

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Paleontological Resources February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 451

This locality covers 1,280 acres and lies on the south flanks of the Sweetwater Arch in southern

Fremont County, just north of the Great Divide Basin. The proposed NNL is considered

significant because of its mammalian fossil remains. These remains are from late Paleocene

Epoch sediments, and have been studied by several geological surveys and institutions. The fossil

types have been found to be highly significant for scientific research and have been found in

unusual quantities. Future use of the area for paleontological research could significantly add to

the base of scientific knowledge about Paleocene mammalian typology. The proposed NNL is

composed entirely of BLM-administered public lands.

Management Challenges for Paleontological Resources

Management challenges for paleontological resources focus on preservation of the resources.

Increased levels of identification, avoidance, and recovery of significant fossils through increasing

application of mitigation measures help to protect paleontological resources and add to the base of

scientific knowledge. Although energy-related development over the next 5 to 10 years would

result in increased adverse effects to paleontological resources, additional mitigation efforts

would offset many of the adverse effects caused by this development and are addressed at

project-level NEPA analysis. Some significant fossils will be destroyed during surface-disturbing

activities, but predisturbance surveys and onsite monitoring efforts would also protect many that

would have been lost without these efforts.

Natural weathering and erosion will continue to destroy fossils and management or mitigation

cannot alter this deterioration, although actions that would deter accelerated erosion would

also serve to indirectly protect paleontological resources from some natural or human-caused

erosion. Collecting and looting of paleontological resources, which are difficult to quantify,

continue to be a problem in the planning area. These activities contribute to the deterioration of

paleontological localities due to the loss of scientific information and due to the loss of locality

integrity and context. Providing adequate law enforcement to deter this type of activity also

remains a challenge.

3.5.3. Visual Resources

The BLM has a stewardship responsibility to identify and protect visual resources on

BLM-administered lands. This section describes the BLM Visual Resource Inventory (VRI) and

VRM systems and summarizes important visual resources in the planning area.

Visual Resource Inventory Classes

The BLM uses a VRI and VRM system, respectively, to classify the aesthetic value of its lands

and set management objectives during the planning process. The system involves assessing

visual values and assigning them to one of four VRI Classes (Classes I to IV) based on three

factors: scenic quality, visual sensitivity, and distance from travel or observation points. VRI

Classes are a general measure of the visual value of a landscape. Scenic quality is a measure of

the visual appeal of a tract of land, while visual sensitivity is a measure of public concern for

scenic quality in a given area. Distance is assessed by breaking the landscape into three zones

(foreground and middleground, background, and seldom seen areas) based on relative visibility

from travel routes or other observation points.

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Visual Resources
452 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

The BLM completed a VRI of the planning area in 2009 that represents the current conditions

(baseline) for this document. The new VRI will provide the basis of VRM Classes and new

management decisions in this RMP.

Visual Resource Inventory Classes in the Planning Area

Table 3.47, “Visual Resource Inventory Classes” (p. 452) lists acreage by VRI Classes for all

lands in the planning area from the new VRI. Map 74 shows the new VRI Classes, and Maps 71

through 73 show the three inventory considerations (distance zone, visual sensitivity, and scenic

quality) used to develop the new inventory classes. For reference, Map 75 shows the VRM

Classes established in the existing 1987 RMP. Under the new VRI, the majority of the planning

area is within VRI Classes III and IV.

Table 3.47. Visual Resource Inventory Classes

Visual Resource Inventory Class BLM-administered surface (acres)

I 54,682

II 570,502

III 849,370

IV 917,485

Source: BLM 2012a

VRI Class III and IV areas are generally on or near linear infrastructure routes, in areas

undergoing oil and gas exploration or other development, and in areas with less visual variety.

VRI Class I and II areas possess outstanding scenic quality and high visual sensitivity. Such areas

in the planning area include Sweetwater Rocks, Beaver Rim, Sweetwater Canyon, Red Canyon,

South Pass Historic Landscape, Green Mountain, the Lander Slope, and Dubois Badlands. VRI

Class I and II areas associated with travel corridors include:

● Sweetwater Basin to Beaver Rim (from Highway 220 south to State Highway 287 from

Muddy Gap northwest to Beaver Creek);

● Highway 28 starting at or near Commissary Hill through the South Pass historic landscape to

the planning area boundary;

● State Highway 287 from the WRIR boundary north to the planning area boundary, including

small portions of the Wyoming Centennial Scenic Byway;

● Highway 20/789 from Shoshoni to the WRIR line, recently designated as the Wind River

Canyon Scenic Byway; and

● The NHTs and CDNST Corridors.

Visual Resource Management Classes

VRM Classes are different than VRI Classes and are established during the RMP planning process

and approved in the ROD. The management classes establish a measurable standard for the

amount of change allowed to a specific area's visual resource.

The following are the objectives or standards for each VRM Class:

● Class I: The objective of this class is to preserve the existing character of the landscape. This

class provides for natural ecological changes; however, it does not preclude very limited

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Visual Resources February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 453

management activity. The level of change to the characteristic landscape should be very

low and must not attract attention.

● Class II: The objective of this class is 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 partially retain the existing character of the

landscape. The level of change to the characteristic landscape should be moderate.

Management activities may attract attention but should not dominate the view of the casual

observer. Changes should repeat the basic elements found in the predominant natural features

of the characteristic landscape.

● Class IV: The objective of this class is to provide for management activities that require

major modifications to the existing character of the landscape. The level of change to the

characteristic landscape can be high. These management activities may dominate the view

and be the major focus of viewer attention. However, every attempt should be made to

minimize the impact of these activities through careful location, minimal disturbance, and

repeating the basic elements.

Visual Resource Management in the Planning Area

Visual resources are currently managed according to VRM Classes established in the 1987 RMP

(Map 75). The inventory that was utilized in the 1987 RMP was neither complete nor conducted

under current guidance. VRM Classes were discussed in the EIS prepared for the RMP but did

not update earlier management actions and VRM Classes were not transferred to the ROD.

Modern management techniques for visual resources incorporate mitigation methods and BMPs

for minimizing the impact of BLM-authorized activities on visual resources. BMPs are utilized to

limit impacts from development on visual resources. The recent trend in VRM and mitigation

of impacts to visual resources has been upward, reflecting a change in earlier management that

allowed developments such as citing towers on mountaintops or fencing and water development

projects near the NHTs.

Currently, site-specific mitigation of impacts to visual resources is being implemented through

project level analysis, with reference to the 1987 RMP and EIS. The VRI that produced these

VRM Classes did not map distance zones and visual sensitivity levels. This factor contributes to

an overall challenge of managing neighboring visual planning units with contrasting objectives

(such as actions in a Class IV area viewed from a Class II). The route for the CDNST was

delineated after the VRM Classes were established resulting in visual impacts to the trail’s

viewshed resulting in adverse impacts to the recreational experiences and benefits of the user.

Visual Resource Conditions

The planning area contains a moderate number of areas that possess a high degree of scenic

quality and visual sensitivity. In general, high scenic quality is a product of the area’s topography,

geology, and cultural history. Scenically diverse vistas and canyon riverways, unusual geologic

formations, colorful and highly contrasting sandstones, and numerous historic remnants contribute

to the area’s high scenic quality. Areas with high visual sensitivity (e.g., Split Rock, Red Canyon,

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Visual Resources
454 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Dubois Badlands, and NHTs) are the result of visitor interest in and public concern for a particular

area’s visual resources, an area’s high degree of public visibility, the level of use by the public, or

the type of visitor use an area receives.

Important Visual Resources

The planning area encompasses two major physiographic provinces, the middle Rocky Mountains

and the Wyoming Basin, which form the base of the visual resources key features. Table 3.48,

“Unique Scenic Features in the Planning Area, Current Management, and New Inventory

Classes” (p. 454) lists unique scenic features by physiographic province, the VRM Classes for

the area under current management, the new VRI Classes, and a short discussion of the visual

characteristics in the area (factors influencing visual resource class designation and management).

Table 3.48. Unique Scenic Features in the Planning Area, Current Management, and New

Inventory Classes

Unique Scenic Features

Current Visual Resource

Management Class1

New Visual Resource

Inventory Class

Factors Influencing

Class Designation or

Management

Wyoming Basin Physiographic Province

Beaver Rim II, III II, III The area is a large landscape

feature with a lot of contrast.

The area creates a strong

lateral horizon line across

U.S. Highway 287 and State

Highway 135 corridors.

The top of the rim provides

views of adjacent mountain

ranges and the Wind River

Basin.

Burnt Ranch II II The area consists of mixed

private and public lands

that, coupled with the

historic landscape, create a

viewshed with high visual

sensitivity.

Castle Gardens Petroglyph

Site

II, III IV The site is an important

cultural resource area

with high recreational use.

Visual sensitivity in this

area is high.

Cedar Ridge III II The area is a high-use

recreation area, with color

contrast and large sandstone

abutments.

Continental Divide National

Scenic Trail Corridor

II, III, IV, V II, III The trail corridor through

the planning area is an

important recreation setting.

Visual sensitivity along the

route is high; in addition,

this is part of a small section

of the entire trail that

displays the physiographic

province.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Visual Resources February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 455

Unique Scenic Features

Current Visual Resource

Management Class1

New Visual Resource

Inventory Class

Factors Influencing

Class Designation or

Management

Green Mountain II, III, V II, III The area is a mountainous

landscape unique to the

Wyoming Basin and is

popular for recreational use.

The landscape contains high

amounts of contrast and

scenic overlooks spanning

the Sweetwater Valley and

Continental Divide Basin.

National Historic Trail

Corridor

I, II I, II High visitation and public

interest coupled with a

historic landscape create

high visual sensitivity.

Adjacent views of

Sweetwater Rocks and

Wind River Mountains are

of historical significance.

Rattlesnake Hills II, III, IV IV The area contains

high-contrast mountainous

terrain with mixed conifer

and aspen pockets unique to

the physiographic province.

Red Butte II, III II This is a highly visible

feature from Lander and

surrounding areas.

Red Canyon I II The area is a designated

National Natural Landmark

with high visual sensitivity.

The canyon is considered

an identifying landscape for

the Lander area.

South Pass Historic

Landscape

I, II, III, IV II, III This landscape contains

historic and prehistoric

resources, developed

recreation sites, and a

moderate scenic quality.

Copper Mountains Lysite

Mountain

II, III, IV I, II, III The area is mountainous and

includes rugged cliffs and

slopes. Views of Boysen

Reservoir and Wind River

Canyon complement this

viewshed. The WSA in this

area contributes to the area’s

visual sensitivity level.

Sweetwater Canyon II I This canyon runs

through a prairie canyon

ecosystem and includes

diverse topography

with high-contrast

riparian-wetland vegetation

types such as aspen and

cottonwood. The WSA in

this area contributes to the

area’s visual sensitivity.

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Visual Resources
456 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Unique Scenic Features

Current Visual Resource

Management Class1

New Visual Resource

Inventory Class

Factors Influencing

Class Designation or

Management

Sweetwater Rocks/Granite

Mountains/Sentinel Rocks

II, III I, II There is a high degree of

contrast between the high

granite mountains and the

adjacent plains. The area

provides the backdrop for

the historical trail, and the

Sweetwater River is visible

from many areas within the

rocks. Four WSAs in this

viewshed contribute to the

area’s visual sensitivity.

Table Mountain-Lander II, III II This highly visible feature

is in view from the city of

Lander and surrounding

areas.

Twin Creek II, III, IV II, III The chugwater formations

in the area create high color

and landform contrast.

Adjacent scenery and

features add to the visual

setting.

Mixed Middle Rocky Mountains and Wyoming Basin Physiographic Province

Dubois Area II, III, IV, V I, II, III This high-contrast viewshed

spans floodplains, badlands,

mountainous terrain, and

peaks. The area serves as

an identity landscape for the

town of Dubois and supports

a number of recreational

uses. The two WSAs in this

area contribute to the area’s

visual sensitivity.

Eastern Aspect of the Wind

River Range

I, II, III II, III This area is within view

from most residential areas

near Riverton, Lander,

and Hudson and produces

a high degree of visual

sensitivity. Numerous

canyon riverways and

rugged terrain support a

number of recreational uses.

The area contributes to

several adjacent viewsheds

within the planning area.

Sources: BLM 1987a; BLM 2012a

1The existing plan utilized an outdated classification system; management under this system included a VRM Class

V. VRM Class V was established to manage areas primarily for rehabilitation or enhancement of landscape character.

U.S. United States

VRM Visual Resource Management

WSA Wilderness Study Area

Management Challenges for Visual Resources

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Visual Resources February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 457

The nature of development in the planning area and the slow rehabilitation of lands following

disturbance have resulted in cumulative adverse impacts to scenic quality. The current

management of visual resources to control the contrast, location, finishing, and staging of

developments on BLM-administered lands allows the BLM to control for the impacts of such

projects, and has helped to minimize adverse effects on visual resources in the planning area.

However, impacts from the increases in recreation and tourism, travel, ROW development

(especially development of large wind turbines), mineral development, activities in support of

livestock grazing, and other land use disturbances still occur despite management.

Historic land uses also continue to affect viewsheds because these activities were permitted

before the current system of visual contrast rating and implementation of visual mitigation were

instituted. VRM objectives are being met in most places, but the challenge of meeting these

objectives in the future is expected to increase. Of particular concern are areas managed to

maintain the existing visual environment (e.g., VRM Class I and II areas) that are within view of

areas managed to allow more intensive development (e.g., VRM Class III and IV areas).

There have been conflicts between visual resources and these other uses in the Beaver Rim, South

Pass, Oregon Trail (and other NHTs), and CDNST landscapes. Conflicts associated with visual

resources typically are a product of maintaining VRM objectives and the increased importance

of the visual environment to the public (due to increased use, better public access and changes

in land use patterns such as the designation of the CDNST).

The visual environment may experience moderate to major modification pending the approval

of large, utility-scale renewable energy development, such as wind energy, and electrical

transmission lines to transport energy generated from these potential facilities. These high profile

intrusions do not lend themselves to the typical sighting and design methods used to mitigate

the impact to visual resources. Wind potential is higher in locations of high visual prominence

at elevated locations and on ridges and rims such as Cyclone Rim or Beaver Rim. Recreational

opportunities, experiences, and benefits often depend on the scenic quality of landscapes, and these

developments have the potential to affect recreational use, including along the CDNST and NHTs.

3.6. Land Resources

Land resources include lands and realty, renewable energy, ROWs and corridors, comprehensive

trails and travel management, livestock grazing, and recreation. Each resource section describes

the resource, its existing condition, and management challenges related to the resource.

3.6.1. Lands and Realty

The lands and realty program manages BLM-administered land that supports all resource and

management programs in the planning area. Management decisions for lands and realty are

limited to BLM-administered public lands, although lands and realty actions during the life of

the plan could involve other surface managers (through easements and land tenure adjustments).

The primary activities of the lands and realty program include (1) land use authorizations such

as Recreation and Public Purposes (R&PP) leases, FLPMA leases and permits, (2) land tenure

adjustments, including sales and other types of disposal actions, exchanges, donations, land

acquisitions and interests in lands (access easements), and (3) withdrawals, classifications, and

segregations. As part of the processing of lands and realty actions, the BLM works cooperatively

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Land Resources
458 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

with other federal agencies, the State of Wyoming, cities, counties, and public and private

landholders.

3.6.1.1. Land Status

The planning area is composed of mixed surface ownership totaling 6,487,464 acres (Map 1). The

BLM manages the largest amount of land in the planning area, administering a total of 2,394,210

acres (Table 3.49, “Surface Ownership in the Planning Area” (p. 458)).

Table 3.49. Surface Ownership in the Planning Area

Surface Manager Acres Managed Percent of Planning Area

Bureau of Land Management 2,394,210 37

U.S. Forest Service 875,605 13

Bureau of Reclamation 125,706 2

Bureau of Indian Affairs (Wind River

Indian Reservation)

1,546,505 24

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 112 <1

Department of Defense 1,340 <1

State of Wyoming 278,131 4

Private 1,223,421 19

Water 42,434 <1

Total 6,487,464 100%

Source: BLM 2012a

< less than

There are many isolated parcels of state land and private land dispersed throughout the planning

area interspersed with public land. Map 1 shows the existing surface management pattern;

Table 3.50, “BLM-Administered Surface by County in the Planning Area” (p. 458) lists the

acreage of BLM-administered surface by county.

Table 3.50. BLM-Administered Surface by County in the Planning Area

County BLM-administered surface (acres)

Carbon 38,406

Fremont 1,933,364

Hot Springs 1,779

Natrona 297,991

Sweetwater 122,670

Total 2,394,210

Source: BLM 2012a

BLM Bureau of Land Management

3.6.1.2. Land Use Authorizations

Land use authorizations include various authorizations to use public surface for leases, including

permits and easements under Section 302(b) of FLPMA; R&PP leases under the R&PP Act of

1926 (43 U.S.C. 869 et seq.); and airport leases under the Federal Public Airport Act of 1928,

as amended (49 U.S.C. Appendix, Sections 211-213). This section briefly describes land use

authorizations and the authorizing regulations for these lands and realty actions.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Lands and Realty February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 459

Leases, Permits, and Easements

Section 302(b) of FLPMA authorizes the BLM to issue leases, permits, and easements for the use,

occupancy, and development of public lands. Since the 1987 RMP, the most common type of this

land use authorization has been minimum impact land use permits for commercial filming on

public lands. Additionally, the BLM issued permits for water well testing and monitoring and

short-term equipment storage. At present, the Lander Field Office administers three land use

leases: one for the Martin’s Cove Site consisting of 927 acres, an agricultural lease consisting of

11 acres (authorized as resolution of unauthorized use), and a corral and barn consisting of less

than 1 acre (authorized as resolution of unauthorized use). The Lander Field Office authorizes

numerous easements across BLM-administered land for access to private land.

Recreation and Public Purposes Act Leases and Conveyances

The R&PP Act authorizes the BLM to lease or convey public surface to state and local

governments and qualified nonprofit organizations for recreation and/or public purpose uses.

Typical uses under the R&PP Act include historic monument sites, campgrounds, schools, parks,

public works facilities, and hospitals. Lands are typically leased first until development of the

site is completed and then, if appropriate, the BLM may convey title. Lands proposed to be

leased or conveyed under the R&PP Act must first be classified as suitable for such use. R&PP

classifications segregate the land from operation of the public land laws except for the R&PP Act,

which precludes disposal by sale, exchange, or other means, but specifically allows for R&PP

lease or conveyance. R&PP classifications also segregate the lands from operation of the mining

laws, closing the area to mining of locatable minerals. R&PP classifications do not segregate

lands from mineral leasing.

In 1966, the BLM granted a patent to the Natrona County School District under the R&PP Act for

1.25 acres in the eastern part of the planning area in Township 32 North, Range 85 West for use as

a public school. This patent (Number 49-66-0085) contains a provision that if the parcel was not

used for school purposes, it would revert to the United States. Natrona County has stopped using

the parcel for school purposes and its reversion to the United States is being prepared.

Since the 1987 RMP, the Lander Field Office has issued two R&PP leases for a total of 35 acres,

and seven patents under the R&PP Act authority.

3.6.1.3. Unauthorized Use/Trespass

Unauthorized use/trespass is the use, occupancy, or development of public land or its resources

without a required authorization, or in a way that is beyond the scope and terms and conditions

of an authorization; this definition excludes uses defined as casual use in the regulations (43

CFR 2920.1-2[a]).

Existing management guides the resolution of unauthorized land uses through cessation of use,

authorization by ROW, lease or permit, or disposal (though direct sale under FLPMA Section

203). The existing plan identified specific criteria for considering decisions about unauthorized

use and directed that new cases of unauthorized use would generally be immediately terminated

(see management challenges at the end of this section for a discussion of challenges associated

with unauthorized use) (BLM 1987b). Under existing management, the BLM might issue

temporary permits to provide short-term authorization, unless the situation warrants immediate

cessation of the use and restoration of the land. The BLM gives highest priority to the following

unauthorized uses: new authorized activities or uses where prompt action could minimize

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Lands and Realty
460 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

damage to public resources; cases in which delay might be detrimental to authorized users;

cases involving special areas, sensitive ecosystems, and resources of national significance; and

cases involving malicious or criminal activities. The most common occurrences of unauthorized

use/trespass in the planning area are illegal dumping, roadways, home sites, irrigation and

agricultural development, pipelines, and powerlines.

Trespass is an ongoing problem in the planning area. Limited staff and funding is a contributing

factor, allowing trespass to continue unabated. When trespass actions go undetected or

unresolved, there is no incentive or deterrent for offenders to cease further trespass action. At

present there are 30 unresolved potential unauthorized use/trespass cases pending in the planning

area. On average, the Lander Field Office resolves one unauthorized use/trespass case per year.

Resolution of trespass in the planning area includes payment of administrative costs, rental

value for period of use, penalties (assessed based on the non-willful, willful, or repeated willful

nature of the use), and can include removal, rehabilitation, and restoration of affected lands or

authorization of the use. Authorization of an unauthorized use/trespass in the planning area, when

appropriate, has been accomplished through issuance of a land use permit, land use lease, or a

ROW, whichever authorization is most appropriate based on the use.

3.6.1.4. Land Tenure Adjustments

Adjustments to land ownership (land tenure) are an important component of the BLM land

management strategy. The Lander Field Office completes land tenure adjustments when such

transactions are in the public interest and consistent with local land use plans. Land tenure

adjustment refers to lands and realty actions that result in the BLM disposing of public land or

acquiring non-federal lands or interests in lands. FLPMA requires that public land be retained in

public ownership unless, as a result of land use planning, disposal of certain parcels is justified.

Parcels designated as potentially available for disposal are more likely to be conveyed out of

federal ownership through an exchange rather than a sale. Acquisition of land and interests

in lands are important components of the BLM land tenure adjustment strategy. Acquisition

of and interests in land can be accomplished through several methods, including exchange,

purchase, donation, and condemnation (there have not been nor are there likely to be donation

or condemnations in the planning area). The BLM often acquires lands and interests in lands

for the following actions:

● Improve management of public land resources through consolidation of federal, state, and

private lands.

● Secure key property necessary to protect endangered species, promote biological diversity,

increase recreational opportunities, and preserve archeological and historical resources.

● Implement specific acquisitions authorized or directed by acts of Congress.

● Improve access to BLM-administered lands across private lands.

The land ownership pattern in the planning area mainly consists of large blocks of public land

surrounding scattered parcels of private and state lands (Map 1). The percentage of ownership in

the planning area is identified in Table 3.49, “Surface Ownership in the Planning Area” (p. 458).

In addition to these large blocks, there are areas of scattered public lands within parcels of state

and private lands. These scattered parcels can be difficult to manage as part of the public land

system. In many cases the small size of the scattered parcels, their isolation from other parcels of

public land, and lack of legal access can make their retention in public ownership of marginal

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Lands and Realty February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 461

utility. Occasionally, these isolated parcels can serve other resource purposes, such as providing

wildlife habitat in an area that has been fragmented by suburban development.

Appendix R (p. 1623) identifies lands that the public proposed for land tenure adjustment. The

public proposed these lands for a variety of reasons such as for protecting wildlife habitat and

open space and preserving cultural, historic, and recreational values, or for personal reasons

having to do with other property.

Purchases

Under Section 205 of FLPMA, the BLM has the authority to purchase lands or interests in lands.

Similar to other acquisitions, purchase is used to acquire key natural resources or to acquire

legal ownership of lands that enhance the management of existing public lands and resources.

Acquisition of land through purchase helps consolidate management areas to strengthen resource

protection. Acquisition of land by purchase is used sparingly given the limited funds available

through appropriations.

The primary purpose of purchase within the planning area has been to provide easements or access

to BLM-administered lands or for the benefit of other resources such as wildlife management

areas. The federal Land and Water Conservation Fund provides money to federal agencies, as well

as state and local governments, to acquire land that would benefit the public such as for improved

recreational access and the protection of historical sites. Acquiring access easements across

non-federal lands for roads and trails provides for legal public access to “landlocked” public lands

and for the connectivity of trails. Easement acquisition has been a long-term goal in the planning

area, primarily because of the scattered land pattern. Since the 1987 RMP, the Lander Field Office

has obtained 12 easements for access. A typical example of an easement in the planning area is

the Shoshone Lake Road easement, which provides public access to BLM-administered lands.

Public scoping has identified areas in which improved access to BLM-administered lands would

improve public access. Improved public access would likely be accomplished through the

acquisition of easements (through purchase or donation) or acquiring lands or interests in lands for

access through exchange or donation. The Sweetwater Rocks has been identified as a particular

area in which improved access would benefit public use of BLM-administered land.

Land Disposal (Land Sales)

Public lands have the potential for disposal when they are isolated and/or difficult to manage.

Disposal actions are often in response to a public request, such as community expansion. Disposals

result in a title transfer, wherein the lands leave the public domain. The BLM coordinates all

disposal actions with adjoining landowners, local governments, and existing land users.

The BLM manages public sales under the disposal criteria set forth in Section 203 of FLPMA.

Public lands determined suitable for sale are offered on the initiative of the BLM or through a

public nomination/request for sale. The BLM does not sell lands for less than fair market value.

The RMP must identify lands suitable for sale. Any lands to be disposed of by sale that are not

identified in the current RMP require a plan amendment. Lands identified for disposal under

current management are identified in Appendix S (p. 1629).

At present, there are two categories for lands identified for disposal in the planning area. Lands

identified for disposal with restrictions must meet specific restrictions before they can be

disposed. These restrictions include limitations to whom the lands can be disposed to (such as

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Lands and Realty
462 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

lands that can only be disposed of to the WGFD) or the purposes for which the lands may be used,

and the resource values that must be acquired if a parcel of land is disposed through exchange

(lands must be acquired with similar or higher resource values than the lands that are disposed

of). Some of these concerns can be addressed through easements or restrictions on use. The

remaining lands identified for disposal are general lands identified for disposal with no specific

restrictions. A total of 1,475 acres of BLM-administered surface lands are identified for disposal

with restrictions in the planning area, and 8,573 acres of BLM-administered surface lands are

identified for disposal without restrictions (Map 94).

Since approval of the existing plan, some parcels, totaling 1,468 acres of BLM-administered

surface, have been disposed of under the authority of Section 203, including the Riverton Landfill

and Railroad Grade to South Pass City.

The table in Appendix S (p. 1629) has a column titled “Parcel No.” The number was originally

assigned to the parcels in the 1987 RMP and used to simplify identification of parcels on planning

area maps. The 1987 RMP identified parcels for disposal; these parcels, save the parcels already

sold or exchanged, are carried forward in Alternative A. Consequently, there are gaps in the

parcel numbers; for example, there are no parcel numbers 3 and 4, as these parcels are no longer

in ownership of the United States. Similarly, there is no parcel number 2; the 1987 range of

alternatives considered this parcel for disposal but it was not part of the Preferred Alternative and

not identified in the 1987 RMP for disposal. Three new parcels have been identified in Alternative

D for disposal. These are two parcels identified for disposal to the DOE because they contain

uranium mill tailings and a third parcel that is discussed above under the R&PP Act as being in

the process of reverting to the United States because it is no longer being used by the Natrona

County School District for school purposes. During the 1987 RMP analysis, these parcels were

not considered because they were in current use and disposal was not relevant.

Exchanges

Exchange is the process of trading lands or interests in lands between the BLM and a second

landowner. Conducted under the authority of Section 206 of the FLPMA, exchange is a tool that

enables the BLM and other landowners to improve land management, consolidate ownership, and

protect environmentally sensitive areas. By exchanging public land that is isolated and difficult to

manage, the BLM is able to acquire other lands with importance for recreation, wildlife, fisheries,

wetlands, habitat for threatened and endangered species, wilderness, open space, scenic, cultural

and other resource conservation purposes. Land exchanges allow the BLM to reposition lands

into more manageable units and to meet community expansion needs.

Exchange is the preferable means by which land is disposed of and primarily the means by

which land is acquired. Except for exchanges that are congressionally mandated or judicially

required, exchanges are voluntary and discretionary transactions with willing landowners.

Lands to be exchanged must be of approximately equal monetary value and in the same state.

Exchanges must also be in the public interest and conform to applicable BLM land use plans

and other relevant guidance.

Since approval of the 1987 RMP, three exchanges have been completed that affected lands in

the planning area. The Steers exchange (80 acres) allowed the Lander Field Office to acquire

lands for wildlife and recreation. The Red Creek (2,862 acres acquired) and Eastman (1,030 acres

acquired) exchanges facilitated the acquisition of lands in the Whiskey Mountain area for the

protection of bighorn sheep range and sensitive cultural areas. In recent years, there has been only

modest exchange activity in the planning area, although interest in exchanges is increasing.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Lands and Realty February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 463

Lands Identified for Retention

The FLPMA enunciates a federal policy of retention of BLM-administered lands for multiple use

management, unless the lands are specifically identified for disposal (through the land use planning

process) and would serve the public interest (such as classification and ultimate disposal under the

R&PP Act). Pre-FLPMA classifications also identified lands that were classified for retention.

Lands identified for retention in the planning area are BLM-administered surface lands not

identified for disposal. The BLM is to retain the parcels identified for retention for multiple use

management, but the agency may consider the parcels for disposal on a case-by-case basis. At

present, there are 2,385,637 acres of BLM-administered surface identified for retention in the

planning area (Map 94).

3.6.1.5. Withdrawals and Classifications

Lands are withdrawn under the authority of Section 204 of the FLPMA or by Congressional Act.

A withdrawal is a formal action that withholds an area of public land from specific actions, such

as settlement, sale, location, and entry under the mining laws (locatable mineral development).

Withdrawals are made with the purpose of limiting activities under those laws in order to maintain

other public and resource values in the area, to reserve the area for a particular public purpose or

program, or to transfer jurisdiction over an area of federal land from one department, bureau, or

agency to another. Withdrawals are established for a wide range of public purposes, including

military reservations, reclamation projects, and power site reserves.

The BLM has established withdrawals in the planning area to close specific sites and protect

existing resource values (such as wildlife, sensitive species habitat, and historic and cultural sites)

as part of the classification process (in preparation for lease or conveyance of land) and to transfer

public land to other federal agencies to accomplish their mission goals. Existing withdrawals,

classifications, and other segregations in the planning area are identified in Table 3.51, “Existing

Withdrawals, Classifications, and Other Segregations in the Planning Area” (p. 463) and

withdrawals are displayed on Map 21. At present, approximately 31,767 acres in the planning

area are withdrawn from location and entry under the Mining Laws including 8,634 acres of

pre-FLPMA segregations (as discussed below).

Table 3.51. Existing Withdrawals, Classifications, and Other Segregations in the Planning

Area

Segregates/Withdraws from

Name Acres

Disposal Locatable Minerals

Resource Protection

Elk Range 11,085 X X

Elk Pasture 3,229 X X

Whiskey Mountain Big

Horn Sheep Winter Range

11,019 X X

Warm Springs Canyon 188

Oregon Trail (Sites along

the Oregon Trail that are

withdrawn are identified

below)

315 X X

Split Rock (NRHP and

Interpretive Site)

887 X X

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Lands and Realty
464 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Segregates/Withdraws from

Name Acres

Disposal Locatable Minerals

Devil’s Gate (Including

Interpretive Site)

508 X X

Rocky Ridge Site 555 X X

Aspen Grove Site 889 X X

Castle Gardens 78 X X

Martins Cove 927 X X

Green Mountain

(Campground and Picnic

Sites)

100 X X

Wildhorse Point 20 X X

South Pass Area 751 X X

Miners Delight NRHP Site 173 X X

South Pass City NRHP Site 698 X X

Yermo xanthocephalus

(Desert Yellowhead) plant

habitat

360 X X

Classifications

R&PP Classifications 247 X X

Land Patents(Under Section

203 & 206 of FLPMA or

R&PP Act Conveyances)

1,899 X X

Proposed Land Exchange 122 X X

Classification and Multiple

Use

1,623 X X

Source: BLM 2012a

FLPMA Federal Land Policy and Management Act

NRHP National Register of Historic Places

R&PP Recreation and Public Purposes

Pre-FLPMA classifications also identified lands for segregation from application of the mining

laws. These segregations (8,364 acres), adopted through Act of Congress, are not subject to the

time limits of segregations and withdrawals under current mineral laws. Lands proposed to be

leased or conveyed under the R&PP Act must first be classified as suitable for such use. R&PP

classifications segregate the land from operation of the public land laws except for the R&PP Act,

which precludes disposal by sale, exchange, or other means, but specifically allows for R&PP

lease or conveyance. R&PP classifications also segregate lands from operation of the mining

laws, closing the area to mining of locatable minerals. R&PP classifications do not segregate

lands from mineral leasing (oil and gas development). R&PP leases and conveyances reserve all

minerals in the land to the United States. At present, there are no pending R&PP classifications in

the planning area associated with an application through the R&PP Act, although two potential

R&PP leases for recreational use have been identified as possible actions to be considered to

meet identified public demand. A small number of R&PP applications are expected over the

next two decades in the planning area. Public land could be needed for expansion of existing

facilities and for new facilities to support growing local communities. The growth of Lander,

Riverton, and Dubois has been slow but steady for the last decade. However, the small amount of

BLM-administered land near the growth areas is also important to wildlife and recreational uses,

and might not meet the BLM’s criteria for disposal.

Some lands in the planning area that were previously used for uranium mill sites, processing, and

storage of processing waste (tailings) should be managed by the DOE for long-term monitoring

and oversight due to radioactivity levels in the tailings. There are several former mill sites for

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Lands and Realty February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 465

which this process is underway in the planning area. Lands transferred to the DOE are withdrawn

from operation of public land laws, mining laws, and all other public activities. The area currently

identified is approximately 2,100 acres, but it is likely that additional areas will be identified in

the future. Refer to the Locatable Minerals section of this chapter for more information.

Management Challenges for Lands and Realty

A variety of management challenges exist for the lands and realty program based on historic

activities and trends as well as current and future needs of public resources by both internal and

external customers. Most management challenges for the lands and realty program are associated

with balancing land tenure adjustments and land use authorizations with the maintenance of BLM

resource objectives and the needs and desires of the public and other federal agencies.

Managing isolated tracts of BLM-administered lands surrounded by private land poses

considerable challenges by limiting administrative access to carry out management and fulfill

management objectives. In some cases, new owners of recently transferred private land in the

planning area no longer allow the BLM to cross their private land to access BLM-administered

land. Facilitating access to these parcels through acquiring easements or considering land tenure

adjustments to resolve access issues is a management challenge for the lands and realty program.

Subdivision of private land in the planning area also creates challenges related to the access

of BLM-administered lands by both private users and for administrative access by the BLM.

Subdivision of private land also creates fragmentation and isolates BLM-administered lands.

Additional management challenges associated with access result from limited or unavailable

access to BLM-administered lands by recreational users, resulting in unauthorized access across

private land. Challenges associated with recreation access are an issue in the Sweetwater Rocks

area.

Unauthorized use and illegal dumping are additional management challenges for the lands and

realty program. Trespass actions such as illegal dumping can cause unmitigated damage to public

lands and natural resources. If the BLM is unable to identify a responsible party, the cost to

resolve trespass and to clean up and reclaim the affected public land is often passed on to the

public. These costs direct appropriated funds away from planned work and affect the BLM’s

ability to complete its mission. In addition, the public does not realize the fair market value for

unauthorized use of the public lands. Unauthorized use has increased in the planning area due to

increased motorized vehicle use, which allows access to previously inaccessible areas.

The BLM faces a staffing and resources challenge related to resolving unauthorized use issues

and fulfilling other lands and realty actions (such as reviewing leases and permits, performing

cultural and biological surveys before a land tenure adjustment, monitoring land conditions, and

ensuring ROW compliance). The increasing number of applications for ROWs for wind-energy

development and other land use authorizations requires considerable time and effort for lands

and realty personnel to process. This constrains the time and availability of lands and realty

personnel to fulfill other related actions.

3.6.2. Renewable Energy

Solar, wind, biomass, and geothermal resources are considered renewable energy resources. Wind

energy produces electrical energy through the use of large wind turbines. Solar power refers to

energy from the sun that is converted into thermal or electrical energy. Geothermal energy is

derived from the heat stored in the interior of the Earth. Biomass energy is the burning or use

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Renewable Energy
466 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

of organic materials as a source of energy. Wind, solar and biomass facilities are processed

through the lands and realty program and authorized under Title V of the FLPMA as ROW

actions. Geothermal resources are considered a fluid leasable mineral, and the BLM processes

geothermal actions according to the provisions of the Mineral Leasing Act, see the Leasable

Minerals – Geothermal section.

The BLM policy is to encourage the development of renewable energy in acceptable areas.

Additionally, Executive Order 13212, Actions to Expedite Energy-Related Projects (May 18,

2001), instructs the BLM “to expedite projects that will increase the production, transmission,

or conservation of energy.” As demand has increased for clean and viable energy to power the

nation, consideration of renewable energy sources on BLM-administered land has become a

necessary component of land management planning.

In March 2009, the Secretary of the Interior issued a secretarial order making the production,

development, and delivery of renewable energy on public land a top priority for the DOI. In

addition to making renewable energy production a top priority for the department, the secretarial

order established an energy and climate change task force to spur the renewable energy agenda

and identify specific zones on U.S. public lands where the DOI can facilitate a rapid and

responsible move to large-scale production of solar, wind, biomass, and geothermal energy.

In cooperation with the DOE National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), the BLM assessed

renewable energy resources on BLM-administered land in the western United States, including

Wyoming (BLM and DOE 2003). The BLM reviewed the potential for solar power, wind,

biomass, and geothermal energy on DOI, Bureau of Indian Affairs, and USFS lands in the western

United States. Additional programmatic level documents for wind, geothermal, and solar (a

Draft Solar PEIS is under development) describe development potential and policies and BMPs

for renewable energy resources on public lands. Development of renewable energy resources

on public lands follows policy and BMPs identified in these PEISs and other resource specific

guidance.

Based on current policy direction and advances in technology, there is potential for renewable

energy development in the planning area during the life of this RMP. Resource potential and

the affected environment for all types of renewable energy resources in the planning area are

discussed below. Wind energy has the highest potential for development in the planning area,

and is discussed in more detail than other renewable resources.

Wind Energy

The BLM completed a ROD for a Wind Energy Development Program in 2005 for the western

United States (BLM 2005a). The ROD amended the Lander RMP by implementing Programmatic

policies and BMPs for wind-energy development in the planning area. Subsequent policy (IM

2009-043) has provided additional guidance for wind-energy development on BLM-administered

land. The BLM issues ROW grants for wind energy projects for: specific sites for meteorological

towers, sites for meteorological towers and a project area (for the purpose of excluding other wind

energy ROWs while site testing and monitoring is being completed), and for full wind-energy

development.

Applicants may apply for ROW grants for one of the following types of wind energy projects:

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Renewable Energy February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 467

● A site-specific wind energy site testing and monitoring ROW grant for individual

meteorological towers, access to the sites, and instrumentation facilities with a term limited

to three years.

● A wind-energy site testing and monitoring ROW grant for a larger site testing and monitoring

project area, with a term of three years that may be renewed beyond the initial three year term.

● Long-term commercial wind-energy development ROW grant with a term that is not limited

by the regulations but usually is in the range of 30 to 35 years.

Wind power classifications are used to identify wind resource potential based on wind power

density at 50 meters above ground level. Wind power classes, as identified by the NREL, range

from 1 (lowest) to 7 (highest) (Table 3.52, “Wind Energy Potential by Wind Power Class

in the Planning Area” (p. 467)). The BLM wind energy PEIS determined which areas on

BLM-administered lands have low (classes 1 and 2), medium (class 3), and high (wind power

classes 4 to 7) potential for wind-energy development based on their wind power classification.

Wind power is considered economical for large turbines (commercial utilities scale) at class 3 and

higher, although a small noncommercial turbine can be used at class 1. Wind resource potential in

the planning area varies from poor to superb (Table 3.52, “Wind Energy Potential by Wind Power

Class in the Planning Area” (p. 467)). The majority of the planning area is rated as wind-power

class 4 or lower. Less than 5 percent of the planning area is rated at wind-power classes 6 and 7.

Table 3.52. Wind Energy Potential by Wind Power Class in the Planning Area

Wind-Power Planning Area Total BLM-administered Surface

Class

Resource

Potential

Wind Speed

(mph) Acres Percent Acres Percent

1 Poor 0-12.5 528,652 16 319,576 13

2 Marginal 12.5-14.3 658,185 20 423,753 18

3 Fair 14.3-15.7 969,347 29 718,339 30

4 Good 15.7-16.8 743,242 22 587,432 25

5 Excellent 16.8-17.9 307,888 9 240,402 10

6 Outstanding 17.9-19.7 120,210 4 88,195 4

7 Superb > 19.7 23,365 <1 16,512 <1

Source: BLM 2005a; BLM 2012a

Note: The estimates have been validated by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory; however, the numbers

are just measurements and should be confirmed by direct measurement.

< less than

mph miles per hour

BLM Bureau of Land Management

There are areas with high wind energy potential (mostly classes 5 and 6) in the south and

southeast portions of the planning area in the Green Mountains south of Jeffrey City and in

the Antelope Hills east of Atlantic City and South Pass City (Map 96). There are other areas

with high wind energy potential (classes 5 and 6) along the Rattlesnake Range and in the north

central portion of the planning area near the border of Hot Springs and Fremont Counties north

of Shoshoni. Most of these high potential areas are closed due to designated NHTs and/or core

greater sage-grouse habitat.

In addition to wind power class ratings, other factors influence the potential for wind-energy

development in the planning area. Proximity to transmission lines to transfer energy produced at

wind facility sites influences the potential for wind energy facilities. Protections to avoid adverse

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Renewable Energy
468 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

impacts to other resources and resource programs also affect the potential for wind-energy

development in the planning area. Large wind turbines are often considered a visual intrusion and

affect the visual landscape. Adverse impacts to other resources and management objectives of

resources can also be limiting factors to the development of wind energy resources. Other key

factors affecting wind-energy development potential in the planning area are the Congressionally

Designated National Historic and Scenic Trails and WSAs, which are excluded from development

through the BLM wind energy PEIS.

In the planning area, there is currently one ROW grant for installation of meteorological

towers for wind site testing and monitoring, which includes a project area (17,456 acres of

BLM-administered surface) where no additional facilities are authorized (BLM 2009a). The

authorization for the project area serves to exclude issuance of other wind ROW grants.

Solar Energy

The BLM processes solar energy ROW applications for lands under its Solar Energy Development

Policy (BLM 2010d). The DOE’s Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Program and the

BLM are preparing a solar energy development PEIS to evaluate utility-scale solar energy

development, to develop and implement Agency-specific programs that would establish

environmental policies and mitigation strategies for solar energy projects, and to amend relevant

BLM land use plans with the consideration of establishing a new BLM solar energy development

program.

Although the PEIS does not specifically include Wyoming, policy direction, BMPs, and mitigation

would likely be applied to any solar development projects in Wyoming.

There are no commercial level solar facilities or applications for commercial level solar facilities

in the planning area. If any commercial or industrial level application were received, it would

need to be evaluated to determine if it was within the reasonably foreseeable development

considered in this RMP and EIS. If not, a plan amendment would likely be needed.

Based on the findings of the Renewable Resource Assessment Project (BLM and DOE 2003),

there are no locations in the planning area that receive a high amount of solar insolation (6

kilowatt-hours per square meter per day or higher). As a result, the potential for development

of solar resources in the planning area is unlikely. Advances in technology and policy direction

encouraging the development of solar energy resources during the life of the RMP could improve

the potential for solar development in the planning area; however, the widespread development of

solar facilities is not likely.

Biomass Energy

Biomass power is obtained from the energy in plants and plant-derived materials, such as food

crops and grassy and woody plants, residues from agriculture or forestry, and the organic

component of municipal and industrial wastes. Biomass can be used for direct heating (such as

burning wood in a fireplace or wood stove) and for generating electricity or it can be converted

directly into liquid fuels to meet transportation energy needs.

There are currently no biomass facilities and no pending applications for biomass facilities in

the planning area. The potential for biomass energy facilities in the planning area is low due to

low precipitation, a short-growing season, allocation of grassland resources to livestock grazing,

and minimal availability of commercial timber land. Increases in pine beetle kill timber could

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Renewable Energy February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 469

raise the potential for biomass energy production in the planning area; however, large-scale use

of beetle kill timber for biomass energy production is limited by the amount of timber land

in the planning area.

Geothermal Energy

Geothermal resources are considered a fluid leasable mineral and are processed according to

the provisions of the Mineral Leasing Act. Geothermal resources are discussed in the Mineral

Resources section of this chapter.

Management Challenges for Renewable Energy

The potential development of wind energy resources presents a management challenge in the

planning area. To increase efficiency and power production from wind energy, turbines are

becoming increasingly taller and have larger footprints. The increased magnitude of these

structures creates management challenges in meeting objectives for other resources caused by

visual intrusions on the landscape, surface disturbance, and other associated impacts. Most high

wind potential areas in the planning area are in close proximity to Congressionally Designated

Trails and greater sage-grouse Core Area. Development of large wind turbines could create

substantial adverse impacts to both Congressionally Designated Trails (due to visual impacts) and

greater sage-grouse Core Area (due to disturbance during construction, habitat fragmentation, and

increased predation from raptors perching on wind turbines).

An important management challenge associated with renewable energy resources is the ability

to transmit power generated from renewable energy sources to the grid and to deliver it to

the load centers. There is no excess capacity for transmitting power out of the planning area

and the development of new power transmission lines in the planning area would increase

management challenges associated with linear infrastructure development, such as disturbances

to resources and increased demands on BLM personnel for ROW grants. Like wind turbines,

power transmission lines include vertical structures, but also introduce a linear feature that can

be particularly noticeable on a visual horizon on certain landscapes. Adverse impacts to other

resources and resource programs from the development of renewable energy facilities can create

additional management challenges.

3.6.3. Rights-of-Way and Corridors

Section 501 of FLPMA authorizes the BLM to grant ROWs for infrastructure and facilities that

are in the public interest and require ROWs over, under, upon, or through BLM-administered

lands. The BLM ROW program consists of the evaluation, authorization, and management of

ROWs, including corridors, for a variety of uses on BLM-administered land. A ROW grant is an

authorization to use specific pieces of public land for certain projects, such as developing roads,

pipelines, and transmission lines. The grant authorizes rights and privileges for a specific use

of the land for a specific period. A ROW corridor is an area with specific boundaries that has

been designated as the preferred location for certain specific uses, while it excludes others. Land

uses that typically do not require a ROW are those defined as “casual use” (43 CFR 3809.5).

Casual use activities are those involving practices that do not ordinarily cause any appreciable

disturbance to BLM-administered lands, resources, or existing improvements.

An important component of the ROW program is the intrastate and interstate transportation of

commodities that are ultimately delivered as utility services (e.g., natural gas and electricity)

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Rights-of-Way and Corridors
470 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

to residential and commercial customers. Equally important on the local level is the growing

demand for legal access to private homes and ranches using ROW grants. While the majority of

existing ROW actions in the project area are for linear facilities, there are also many existing site

ROWs for non-linear communication sites, well pads, compressor sites, water reservoirs, and

energy resource distribution and transmission.

Under current management, ROW corridors are not formally designated other than the Westwide

Energy Corridor; however, areas are identified for avoidance by major utility ROWs (Map

101). The BLM and other agencies (DOE and the USFS) prepared a PEIS for the Designation

of Energy Corridors on Federal Land in Eleven Western States. The PEIS evaluates potential

impacts associated with the proposed action to designate corridors on federal land in 11 western

states (including Wyoming) for oil, gas, and hydrogen pipelines and electricity transmission and

distribution facilities. The ROD for the PEIS amended the existing Lander RMP by designating

energy corridor 79-216 (Westwide Energy Corridor) as a multi-modal energy corridor. A small

portion of energy corridor 79-216 runs through the northeast portion of the planning area in

a northwest to southeast direction (Map 105); there are no other designated corridors in the

planning area.

Although not in designated corridors, there are large-scale utility ROWs authorized in the

planning area. These include three Pacificorp transmission lines: one going over South Pass near

Highway 28; one east-west in Township 35 North; and one east-west in Township 31 North. In

addition, there is the Spence-Mustang-Jim Bridger line entering the planning area in Township

25 North, Range 94 West, and one along the Boysen Scenic Byway. Other larger ROWs have

below ground pipelines but no above ground ROWs. Some of these are the Frontier/Anadarko

pipeline through Beef Gap, the Colorado Interstate Gas pipeline going north-south through Beef

Gap and eventually connecting with the Westwide Energy Corridor, the Beaver Creek CO2 line

(originally called the “Lost Creek” Spur), the Sand Draw pipeline, the Sand Draw to Casper

pipeline, pipelines at various locations along Highway 20/26, and the Shoshoni/Badwater and the

Lost Cabin/Pony Express pipelines that connect to the Westwide Energy Corridor. There are a

number of pipelines in the Bairoil area, including one entering the planning area in Township 26

North, Range 91 West. Some of these pipelines are for the transmission of CO2; others are for

oil and gas products.

There are no pipelines along the Bison Basin Road, which is, like other county roads in the

planning area, an authorized ROW with existing disturbance.

ROW avoidance in the planning area is identified for areas with the greatest potential conflicts.

Areas currently designated as ROW avoidance areas are generally associated with existing

ACECs. Within WSAs, existing ROWs may be renewed if they are being used for their

authorized purpose. The existing plan identified six WSAs, including the Copper Mountain WSA,

the Sweetwater Canyon WSA, and four WSAs in Sweetwater Rocks. In January of 1990, two

additional WSAs, the Dubois Badlands WSA and the Whiskey Mountain WSA, were designated

in the planning area. New ROWs in WSAs may be approved for temporary uses if they satisfy the

non-impairment criteria (Section III. C. 3 of BLM H-8550-1).

The existing plan encourages ROWs to be co-located where possible. This practice also serves

to meet the ROW program objective of protecting natural resources through limiting the

proliferation of scattered ROWs. Co-location of ROWs encourages proponents to site facilities

where there are similar existing authorized uses. Examples of this would be siting of a power

distribution line (linear facility) along the alignment of an existing highway or pipeline ROW

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Rights-of-Way and Corridors February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 471

(also linear). Although not formally designated as a ROW corridor, the Beef Gap area has been a

concentration area for ROWs; however, there is no more ROW capacity in the Beef Gap area

and the area is challenging for new underground pipelines going down below existing pipelines

because of the thick layer of granite; Beef Gap is in reality a notch in the top of what was once a

granite mountain range that subsided and was later almost covered by eroded material.

The BLM authorizes ROWs in the planning area for the development of powerlines,

communication facilities, access roads, water-related facilities (wells and pipelines), and pipelines

and ancillary facilities for the transportation and delivery of mineral-related commodities. A total

of approximately 1,060 existing ROWs are authorized in the planning area (Table 3.53, “Existing

Rights-of-Way in the Planning Area” (p. 471)). Roads, pipelines, and powerlines comprise the

largest amount of ROW authorizations by type in the planning area.

Table 3.53. Existing Rights-of-Way in the Planning Area

Authorization Type Number of Existing Right-of-Way Authorizations

Roads 272

Pipelines and Associated Sites 271

Powerlines and Associated Sites 262

Telephone and Fiber Optic Lines 92

Water Facilities, Ditches and Reservoirs 55

Federal Highway Administration Roads and Material

Sites

74

Established Communication Sites (Multiuser) 3

Communication Use Authorizations 31

Total 1,060

Source: BLM 2009a

Communication sites are authorized under a lease. Communication sites are typically a site

ROW, which consists of facilities such as small buildings, towers, antenna and other structures.

Communication site concentration areas are typically located on mountaintops, ridgelines, or

other high elevation areas to allow uninterrupted transmission of the associated communication

signal. There are approximately 34 communication site and use authorizations in the planning

area (not including telephone and fiber optic lines). The existing plan did not identify preferred

locations for communication sites in the planning area. Current management has authorized

communication sites on a case-by-case basis; however, communication sites have been

concentrated in four multiple owner-approved areas within the planning area including Horse

Heaven, Cedar Rim, Crooks Mountain, and the Atlantic City/South Pass communication site areas

(Map 105). Communication site plans have been prepared for each of these communication site

areas. The plans govern specific development and management of communication sites in the

area. Regularly updated information on communication site facilities, concentration areas, links

to site plans and other information for communication sites in the planning area can be found on

the BLM website at http://www.blm.gov/commsites/.

Whiskey Mountain is the location of a communications facility that has been in place since 1963.

It currently consists of a 32-foot tower with two 12-foot antennas and an approximately 18-foot

by 19-foot building housing radio and alarm equipment, and a power source. The facility is part

of the microwave system carrying radio traffic throughout Wyoming, including a route starting

in Casper and continuing to Jackson. The facility was located some years prior to the original

designation of the Whiskey Mountain ACEC or the formal recognition of the importance of the

area as bighorn sheep habitat (Qwest Corporation 2011).

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Rights-of-Way and Corridors
472 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

The facility provides diversity protection for numerous critical circuits, including 11 Federal

Aviation Administration circuits, SS7 trunks supporting switch communications, and 911 service.

The facility is an important component for operations provided by the Dubois Telephone

Exchange, including 911 or county-wide emergency medical service, and diverse routing

opportunities (Qwest Corporation 2011).

In 2006, the Dubois Telephone Exchange completed a fiber optic service from Casper to Dubois,

which allowed a variety of modern services to the local community. However, the facility on

Whiskey Mountain continues to provide the diversity of service that is both critical to operations

and mandated by a variety of regulatory agencies.

It is likely that the fiber optic network will extend west from Dubois over Togwotee Pass to

Jackson, thus creating a large fiber optic “ring” serving approximately two-thirds of the state of

Wyoming (Dubois Telephone Exchange 2011). A completed ring would protect all network

traffic (such as broadband, voice, and emergency medical service) with the diverse or redundancy

services required. For this ring to be completed, a “business case” or economic justification would

be necessary because of the private investment required (Dubois Telephone Exchange 2011).

In the past 10 years, regional demand for ROWs on BLM-administered land in the planning area

has increased (BLM 2009a). Much of this demand has focused on conveyance of energy products

through and from the sparsely populated western states to population centers, most recently

dominated by west coast power demands. The upsurge in exploration and development of fuels

such as natural gas has resulted in the need for more pipelines and higher pipeline capacities.

Technological advancements have also resulted in new demands on public land, largely related to

wind energy and communication sites for telecommunications (e.g., cellular and fiber optic).

Under the current rate of development, areas where there are major ROWs in common could

become more heavily used. Crowding is not anticipated (BLM 2009a), although there are certain

areas of capacity limitation such as in the Beef Gap area. Designation of ROW corridors would

serve to protect natural resources by identifying areas where installation of new major ROWs

would result in the least impacts to sensitive resources.

If the current rate of development continues and there is no additional electrical generation, the

existing transmission infrastructure is expected to adequately meet future needs over the next 10

to 20 years (BLM 2009a). Existing electrical power transmission infrastructure is considered

inadequate to support additional utility-scale power generation in the planning area. In the event

utility-scale power facilities are developed in the planning area, there would likely be a need to

upgrade or construct new transmission lines to distribute the generated electricity (BLM 2009a).

Due to the interest the Lander Field Office is experiencing in ROW grants for wind site testing

and monitoring, there is potential for limited utility-scale wind-energy development (discussed

in more detail in the Renewable Energy section), which would most likely require additional

transmission infrastructure. Natural gas pipeline capacity is also limited in some areas, and

depending on the future development of mineral resources, there could be a need for new natural

gas pipelines in the planning area (BLM 2009a).

Management Challenges for Rights-of-Way

Management challenges for ROWs include meeting national and regional demands for energy,

telecommunications, and other services while balancing management objectives for other

resources. The lack of designation of ROW corridors in the existing plan has presented

management challenges.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Rights-of-Way and Corridors February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 473

Disturbance and resource impacts associated with ROW authorizations and the development that

they allow creates management challenges in reaching management objectives for other resources

and resource uses. Major infrastructure associated with ROW development, including large

high-voltage transmission lines and wind turbines, creates a variety of adverse resource impacts,

including impacts to visual resources, soil erosion, habitat fragmentation, and disturbance of

greater sage-grouse habitat.

The central location of the planning area in Wyoming creates additional management challenges

associated with disturbance from the development of large high-voltage transmission lines (and

other intrastate and interstate linear infrastructure development). There are currently at least seven

proposed major transmission lines (345 or more kilovolts) under consideration in Wyoming to

support nationally reliable energy infrastructure and facilitate the development and transmission

of renewable energy (WIA 2009). Due to the central location of the planning area, it is likely

that at least a few of these major transmission lines will pass through the planning area to deliver

energy from production areas in Wyoming and the Great Plains states to load centers in other

western states.

Another management challenge for ROWs has been created by recent planning efforts in adjacent

BLM field offices, specifically the Casper Field Office and the Rawlins Field Office. Through

RMP revisions, these field offices have designated ROW corridors that terminate at the Lander

Field Office planning area boundary, where the Lander Field Office has not designated corridors

(Map 105) and is unlikely to because of serious resource conflicts such as Congressionally

Designated Trails and historic sites. The Lander Field Office is working with the Bighorn

Basin RMP plan revision and the Rock Springs Field Office to better coordinate adjoining land

management. This constitutes a major planning gap between BLM field offices that limits the

ability for proponents to gain connectivity for facilities and energy infrastructure. As ROW

applications for linear infrastructure to transport energy and other commodities increase in

Wyoming, the lack of consistency and location of ROW corridors between field offices increases

processing time and creates inefficiencies for both the BLM and private sector clients.

Increased demand for ROW authorizations and the management challenges described above

place limitations on the ability of BLM personnel to process ROW applications in a timely

manner, to conduct other lands and realty related actions, and to fulfill other BLM responsibilities.

Management challenges associated with increased ROW applications and other demands on BLM

personnel are expected to increase in the future.

3.6.4. Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management

Travel and transportation are a part of virtually every activity on BLM-administered public lands,

including recreation, livestock management, wildlife management, management of commodity

resources, ROWs to private in-holdings, maintenance of electronic sites, and management and

monitoring of public lands. The transportation network on public lands in the planning area

consists of federal and state highways, county roads, and roads built to facilitate industrial and

commercial development (Map 81). Map 82 through Map 85 show the detailed transportation

network in and around Jeffrey City, Lander, Lysite, and the Dubois areas.

Comprehensive trails and travel management is the proactive management of public access,

natural resources, and regulatory needs to ensure consideration of all aspects of road and trail

system planning and management. This includes resource management, road and trail design,

maintenance, and recreational and nonrecreational uses of the roads and trails. Travel in the

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management
474 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

context of comprehensive trails and travel management incorporates access needs and the

effects of all forms of travel, both motorized and nonmotorized. Comprehensive trails and

travel management planning involves providing specific direction on the proper levels of land

and water access for all modes of travel. Travel management objectives are the foundation for

appropriate travel and access prescriptions.

Travel Management Designations

All public lands are required to have travel management designations. Federal regulations (43

CFR 8342.1, designation criteria) state that “the Authorized Officer shall designate all public

lands as either open, limited, or closed to off-road 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.”

Subsequent travel guidance at the national level (e.g., the OHV management strategy [BLM

2001], the mountain bike action plan [BLM 2002b], and a nonmotorized/nonmechanized

management strategy [in development]) has provided the BLM direction to proactively apply

these designations to all forms of travel (mechanized and other forms of nonmotorized travel)

where necessary to conserve natural resources while providing for ample recreation opportunities

(BLM Manual 1626 - Travel and Transportation Manual and BLM Handbook 8342 - Travel and

Transportation Handbook).

A travel management plan is not intended to provide evidence bearing on or addressing the

validity of any Revised Statute (R.S.) 2477 assertion. R.S. 2477 rights are determined through

a process that is entirely independent of the BLM's planning process. Consequently, travel

management planning should not take into consideration R.S. 2477 assertions or evidence. Travel

management planning should be founded on an 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.

Open

Lands designated as open are available for travel, on or off established roads and vehicle routes,

as long as this activity does not cause unacceptable levels of resource damage. Areas are

designated as open to motorized travel based on analysis that determines there are no compelling

resource protection needs, user conflicts, or public safety issues to warrant limiting cross-country

travel. Demand for open areas in the Lander Field Office tend to be in locations close to towns.

Potential does exist to explore options to manage open areas in the Coal Mine Draw area and

lands outside of the town of Dubois.

There are no areas currently open to motorized travel in the planning area. The 1987 RMP did

not limit, restrict, or close any areas to mechanized or nonmotorized travel. Therefore the entire

planning area is open to mechanized and nonmotorized travel. This has proven to create resource

conflicts especially where repeated use or illegal development results in creation of a trail. With

trail development comes increased conflicts with natural resources and increased conflicts

amongst users. Areas that are open to mechanized travel include Johnny Behind the Rocks/Blue

Ridge, Sweetwater Mining District, Sinks Canyon Climbing Area, the Bus @ Baldwin Creek,

and the Dubois Mill Site.

Limited

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 475

Motorized vehicle travel within specified areas and/or on designated routes, roads, or trails is

subject to restrictions (see the Glossary for definitions of route, road, and trail). The “limited”

designation is used where OHV use must be restricted to meet specific resource management

objectives. Examples of limitations include number or type of vehicles; 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 8340.05).

Limited to Existing Roads and Trails

Travel is limited to existing roads and trails on approximately 2,226,504 acres of

BLM-administered surface. This designation was created to allow travel without increasing the

number of acres disturbed by route creation. Unless otherwise noted, the BLM manages travel

in the planning area as limited to existing roads and trails. In areas (and only in these areas)

where motorized travel is limited to existing roads and trails, the BLM makes exceptions for the

performance of necessary tasks requiring the use of motor vehicles (e.g., picking up big game

kills, repairing range improvements, managing livestock, and mineral activities). This necessary

task exemption has resulted in the creation of numerous new roads especially in areas receiving

repeated travel for maintenance purposes (fence lines, salt licks, etc.). This RMP will clarify the

process for receiving exemptions from travel restrictions and clarify what actions constitute a

necessary task.

Field observations, documented increases in road densities, and public feedback has indicated

that the ‘limited to existing’ designation has not reduced route proliferation nor adequately

mitigated travel conflicts with other resource values. The limited to existing designation has

three major shortcomings: 1) the designation is hard to enforce, 2) the 1987 RMP provided no

point of reference as to what constituted an existing road or trail, and 3) the ‘limited to existing’

designation does not lend itself to management scenarios where managers can adjust the travel

network to better achieve land use planning goals and objectives. Some areas where conflicts

have arose as a result of the ‘limited to existing’ designation include: East Fork, the Beaver Rim

ACEC, NHT area, the Sweetwater Mining District, South Pass Historic Mining Area, Johnny

Behind the Rocks/Blue Ridge, and areas adjacent to WSAs.

Some of these shortcomings associated with the ‘limited to existing’ designation will be addressed

through this planning process. An inventory of existing roads and trails will be included in the

Approved RMP and ROD.

Limited to Designated Roads and Trails

Motorized vehicle use is limited to designated roads and trails on approximately 163,075 acres of

BLM-administered surface, primarily in environmentally sensitive areas. In addition, motorized

travel is limited to designated roads and trails in the following locations: Lander Slope, Red

Canyon, Green Mountain, and Whiskey Mountain. Travel in WSAs (with the exception of the

Dubois Badlands WSA which is closed to motorized vehicles) is limited to the roads and trails

that existed at the time the area became a WSA. This applies to both motorized and mechanized

transport.

Seasonal and Over-Snow Closures

A number of locations in the planning area are generally limited to designated (or occasionally

existing) roads and trails, but also have a seasonal closure or restrictions for part of the year

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management
476 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

(111,002 acres of BLM-administered surface). These seasonal restrictions are designed to protect

the values of other resources such as crucial wildlife winter range. Areas limited to designated

roads and trails but subject to seasonal closures include Lander Slope, Red Canyon, Whiskey

Mountain, and Green Mountain (closed December 1 through June 15). Additional seasonal

restrictions may be necessary to protect sensitive resource values. This is especially true in

wildlife winter concentration areas.

The Red Canyon area is closed to all forms of over-snow travel. The remainder of the planning

area is open to over snow vehicle travel (2,379,481 acres of BLM-administered surface).

Closed to Motorized Vehicle Use

Approximately 5,923 acres of BLM-administered surface in the planning area are closed to

travel. Closed means an area is closed to all motorized travel, with exceptions granted by the

Authorized Officer only for emergencies, firefighting, public safety, or related incidents. A closed

designation might also exclude nonmotorized or mechanized travel. Areas are closed in order to

protect resources, ensure visitor safety, or reduce user conflicts. The Dubois Badlands WSA and

portions of the Castle Gardens area are closed to motorized travel. Additional areas closed to

motorized vehicles may be necessary in order to meet public demand for quiet recreational areas.

In addition closures to mechanized travel may be necessary to protect resources, especially in

light of the spread and amount of user created mountain bike trails. These trails are often located

in areas where the trail and associated use stands to directly conflict with other resource values

(wildlife, cultural resources, etc.).

Travel Management Areas

All public lands are placed in travel management areas. Travel management areas address

acceptable modes of access and travel. They are also used to prescribe objectives for allowing

travel in the area and setting characteristics that are to be maintained. Travel management

plans identify the appropriate network of roads and trails, including nonmotorized access, in

travel management areas.

The current RMP limits motorized travel to designated roads and trails in the Whiskey Mountain,

Lander Slope/Red Canyon, and Green Mountain areas. Implementation was never completed

for these areas because all designated roads and trails were not identified. The current RMP

does not restrict or limit mechanized or nonmechanized travel in any travel management area.

Table 3.54, “Travel Management Designations in the Planning Area” (p. 476) summarizes the

travel management designations for the planning area.

Table 3.54. Travel Management Designations in the Planning Area

Area Designation Acreage Notes

Lander Slope/Red Canyon Limited to designated roads

and vehicle routes. Seasonal

closures to protect wintering

wildlife December 1 to June

15.

~40,000 Implementation was not

fully completed to identify

the designated roads/routes.

Seasonal closures have been

implemented; however,

adjacent land and route

managers (WGFD, state

and county governments)

currently implement

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 477

Area Designation Acreage Notes

contrasting seasonal

closures.

Green Mountain Limited to designated

roads and vehicle routes.

Seasonal Closures to

protect wintering wildlife

December 1 to June 15

~56,000 Implementation was not

fully completed to identify

the designated roads/routes.

Whiskey Mountain Limited to designated

roads and vehicle routes.

Seasonal Closures to

protect wintering wildlife

December 1 to June 15

~8,390 Implementation was not

fully completed to identify

the designated roads/routes.

Acreage also includes lands

acquired in exchanges in the

1990s (post-1987 RMP).

Castle Gardens Closed 78 Archeology/Recreation site

Dubois Badlands Closed ~4,520 Public lands within the

Wilderness Study Area

Desert Yellowhead, Critical

Habitat

Closed 360 To protect habitat for Desert

Yellowhead, a Threatened

plant species.

All other public lands in the

planning area

Limited to existing roads

and vehicle routes.

~2,200,000 Several specific roads were

closed through Federal

Register Notice procedures

(Rocky Ridge Historic Trail

Corridor).

Source: BLM 1987b

RMP Resource Management Plan

WGFD Wyoming Game and Fish Department

~ approximately

At present, the BLM has completed route inventories for Green Mountain, Lander Slope, the

Dubois Badlands WSA, Whiskey Basin, and the Sweetwater Canyon WSA. The BLM is using

existing route inventories and data from remote sensing to fully implement travel management

designations in a number of other areas.

Primary Travelers and Modes of Travel in the Planning Area

Public land users employ roads and trails for a variety of recreational and utilitarian activities.

Nonmechanized modes of travel include cross-country skiing, dog sledding, snowshoeing,

horseback riding, hiking, boating, hang-gliding, paragliding, and ballooning. Mechanized vehicles

predominantly involve mountain bikes and specialized equipment such as mountain skateboards.

Motorized travel includes standard passenger vehicles on maintained roads and OHVs on

primitive roads and trails. OHVs include all motorized travel devices such as motorcycles,

all-terrain vehicles, jeeps, specialized 4 x 4 trucks, over-snow vehicles, and motor boats.

In addition to federal and state highways, county roads, and other roads for commercial and

industrial purposes, public land users employ a road network consisting of BLM-maintained roads

that are regularly maintained, ditched, and crowned gravel roads, as well as roads and vehicle

routes that were never formally constructed and rarely receive maintenance. Many of these latter

roads are two-track vehicle trails that were created (pioneered) by public land users and are

maintained simply by the passage of motor vehicles. These routes were not purposefully designed

and, as a result, vary greatly in condition and stability. Limited enforcement of travel restrictions,

high levels of use, and improvements in mechanized and motorized vehicle technology have

increased the number of user pioneered routes in recent years. This network of two-track roads

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management
478 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

and trails is important for recreational and ranching uses of public lands. There are approximately

2,400 miles of routes, for an average density of 2.7 miles of routes per square mile. Almost 90

percent of these routes are open to motorized travel.

The most popular areas for motorized recreational travel are Coalmine Draw, Dubois Badlands,

Shoshoni Lake Road, and to a lesser extent, the Sand Draw area. This use occurs nearly

year-round, and for many users the act of recreational driving is the primary reason for their

visit. Most of these visitors live within an hour’s drive of the area and enjoy practicing their

technical skills, using their equipment, and spending time with family and friends. During the

autumn hunting season, most parts of the planning area experience increased motorized travel.

Much of this use is focused in the Lander Slope, Red Canyon, South Pass, Green Mountain, and

Dubois areas. These tend to be destination hunting areas, with visitors coming from other parts of

Wyoming and the greater Rocky Mountain region.

In addition to heavier OHV use, increased urbanization on adjacent private lands has created

additional nonmotorized use and new expectations for recreation experiences. BLM-administered

lands close to expanding urban areas provide convenient areas for recreation including hiking,

mountain biking, dog walking, and rock climbing. Mountain biking and casual hiking (as opposed

to destination hiking) has become very popular at Johnny Behind the Rocks, Baldwin Creek, Red

Canyon, and the Dubois Badlands.

Management Challenges for Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management

As is the case throughout the western United States, OHV use has increased dramatically since

the approval of the existing plan. Lands that once did not experience impacts because of light

use now commonly experience damage to cultural resources and impacts to recreation. Travel

routes, especially user pioneered routes, are often unsustainable and can cause resource damage.

Environmental concerns associated with OHV use include a loss of soil and damage to vegetation

due to surface disturbance, the creation of scars on hillsides, habitat loss, disturbance of wildlife

in crucial habitats such as winter ranges, siltation of streams due to erosion from roads and trails,

and degradation of scenic qualities.

Nonmotorized use and new expectations for recreation experiences have increased in areas

adjacent to private lands with expanding urbanization. Many of these users recreate on

BLM-administered surface because the lands are close to home and provide a convenient place

to exercise, relieve stress, or spend time with family and friends. Until recently, there has been

little demand, and consequently few resources allocated for nonmotorized recreation travel. This

type of use has been increasing in all of the public lands bordering municipalities. The towns of

Lander, Riverton, and Dubois have all experienced population growth. Subsequently, the public

lands adjacent to these towns have the highest incidence of nonmotorized use. At times, these

uses and expectations conflict with the experiences desired by motorized users.

Correlated with the growth of communities is the subdivision of private lands adjacent to BLM

parcels and subsequent issues of trespass and access restriction. Often, BLM-administered

lands are isolated and provide limited public access. In these instances, enforcement of travel

restrictions is difficult, and motorized trespass can frequently occur from adjacent private land.

Subdivisions are generally not designed to give public access to the BLM-administered lands,

which can limit access to isolated parcels of public land. However, it has been observed that

often the new community provides stewardship to the adjacent lands, potentially making BLM

monitoring and management more efficient.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 479

Many areas used by recreationists do not have trails that were built with recreation experiences in

mind. The types and amounts of use and the location of roads and trails influence the physical,

social, and administrative recreation setting and the overall quality of the recreation experience.

Most routes in the planning area either follow historic nonrecreational routes or were created

when OHV users repeatedly drove cross-country. Many other routes were constructed to create

access to public land improvements and projects for timber/vegetation management, gas/mineral

development, range management, and various ROWs. Permittees maintain some of these roads

to ensure access to improvements such as livestock/wildlife ponds or fences. Numerous roads

were not necessarily intended to be left open for recreational use but have become popular routes

for visitors engaged in mechanized/motorized recreation activities. In many cases, the roads and

trails available do not provide desirable recreation experiences. Increased transportation demands

by nonrecreational uses (e.g., oil and gas exploration and grazing) have also affected recreational

travel in some areas. Recreation experiences can suffer when transportation systems for other

uses are increased or created.

3.6.5. Livestock Grazing Management

The BLM is responsible for administering livestock grazing on BLM-administered land.

Livestock grazing is the grazing of domestic animals (cattle, sheep, horses, and goats) and is

one of the most visible and established uses of BLM-administered lands. For most operators,

holding a BLM grazing permit or lease provides an important component of their overall ranching

operations. Grazing on public land provides forage for livestock during a crucial time of year

when base ranch operations are being used to grow forage for the winter months. Livestock

grazing is an authorized, discretionary use of public lands by individuals who qualify to hold a

grazing permit/lease under federal grazing regulations.

Prior to 1934, the General Land Office managed grazing on public lands outside forest perimeters.

Comprehensive management of these lands was initiated in 1934 when Congress passed the

Taylor Grazing Act. The Grazing Service was established and charged with implementing the

provisions of the Act. Specific tasks included establishment of a permit/lease system, organization

of grazing districts, fee assessment, and consultation with local advisory boards.

In 1946, the Grazing Service and General Land Office merged to form the BLM. The Taylor

Grazing Act was the principle legislation used to administer livestock grazing on public lands

until 1976 when Congress passed the FLPMA. The Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978

(43 U.S.C. § 1901-1908) established a grazing fee formula that sets and adjusts annual fees

for grazing on public land.

In 1985, the BLM established three categories for allotments to identify areas that needed

management and to prioritize workloads and the use of range improvement dollars. The BLM

categorized allotments as Improve Existing Resource Conditions (I), Maintain Existing Resource

Conditions (M), or Custodial Management (C). Appendix K (p. 1547) includes the criteria for

placing allotments into these three categories and a complete list of allotments in each of the

categories for the planning area.

In August 1995, new regulations changed the BLM administrative procedures to manage public

lands. These regulations directed the establishment of standards and guidelines for rangeland

health to achieve properly functioning ecological systems for both upland and riparian-wetland

areas. The Standards for Healthy Rangelands & Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Livestock Grazing Management
480 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

for the Public Lands Administered by the BLM in the State of Wyoming were submitted to the

Secretary of the Interior in July 1997 and approved on August 12, 1997 (Appendix J (p. 1537)).

Approximately 97 percent of the public lands in the planning area are available for livestock

grazing (Map 117). The other 3 percent are primarily lands in highway easements, very rocky

areas, and areas that have been mined and have little vegetation. Oil and gas development and

associated infrastructure (roads, pipelines) has contributed to the reductions in surface area

available for grazing. A few allotments have been closed to livestock grazing because of other

land use priorities, such as the bighorn sheep wintering areas in Dubois.

Livestock grazing in the planning area consists primarily of cattle, but also includes sheep and

horses (Table 3.55, “Livestock Grazing Permits and Leases on BLM-Administered Lands in the

Planning Area” (p. 480)). Goats have sometimes been authorized, primarily for the purposes of

suppressing invasive plant species.

Table 3.55. Livestock Grazing Permits and Leases on BLM-Administered Lands in the

Planning Area

Livestock Use Category Number of Permits Number of Leases

Cattle 129 34

Cattle and Sheep 6 4

Cattle, Sheep, and Horses 8 -

Horses 1 17

Cattle and Horses 27 10

Cattle and Goat 1 -

Total 172 65

Source: BLM 2009a

BLM Bureau of Land Management

Stock driveways were authorized under the Stock Raising Homestead Act of 1916, and created by

a Secretarial Order for the specific purpose of creating trailing routes and reserving water sources

for trailing livestock. Stock driveway withdrawals prohibit disposal of these lands.

Private agricultural lands adjacent to BLM and USFS lands in the planning area often provide

critical winter range, migration routes, and breeding grounds for key wildlife species.

Conservation easements are becoming more prevalent in the planning area. These types of

easements promote the conservation of important wildlife habitat and open space. For example,

The Nature Conservancy recently acquired a 1,225-acre tract of land along the Lander Front,

which provides crucial yearlong habitat for deer, elk, and moose, as well as summer range for

pronghorn and core breeding and nesting habitat for the greater sage-grouse. Prior to selling the

tract of land to a local agricultural producer, The Nature Conservancy placed a conservation

easement on the land.

Several of the livestock grazing operators in the planning area also participate in the WGFD

Walk-in Hunting Areas program that provides public hunting opportunities on private lands

(WGFD 2012).

Grazing Allotments and Animal Unit Month Allocations

The BLM authorizes grazing preference under two different sections of the Taylor Grazing

Act, Section 3 and Section 15. Grazing preference means a priority position against others for

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Livestock Grazing Management February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 481

the purpose of receiving a grazing permit or lease. Section 3 permits are authorizations to graze

areas within the original grazing districts as established in 1934. Section 3 allotments are usually

larger, contiguous tracts of land and incorporate unfenced state and private lands. A portion of

the grazing fees from these permits is available for investment in range improvements on the

Section 3 allotments.

Section 15 allotments are leases, not permits, and are generally small parcels outside the original

grazing districts. The majority of grazing leases in the planning area are located on the Lander

Slope and the Dubois area. These leased parcels provide little opportunity for intensive grazing

management due to their size, access and isolation from other BLM-administered lands. Although

Section 15 leases are small and isolated, they generally tend to provide important wildlife habitat

and recreational opportunities within the Lander Slope and town of Dubois. Section 15 lessees

pay the same grazing fee as Section 3 allotments, but funds are generally not used for range

improvements on Section 15 leases due to their small size and little benefit to be obtained from

additional infrastructure. Much of the Section 15 leases already are fenced.

Forage is allocated based on the carrying capacity of the land. Carrying capacity reflects

the maximum level of grazing public lands can sustain over the long term. A more specific

definition of carrying capacity is “livestock carrying capacity,” which means the maximum

stocking rate possible without inducing damage to vegetation or other resources values. Carrying

capacity can vary from year to year on the same area due to fluctuating forage production. In

addition, available forage for livestock grazing varies with changes in climatic conditions, forage

production, and the availability of water.

The BLM administers livestock grazing on 310 allotments covering 2,334,711 acres of

BLM-administered surface lands and 279,000 AUMs allocated within the planning area (BLM

2009a) (Map 117). An AUM is the amount of forage necessary to sustain one cow and her calf

or its equivalent for a period of one month. The AUM levels were allocated during the 1930s

and adjustments were made from the 1940s through 1960s. Adjustments in allotment carrying

capacities since the late 1970s have been based on long-term monitoring, allotment evaluations,

and most recently Standards and Guidelines Assessments.

The size of grazing allotments in the planning area ranges from 40 acres to more than 500,000

acres of public land (Appendix K (p. 1547)). Collectively, 24 of the largest allotments within the

planning area are categorized as “common allotments” that are grazed by livestock owned by

several permittees. Examples of some of these common allotments include the Green Mountain,

Granite Mountain and Silver Creek allotments. Managing grazing on these lands can have more

of a beneficial outcome because the allotments tend to have a large percentage of public lands

within their boundaries. Allotments in which public lands provide only a minority of the forage

are more difficult to manage because BLM prescriptions can only be applied to public lands.

The large allotments generally provide spring, summer, and fall forage for local operators and are

important to their operations as livestock move from winter feed grounds or pastures, to summer

pastures. Winter and early spring use does occur in limited areas east of Boysen Reservoir and

northeast of Shoshoni.

Portions of some allotments may be unsuitable for grazing due to resource conflicts, terrain, lack

of forage, distance from water, and other factors. Although there has been no overall reduction in

the number of allotments since the 1986 RMP ROD was approved, conditions on the ground have

generally not supported authorizing full AUMs. The BLM management focus is directed toward

achieving and maintaining rangeland health.

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Livestock Grazing Management
482 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Since 1989, the number of AUMs authorized (Appendix K (p. 1547)) has been approximately

73 percent of the permitted AUMs. Some of this is a result of the negotiated and voluntary

reductions due to a prolonged drought. The downward trend in permitted AUMs coincides with a

decrease in actual cattle numbers in Fremont County during times of drought. Figure 3.19, “Total

Authorized Animal Unit Months in the Planning Area, 1989-2008” (p. 482) shows the authorized

AUMs in the planning area from 1989 through 2008.

Source: BLM 2009a

Figure 3.19. Total Authorized Animal Unit Months in the Planning Area, 1989-2008

Allotment Management Plans and Rangeland Management Agreements

AMPs and rangeland management agreements have been used to improve rangeland health

through detailed planning, monitoring, and implementation. AMPs or rangeland management

agreements have been developed for 52 allotments covering 790,346 acres of BLM-administered

surface (Appendix K (p. 1547)). Most were developed in the 1980s and 1990s. These allotments

were prioritized for developing site-specific objectives and implementing management changes.

Rangeland Health/Productivity

The existing plan placed all allotments in the following categories “I” (Improve), which includes

most of the large allotments, “M” (Maintenance), and “C” (Custodial). The BLM used these

classifications to identify areas with a potential need for management to prioritize workloads and

use of range improvement dollars. The BLM placed allotments containing larger tracts of public

land with natural resource issues in the I and M categories, and allotments containing smaller

tracts of public land with little to no resource issues in the C category. The BLM gave priority for

managing these allotments to category I allotments, followed by category M allotments. There

are a total of 123 category I allotments, 83 category M allotments, and 82 category C allotments

in the planning area (BLM 2009a). Some allotments would not change category because resource

uses, values, and issues will not change. Although management might have been implemented on

an allotment, the allotment could remain in category I because it might present resource concerns

such as crucial wildlife winter range (Appendix K (p. 1547)).

The BLM uses a number of methods to evaluate rangeland health, which could reveal trends in

the composition of the plant community or productivity of a plant community. Some methods

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Livestock Grazing Management February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 483

yield qualitative data; others are quantitative. Rangeland is monitored throughout the planning

area as part of the rangeland health assessment process.

Many allotments are managed under AMPs or agreements which include grazing rotations and

authorized season of use. These are designed to meet soil cover and desired plant species growth

requirements. Observations of old headcuts, roads, and other disturbances show that perennial

plant species have increased once non-livestock disturbances end. Generally, these observations

have been confirmed in the rangeland health determinations completed to date. Where livestock

grazing has been identified as the causal factor for not meeting rangeland health standards,

appropriate actions to correct the problem have been implemented. However, disturbance related

to other ongoing resource uses, including oil and gas development and mining, could affect

adjustments.

Additional factors other than rangeland health are changing the face of public land grazing in

the planning area. Since 2000, the BLM has experienced a larger than normal turnover in

permits/leases. These permits/leases tend to be purchased by both traditional and nontraditional

ranching interests, with the latter averaging about 25 percent of total permits/leases authorized.

Standards for Healthy Rangelands and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing

Management

In 1998, the Lander Field Office began assessing rangelands for consistency with the Standards

for Healthy Rangelands and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management for the Public Lands

administered by the BLM in the State of Wyoming (Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands)

(Appendix J (p. 1537)), as consistent with revisions to the 43 CFR 4100 grazing regulations. The

purpose of the standards and guidelines is to provide a measure (Standards) to determine land

health, and methods (Guidelines) to improve the health of the public rangelands. While originally

conceived to evaluate the impacts of grazing on public lands and to identify where current

grazing management might be contributing to failure to meet the Wyoming Standards for Healthy

Rangelands, the focus has expanded to include impacts from all resource uses on public lands. An

interdisciplinary team conducts the assessments to address the six standards.

The standards are intended to help the BLM and public land users focus on a common

understanding of acceptable resource conditions, and the guidelines provide a basis for working

together to achieve that vision. The standards are used to communicate current and desired

resource conditions among various groups, and guidelines are used to describe or communicate

methods for managing activities to achieve those desired conditions.

The Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands address the health, productivity, and

sustainability of BLM-administered public rangelands and represent the minimum acceptable

conditions for the public rangelands. The standards apply to all resource uses on public lands and

ensure that management of resources of particular concern to ecosystem health do not degrade the

quality of rangelands (soils, riparian-wetland areas, upland vegetation, rangeland management,

water quality, and air quality). Their application is determined as use-specific guidelines are

developed. Standards can be synonymous with goals and are observed on a landscape scale.

The Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands describe healthy rangelands rather than

rangeland byproducts. The achievement of a standard is determined by observing, measuring, and

monitoring appropriate indicators. An indicator is a component of a system whose characteristics

(e.g., presence, absence, quantity, and distribution) are observed, measured, or monitored based

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Livestock Grazing Management
484 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

on sound scientific principles as identified in the Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands.

Indicators associated with each standard are identified in Appendix J (p. 1537).

In general, rangeland health throughout the West has improved since the 1930s. However, the

BLM has acknowledged that nationally, rangeland health is not at its potential. It was for this

reason that the Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands were adopted by the BLM (Appendix

J (p. 1537)).

Rangeland health assessments have been ongoing in the planning area from 1998. As of 2011,

approximately 107 grazing allotments and 1,019,044 acres have been assessed. Of the 107

allotments assessed, 71 allotments (266,537 acres) are meeting or making substantial progress

toward meeting the standards (Appendix K (p. 1547)). For allotments that were determined not to

meet standards because of livestock grazing, corrective action was put in place. These allotment

issues are addressed in site-specific range permit renewal NEPA actions.

Since 2009, the BLM adopted a landscape or block approach to doing health assessments by

grouping similar types of allotments. Initially, 11 livestock blocks were identified: Block 1

Bridger Mountains; Block 2 Badwater; Block 3 Muskrat Basin or “below the Rim”; Block 4

South Pass-Upper Sweetwater; Block 5 Lander Slope; Block 6 Dubois; Block 7 Upper Beaver

Creek; Block 8 Rattlesnake Range; Block 9 Gas Hills or “above the Rim”; Block 10 Sweetwater

River; Block 11 Green Mountain-Whiskey Basin. These names and numbers are identifiers and

not a determination of priority for assessments or to be unchanging boundaries. The order of

priority of health assessments will be determined by the expiration date of the existing livestock

grazing permit (lease) and then by order of resource priority, including greater sage-grouse and

riparian-wetland health.

Through 2011, the Dubois and Bridger Mountain blocks were assessed. All 23 allotments in

Dubois (26,523 acres) met standards, and the livestock grazing leases were reissued. Of the 20

Bridger Mountain block allotments (34,800 acres), 6 allotments (2,627 acres) were meeting

standards and 14 allotments (32,173 acres) were not meeting standards. Part of the standards

assessments is to determine why the allotment did not meet standards (causal factor); this

determination has not yet been made. Two of the allotments found not to be meeting standards

were meeting standards when they were evaluated in 1998, as identified in Appendix K (p. 1547).

In the summer of 2012, health assessments were being done in the South Pass-Upper Sweetwater

block. The assessments have not been completed as of the date of this writing. The tentative order

for completing the blocks is Blocks 5 and 7, Block 10, Block 9, Block 11, and Block 2.

Appropriate actions to correct problems related to livestock grazing are implemented in allotments

that have been assessed if it is found that the allotment does not meet the Wyoming Standards

for Healthy Rangelands. Appropriate actions may include development of range improvements

and/or prescribed grazing, which may or may not be part of an AMP or rangeland management

agreement. Changes in livestock management practices within that allotment are implemented

as terms and conditions in accordance with 43 CFR 4180.2(c)(2). In most allotments that failed

an assessment of standards, not all of the public lands in the allotments were considered to be

failing. Additionally, most of these standards were not met for reasons other than current livestock

management, such as historic livestock grazing use, motorized travel, oil field development, and

mineral extraction. In accordance with Standard 4, where current livestock grazing management

has been identified as contributing to an allotment failing the Wyoming Standards for Healthy

Rangelands, the guidelines for livestock grazing management are used to direct new grazing

management stipulations for the allotment (Appendix J (p. 1537)).

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Livestock Grazing Management February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 485

Of the rangelands that are not meeting the standards or not making acceptable progress because of

livestock grazing, 11 allotments (584,195 acres) now have AMPs designed to ensure progress

toward meeting the standards. Not all of the implemented AMPs have been effective in achieving

rangeland health. In some cases, there has been insufficient monitoring to determine what

impacts range improvement projects and changes in livestock grazing management have had

on rangeland health.

In some allotments, it appears that grazing plans are making progress toward meeting the

Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands. In the Atlantic City allotment the permittees agreed

to manage the riparian-wetland areas under an AMP. These areas are fenced into riparian-wetland

pastures that are grazed during a short time period during the grazing season. Then these pastures

are rested so that riparian-wetland vegetation can regrow and recover. The riparian-wetland

conditions in these pastures has improved with increased water flow and holding capacity, along

with new willow growth and stabilized banks occurring within the pasture.

Thirty-six allotments (752,507 acres) in the planning area are not meeting rangeland health

standards. In most cases, failure to meet standards for riparian-wetland areas contributes to the

failure to meet rangeland health standards (BLM 2009a).

Three allotments (31,771 acres) are not meeting rangeland health standards due to factors other

than livestock that adversely impact the rangeland resource, such as improperly cut roads, causing

soil erosion and runoff. In the last 20 years, approximately 40 miles of roads have been closed

because they contributed to rangeland health degradation.

There are currently 203 allotments (1,315,667 acres, or approximately 55 percent of the planning

area) in the planning area that have not been assessed. These allotments are being scheduled

for rangeland health assessments.

Range Improvements

On average, the BLM has completed or reconstructed between 8 and 20 new range improvements

per year totaling approximately $40,000 to $150,000 annually. The improvement projects are

funded through grazing receipts authorized under Section 3 of the Taylor Grazing Act, and

primarily consist of fences, reservoirs, springs, water wells, and vegetative treatments. Since

1986, the Lander Field Office has installed 53 stock reservoirs, 38 spring developments, 76

stock water wells, 110 miles of stock water pipeline, and 355 miles of pasture division fence

(Table 3.56, “Type and Number of Rangeland Improvements Completed in the Planning Area,

1986-2009” (p. 485)). A full list and breakdown of all range improvements completed in the

planning area between 1986 and 2009 is provided in Appendix K (p. 1547).

Table 3.56. Type and Number of Rangeland Improvements Completed in the Planning

Area, 1986-2009

Project Type Quantity

Reservoirs (number) 53

Springs (number) 38

Wells (number) 76

Pipelines (miles) 110

Fences (miles) 355

Land Treatments (number) 315

Vegetation Manipulations (acres) 10,550

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Livestock Grazing Management
486 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Project Type Quantity

Management Facilities (number) (cattleguards, corrals,

etc.)

32

Source: BLM 2009a

Rangeland improvement projects, grazing systems, and other BMPs have been used in rangeland

management since the early 1970s. The BMPs have been further improved in recent years through

educational workshops and seminars and through federal and private nonprofit cost-sharing

programs. These management practices are used independently or cooperatively among livestock

lessees, the University of Wyoming Extension Service, state and federal agencies, conservation

districts, and interested members of the public. The goal is to allow sustainable livestock use

to continue on public lands without damaging the vegetation resource and to maintain healthy

watersheds and wildlife habitats.

Management Challenges for Livestock Grazing

Grazing of livestock on public lands receives a high level of public interest, differing opinions,

scrutiny, and legal challenges. Many legal challenges have led to policy changes within the BLM

since the mid 1970s. The health of the public lands is monitored by public organizations for a

variety of reasons. Maintaining successful collaboration and communication with the public,

ranchers, private land owners, and other stakeholders is a necessary, but sometimes difficult

and lengthy process.

Another management challenge for livestock grazing is meeting the Wyoming Standards for

Healthy Rangelands (Appendix J (p. 1537)). There is an identified need to meet the Wyoming

Standards for Healthy Rangelands and many allotments are currently not meeting these standards

(as identified in Appendix K (p. 1547)). Appendix K (p. 1547) lists the allotments that have

been assessed for meeting the Standards: 266,537 acres have been determined to meet the

Standards; 673,075 acres have failed assessments with livestock grazing identified as the causal

factor; 31,771 acres have failed assessments with the causal factor identified as other than

livestock grazing; and 47,661 acres have failed the assessments with no identified causal factor.

Coordinating resource programs and management actions that are related to the Wyoming

Standards for Healthy Rangelands (soils, riparian-wetland areas, upland vegetation, rangeland

management, water quality, and air quality) and developing management strategies to improve

allotments not meeting rangeland health standards is a challenge. The BLM is also constrained

in the ability to monitor and implement programs to improve rangeland conditions by limited

funds and the availability of personnel.

Balancing livestock use and the need for additional range infrastructure to meet the Wyoming

Standards for Healthy Rangelands while meeting or progressing toward other resource objectives

is a challenge. This is particularly true when developing grazing strategies that emphasize the

use of range improvement projects to meet the Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands.

Livestock grazing and the construction of range improvements (such as fences and water

developments), can potentially impact other resources including special status species such as

the grizzly bear, grey wolf, and greater sage-grouse. Recently, habitat fragmentation has caused

concern regarding greater sage-grouse and livestock grazing throughout the West. Building

wildlife compatible fences and doing so in a manner that prevents habitat fragmentation is a

challenge.

The construction of range improvement projects, especially water developments (such as

reservoirs), can increase the distribution of livestock and forage availability for livestock grazing

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Livestock Grazing Management February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 487

across the planning area. However, topography, steepness of slopes, distance from existing water

sources, and management for other resource objectives can present management challenges in

locating range improvements in areas that would benefit livestock grazing.

From 2000 to 2006, the planning area was in a sustained hydrological drought. Through

negotiations and grazing permittee cooperation, range specialists in the Lander Field Office were

able to temporarily reduce stocking levels or modify seasons of use on an allotment-by-allotment

basis to decrease the impact of drought conditions on soil and vegetation resources. Although

the planning area continues to reflect a long-term hydrologic drought, the amount and timing of

precipitation through this period were enough for forage growth to support reduced levels of

livestock grazing. Adjusting stocking rates to varying climate conditions, including drought,

is a normal aspect of annual grazing management; however, extreme periods of drought and

fluctuations in precipitation can increase the challenges associated with livestock industry grazing.

Changing weather patterns can affect livestock seasons of use. More precipitation, earlier and

warmer spring weather, less frequent but more intense weather systems, and rising CO2 levels

influence vegetative types by favoring some invasive species over native species and possibly

affecting seasonal growth patterns for vegetation, which affect livestock seasons of use.

Increases in the price of private rangeland based on nonranching valuation, high operating costs,

and fluctuations in precipitation and vegetative condition have lead to uncertainties in livestock

industry grazing. These conditions result in a reduction in the availability of water for irrigating

hay on private land due to changing precipitation patterns and melting of glaciers in the Wind

River Mountains, and the loss of confined feed lots for animal feeding operations (Pew 2008).

Other management challenges associated with the livestock grazing program include assessing

the impact of invasive plant species on forage production and addressing long-term monitoring of

allotments and management activities.

3.6.6. Recreation

Federal lands within the planning area provide a broad spectrum of outdoor opportunities

that afford visitors the freedom of recreational choice with minimal regulatory constraints.

Recreational opportunities are offered to the public on all BLM-administered lands within the

planning area.

Planning Guidance

The planning guidance for Recreation has substantially changed since the 1987 RMP. The

RMP planning process historically identifies areas where recreation is the management focus.

These Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMAs) were traditionally areas that had higher

recreation use or required extra recreation investment or where more intensive recreation

management was needed, whereas Extensive Recreation Management Areas (ERMAs) were

established in most cases to facilitate dispersed recreation. The 2011 revision of the Recreation

and Visitor Services planning guidance provides a more specific definition of SRMAs and

ERMAs. The difference between SRMAs and ERMAs is summarized in Table 3.57, “Extensive

Recreation Management Area and Special Recreation Management Area Management and

Objectives” (p. 488) below:

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Recreation
488 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table 3.57. Extensive Recreation Management Area and Special Recreation Management

Area Management and Objectives

SRMA Distinct ERMA

The Remainder of the

Planning Area

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, reduce conflict as well as achieve other program planning

objectives.

ERMA Extensive Recreation Management Area

SRMA Special Recreation Management Area

Recreation Anticipated Demand

In 1978, Driver and Brown (Driver and Brown 1978) proposed a hierarchical framework that

specifies four distinct levels of recreational demands: (1) for activities, (2) settings (situational

attributes), (3) for specific psychological outcomes--experiences and satisfactions, and (4) for

benefits. This is the framework of recreation demand that will be addressed through the various

land use decisions of this planning process.

The following existing sources are incorporated into this affected environment by reference and

will assist the BLM in making recreation decisions to address the levels of customer demand

discussed above:

● Congressional designations and legislation associated with the NHTs and CDNST.

● The various comprehensive plans for the five Congressionally Designated Trails.

● Surveys conducted locally and nationally (such as those that have been conducted on the

NHTs, at developed recreation sites, and by national entities such as the Roper and Starch).

● Scoping comments on this RMP process.

● Information from community Workshops such as those conducted in the Fall of 2007.

● Community planning documents such as the Dubois Gateway Community plan, community

assessments by the Wyoming Business Council, and County and City plans.

Visitor Characterization

Based on field observations, discussions with customers, and the sources discussed above, public

land visitors are traveling to the planning area from the following primary sources: national and

international location, the Casper population center, and locally.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Recreation February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 489

Visitors from outside of Wyoming come to the region from National and international locations.

One reason for this widespread visitation is that the area is on a popular route towards two

national parks. Additionally, the town of Lander is home to the International Climber’s Festival,

a privately funded festival where visitors travel to celebrate the sport of climbing. NOLS is

headquartered in Lander and conducts educational/recreational courses on BLM-administered

lands. Many of these students return for additional visits and courses. These are cases where

non-agency marketing techniques have increased visitation to the public lands.

Field observations have found that there has been a notable increase in visitation from the

adjacent states of Utah, Colorado, Idaho, and Montana. The use demographic change is due to the

fact that visitors can escape the developed and sometimes crowded recreation settings of their

home states while also enjoying some of the unique setting attributes (NHTs or the Sinks Canyon

climbing area) available within the planning area. This trend has been witnessed throughout the

planning area, but seems to be strongest along Congressionally Designated Trails and around

newly discovered climbing areas. The visitation increase around climbing areas is correlated to

the increase in the activity's popularity over the last 20 years. Potential exists to increase this

visitor use demographic across several areas of the planning area especially in areas with existing

infrastructure and/or in areas where resource conflicts are minimal.

Visitors originating from the Casper population center recreate in all areas of the planning area,

however, this user faction typically focuses around the Rattlesnake Hills and Green Mountain

areas. This regional-scale demand is generated as a result of the planning area’s large acreage of

public lands and the accessibility of those lands. In contrast, public lands around these visitors’

home area are isolated, often inaccessible tracks of public land encompassing small acreage

(USFS 2004a).

Wyoming’s population has grown in the past 10 years (Sonoran Institute 2007) and an increasing

number of people are living near public lands for a diversity of recreational opportunities

characterized by the “mountain resort or outdoor lifestyle.” The region is truly a year-round place

to live and work; as a result, BLM-administered lands are absorbing increasing recreational

demand and use. The towns of Lander, Hudson, Riverton, and Dubois all have public lands

bordering them that are used as “backyard” recreation areas by local residents. Outside of the use

season (June-August) of the Congressionally Designated Trails and fall big-game hunting seasons

(September-November), when visitation is high everywhere, the greatest number of visitors to

public land is on a daily basis near communities.

Activity Demand

Nationally, participation in outdoor recreation activities has increased. Table 3.58, “Outdoor

Recreation Survey” (p. 489) is adapted from Moore and Driver (Moore and Driver 2005) and

summarizes the results from the 2000 Roper Starch Worldwide Inc. Survey (Roper Starch 2000)

and the 1994-2001 Cordell, Betz, Green, and Mou National Survey on Recreation and the

Environment (NSRE) (Cordell et al. 2004). The table shows the percent of adults participating in

predominant planning area outdoor recreation activities and percent change from 1994 to 2001.

Table 3.58. Outdoor Recreation Survey

Activity Percent participating 2000

(Roper Starch)

Percent participating

2000-2001 (NSRE)

Percent Change 1994-2001

(NSRE)

Kayaking 5 3.46 185.66

Viewing or Photographing

Fish

- 24.77 96.79

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Recreation
490 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Activity Percent participating 2000

(Roper Starch)

Percent participating

2000-2001 (NSRE)

Percent Change 1994-2001

(NSRE)

Snowmobiling 2 5.55 70.22

Viewing Wildlife 16 44.68 55.80

Backpacking 9 10.68 53.78

Day Hiking 19 33.25 51.80

Canoeing 5 9.73 50.65

Bicycling 24 39.49 50.00

Horseback Riding 5 9.68 47.99

Mountain Climbing - 6.03 46.52

Running or Jogging 18 34.53 43.54

Coldwater fishing - 13.58 42.77

Developed Camping 26 26.38 38.71

Driving off road 7 17.46 36.50

Walking for pleasure 57 82.97 35.32

Visiting archeological sites - 20.91 30.71

Bird watching 16 32.38 30.61

Big game hunting - 8.41 28.92

Cross-country Skiing 2 3.82 27.59

Rock Climbing 4 4.32 26.86

Primitive Camping 8 16.01 24.75

Small Game Hunting - 7.23 21.43

Picnicking 36 54.49 20.91

Migratory bird hunting - 2.36 20.05

Visiting historic sites - 46.20 13.91

Sightseeing 4 8.15 -0.63

Orienteering - 2.00 -9.36

Source: BLM 2009a; Moore and Driver 2005; Roper Starch 2000; Cordell et al. 2004

NSRE National Survey on Recreation and the Environment

Outcome Demand

BLM will base planning objectives in SRMAs and to a lesser extent in ERMAs around customer

demand for Outcomes. Recreational Outcomes are defined as follows: (1) realization of a

satisfying recreation experience, (2) An improved change in condition, and (3) maintenance of a

desired condition, prevention of an undesired condition, or reduction of an undesired condition

(Hopkins 2008). In general the Roper Starch Survey Outdoor Recreation in America 2000:

Addressing Key Societal Concerns (2000) documented some benefits that are important or being

realized by national and local customers (Roper Starch 2000). The following statements are

directly from the “Study Highlights”:

● Americans continue to ascribe many benefits to participation in recreation. This new research

confirms motivations of fun, fitness, and family togetherness, but also shows Americans

believe outdoor recreation plays a role in addressing various key social concerns, especially

those related to young people. For instance, close to 8 in 10 Americans (79%) believe outdoor

recreation can improve education.

● Americans also see outdoor recreation playing a role in reducing childhood obesity—a full

three quarters of Americans see it as having a role in helping with this problem.

● According to most Americans, participating in outdoor recreation also can significantly aid

parent—child communication, with three quarters crediting it as playing a role.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Recreation February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 491

● Even in the case of tough social problems such as juvenile crime (71%), underage drinking

(66%), and illegal drug use (64%), outdoor recreation is viewed by a strong majority as

playing positive role.

● Overwhelmingly Americans believe that if people participated more in outdoor physical

activities, the health effects would be beneficial (93%). Outdoor recreation is seen as the best

way to be physically active (90%).

● Virtually all Americans agree that outdoor recreation is a good way to increase people’s

appreciation for nature and the environment (95%). Similarly, more than 9 in 10 agree

that if people spent more time outdoors, they would better understand the importance of

environmental protections.

Throughout the RMP revision process BLM will work to further understand customer demand,

this continuing input process will allow BLM to develop recreation based objectives and

decisions that address customer demand and issues. Furthermore, recreation based decisions will

be outcome based which allows BLM to monitor and adjust as social and resource conditions

change through the life of the plan.

Existing Recreation Management and Supply

Recreation Management Areas

The 1987 RMP for the Lander Field Office identified three SRMAs. These areas included both

congressionally and administratively recognized areas. The areas include: South Pass Historic

Mining area, the NHT, and the CDNST.

South Pass Historic Mining Area: The South Pass Historic Mining Area is a SRMA, with

emphasis on recreational opportunities in rustic, open-space settings.

National Historic Trail: The existing plan establishes a SRMA for the NHTs (which in 1987

included only the Oregon/Mormon Pioneer Trail; subsequent action expanded the NHTs to

include the California and Pony Express Trails. Together, these four trails are referred to as the

NHTs). The management prescriptions for the NHTs are very general, with particular focus on

preventing over utilization of the NHT and the contributing historic sites, whether by trekkers or

hunters. Subsequent actions have refined the kind of BLM monitoring and prescriptions that are

required to protect the historic resources. Detailed SRMA plans have not been adopted.

Continental Divide National Scenic Trail: The existing plan recognizes the CDNST as a SRMA

but does not provide detailed management prescriptions.

The 2005 revision of the BLM land use planning handbook also clarified that any area not

delineated as a SRMA is an ERMA. In consideration of this update the Lander Field Office

manages twelve ERMAs: the Lander Field Office wide ERMA created as a result of the above

update, and 11 distinct ERMAs to address local recreation issues including Castle Gardens,

Whiskey Mountain/East Fork, Green Mountain, Lander Slope/Red Canyon, Dubois Badlands,

Sweetwater Canyon, Sweetwater Rocks, Lysite Badlands, Copper Mountain, Beaver Rim,

and Government Draw. The planning method of identifying separate ERMAs allows BLM to

recognize areas that required more active management in order to meet our standard ERMA

objectives focused on resource protection, human health and safety, and alleviating resource

use/user conflicts. Identification of separate ERMAs will be used in this planning process in

several circumstances including: to recognize areas that require more active management than the

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Recreation
492 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

rest of the planning area, to address local planning issues, to recognize an area where customer

demand may warrant an SRMA allocation but the various alternatives to management preclude

SRMA management, and/or in areas where the potential exists for future consideration of the area

for SRMA allocation during a planning amendment process.

General recreation management in the 1987 RMP was not outcome based, causing planning

decisions to focus on direct actions rather than minimum actions to produce outcomes. In doing so

recreation sections of RMPs provided little to no guidance for the future and were mostly dictated

by other program decisions (wildlife) and the existing management situation. The erroneous focus

on direct actions also created a situation where SRMAs lacked sufficient allowable use decisions

and detail to maintain the areas' recreational values. Finally, recreation management actions were

splayed across the planning area usually to address concerns associated with overuse, while the

SRMA and ERMA allocations had no bearing or influence on the action. The new land use

planning guidance for recreation directs BLM to utilize an outcome based planning system, in

turn addressing the shortcomings discussed above.

Developed Site Management

The 1987 RMP directed that management and maintenance will be provided at seven existing

developed recreational sites (in both ERMAs and SRMAs), including Atlantic City, Big Atlantic

Gulch, and Cottonwood campgrounds; Split Rock and Devil’s Gate interpretive sites; and Wild

Horse Point overlook and Castle Gardens picnic areas (see Map 120). Since then, the BLM

has added several developed sites including: Beaver Creek Nordic ski area, Steamboat Lake

interpretive site, and the Martins Cove interpretive trail. The need exists to consider how these

various developed sights supply the existing recreation environment and how they can be linked

in a more comprehensive fashion.

Recreation Management Actions

Recreation management actions were addressed in each of the management units in the existing

plan. All of the units emphasize resolution of competing uses and provide resource protection.

All are managed for dispersed recreation. The following list summarizes the management unit

specific management actions (other than the SRMAs above):

Green Mountain: The unit is managed as an ERMA with the following specific prescriptions:

● 14-day camping limits

● Safety hazards eliminated

● Aesthetic values improved

● Quotas established for commercial hunting camps

Beaver Creek: The unit is managed as an ERMA with the following specific prescriptions:

● The Split Rock interpretive site is maintained and incorporated in the management plan for

the NHT with provisions for use by visitors, resource protection, and interpretative needs.

Lander Slope: The unit is managed as an ERMA with no major recreational developments.

● 14-day camping limits to avoid “homestead” camping and be in conformance with

management of the adjoining USFS lands

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Recreation February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 493

● Quotas on commercial hunting camps

Red Canyon: The unit is managed to protect wildlife values and geology, particularly as reflected

by the NNL. To protect elk winter range, the unit is closed to all winter sport activities.

● 14-day camping limit to eliminate “homestead’ camping

Gas Hills: Generally, the unit is managed as an ERMA. However, two intensive managed

areas are identified:

● Devil’s Gate interpretive site is managed to meet interpretive and visitors’ needs coupled

with resource protection.

● Castle Gardens management focuses on interpretation and resource protection while allowing

for dispersed recreation management.

East Fork: Minimal recreation management is provided. The emphasis is on reducing user

conflicts and providing resource protection.

Whiskey Mountain: is managed in cooperation with the WGFD on non-consumptive wildlife

visitor use management.

● 14-day camping limit

● Commercial hunting camps not permitted if they are not compatible with bighorn sheep

management

Dubois Badlands: This unit is an ERMA that is managed in its “natural state” with a focus on

emphasizing resolving competing uses and providing resource protection.

General Lander Field Office Area: The unit is managed as an ERMA with dispersed recreation

where visitors will have the freedom of recreational choice with minimal regulation.

Recreation Setting and Foreseeable Development

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). The setting concept recognizes that

visitor attainment of desired recreational experience and benefit outcome opportunities is linked

to the physical, social, and operational recreation setting. The range of possible combinations of

activities, settings, and experience opportunities can be represented in terms of a spectrum or

continuum. This continuum of recreation setting characteristics has historically been referred to

as the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS). The information provided by the ROS is both

a descriptive and a land use allocation tool for recreation planning, management, and research

(Clark and Stankey 1979). The existing plan used the ROS as a tool to characterize or describe the

existing environment. The new RMP will also use recreation settings (in SRMAs) as reasonable

foreseeable development scenarios and desired future condition for the recreation resource.

In most SRMAs, reaching and maintaining a desired setting condition requires allowable use

decisions (such as NSO restrictions) and management actions (Hopkins 2008).

The current BLM-specific methodology for describing the recreation setting builds on the historic

ROS concept and has been termed the recreation setting. The BLM now describes the recreational

setting across three main factors: the character of the natural landscape (Physical Setting); the

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Recreation
494 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

character of recreation and tourism use (Social Setting); and how public land agencies, other land

managers and private sector service providers manage public use (Operational Setting). These

variables combine as descriptors of the recreation environment that can then be placed across a

spectrum of six overall recreation settings. The six overall recreation settings moving from least

developed to most developed are: Primitive, Back Country, Middle Country, Front Country (or

Transition), Rural, and Urban. The BLM typically does not manage for urban settings. This

methodology for describing the recreation setting builds on the historic ROS concept and is here

by referred to as recreation settings.

The existing 1985 ROS map (Map 86) utilized a mapping technique in which all three setting

attributes were combined to form one recreation setting map. This technique resulted in a map

that was weighted heavily toward the physical setting and less towards addressing the recreational

expectation of visitors. This technique yielded accurate setting capacity descriptions; however, it

does not lend itself to setting allocations or prescriptions. Moreover, it is a top-down management

approach that fails to be responsive to the different populations utilizing the public lands. The

new recreation setting inventory for the Physical, Social, and Operational settings is depicted

on Maps 87–89. Trends in recreation setting can be garnered by comparing the new physical

setting map with the existing ROS map. Recreational management recognizes four key issues

when forecasting the setting changes over time:

● Population growth

● Changing public expectations and demand for outdoor recreation opportunities

● Increased energy development/exploration

● Increased occurrences of large ranches being subdivided to accommodate non-agricultural

uses

Overall Physical, Social, and Operations settings are demonstrating an urbanizing trend, which is

likely to continue. At the broadest level, the physical, social, and operational recreation character

of BLM public lands is quickly changing from less natural to more developed, from less crowded

to more contacts with others, from less restrictive to more rules and regulations. These changes

will impact the activity opportunities that can be offered and the recreation experience and benefit

opportunities that can be produced by land managers and partners.

Existing Use Levels and Forecasts

Visitor Use Figures

By 2000, 78 percent of Americans participated at least monthly in outdoor recreation activities,

up 50 percent from 1994 (Cordell 1999). Most public land use estimates and activity participation

estimates depend entirely on field observations and professional judgment of the recreation

staff and hence are not scientifically based. Recreation use figures are tracked in the Recreation

Management Information System and are available at the Lander Field Office. In addition,

several other entities such as the WGFD, County Governments, and the Wyoming State Trails

program collect use figure information. These sources also indicate an overall increase in outdoor

recreation participation across the planning area.

While visitor use figures are critical to an input/output (or IO model) economic analysis, these

figures are not an indicator of recreational quality.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Recreation February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 495

One example of this phenomenon is in areas enjoyed for solitude or naturalness, in these areas

increases in visitor use can degrade the quality of recreation environment.

Another problem with visitor use figures as a recreation indicator lie in the simple fact that these

figures do not provide any indication of customer demand, instead they simply reflect where

people are going based on current management.

Finally, a limitation of input/output economic analysis and visitor use figures lies in the simple

fact that the IO model is only concerned with use figures of nonresidents. The BLM recreation

program is often geared to supply local customer demand whereas an IO model and the visitor

use data supporting it does not recognize economic benefits accrued as a result of recreation

enhancements to support local community residents. A non-market analysis technique (such as

Contingent Valuation Method) is far superior to capturing the true economic contribution of

recreation management. Based on time and data constraints this plan will use an IO model to

calculate the economic benefits of recreation, therefore visitor use data in support of this analysis

will only be compiled for nonresident visitors.

Special Recreation Permits

The amount and type of Special Recreation Permits (SRP) are indicators of the current level of

use and in some case reflect the activity demand of the public. There are four types of uses for

which SRPs are required: commercial use, competitive events, organized groups, and recreation

use in special areas. Most SRPs are related to hunting outfitting; however the Lander Field

Office does have a very diverse SRP program.

There has been increased demand for SRPs over the past 20 years. Currently BLM administers

30 SRPs as multi-year permits. In addition, the office typically authorizes another 10 one-time

events and organized groups.

No limits on the number or type of SRP exists however, authorized activities along the NHTs are

managed closely in order to maintain the areas cultural resources. Conflicts have arisen when

SRPs are issued for activities that are out of character with the existing recreation setting such as

large group use in an area with Back Country characteristics, and conflict with other resource

values, such as in an area containing threatened and endangered species.

Since SRPs are a manner by which the agency delivers recreational outcomes to visitors it is

important that the BLM issue SRPs to complement existing land use plan objectives. The

RMP will establish broad objectives across the entire planning area that will provide a guide to

administer the SRP program in a way that ensures a healthy outfitter and guide service sector,

while also ensuring permitted activities extend the agency’s ability to deliver targeted outcomes

to visitors.

Recreation Use Forecasts

It is anticipated that recreational use will increase in the next 20 years. The factors influencing this

trend include: a projected moderately heavy population pressure, a projected moderately heavy

recreation demand pressure, and the planning area's total land area in public land ownership in

comparison to eastern Wyoming (Moore and Driver 2005). The increase in recreational use will

necessitate an outcome based approach to recreation management. Such an approach provides

land managers enough flexibility to adapt with the dynamic nature of the use, while also ensuring

the use is guided by planning instead of the agency constantly reacting to the use. In addition, an

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Recreation
496 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

outcome based approach will allow the agency to encourage increased use in areas where such

increases will be environmentally sustainable and minimize conflict among users.

Management Challenges for Recreation

Simultaneously managing lands in the planning area for recreational use and other forms of

development is the greatest recreation management challenge. Modifications to the environment

as a result of energy and minerals development have the potential to alter recreational settings

and shift the types of recreation experiences possible. In the case of SRMAs, reaching and

maintaining a desired setting condition could require management actions to establish allowable

uses and development requirements (e.g., NSO restrictions) (Hopkins 2008).

The WGFD has a walk-in hunt program with private land owners, often BLM

livestock grazing permittees, to allow hunters to enter privately owned lands to hunt.

The WGFD sees the walk-in hunt program as important for Wyoming hunting; see

http://wgfd.wyo.gov/plpwhmprogram/frmWalkinHuntingHome.aspx. There are six walk-in hunt

program areas partially or fully in the planning area - five in Fremont County and one in Natrona

County. One BLM permittee commented on the Draft RMP and EIS that their ranch’s ability to

continue with the program depends on maintaining their current levels of AUMs. Otherwise, they

would need to add more fences to their private property to support more intensive grazing. This

would result in the loss and fragmentation of habitat and perhaps make their ranch no longer of

value to the walk-in hunt program (Graham No Date).

3.7. Special Designations

This section describes ACECs, Congressionally Designated Trails (NHTs and National Scenic

Trails [NSTs]), Wild and Scenic Rivers (WSRs), and WSAs. Other special designations that are

not currently designated or proposed for designation in this Proposed RMP and Final EIS, such as

National Recreation Trails or National Water Trails, are not discussed further in this document.

Special designations are areas that have either been administratively or Congressionally

designated where specific management is required to meet resource goals and objectives. These

areas often include important biological (or other natural system), historic, cultural, scenic, or

other resource values.

3.7.1. Congressionally Designated Trails

BLM land use planning guidance requires special management for Congressional designations

(BLM Land Use Planning Handbook H-1601-1). Congressionally Designated Trails in the

planning area include the CDNST and the Oregon, Mormon Pioneer, California, and Pony

Express NHTs.

Additionally, management of Congressionally Designated Trails is guided by IM 2009-215

(Planning for Special Designations within the National System of Public Lands). Under IM

2009-215:

A presidential proclamation or act of Congress that designates an area within the

National System of Public Land supersedes conflicting direction by the FLPMA.

Specifically the land use plan and management direction for such a designation

must comply with the purposes and objectives of the proclamation or act of

Congress regardless of any conflicts with the FLPMA’s multiple use mission...

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Special Designations February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 497

When integrating planning for a special designation created by presidential

proclamation or act of Congress with a general RMP planning process, the Field

Office should ensure that the RMP identifies the objects or resources for which the

area was designated and illustrates how those objects or resources are protected by

the plan. The RMP must also clearly distinguish between the planning area for the

RMP and the planning area for the special designation. The existence of multiple

decision areas necessitates a plan distinction between the decision and analysis for

each area. Additionally, an integrated planning process should conclude with an

independent Record of Decision for both the RMP planning area and the special

designation planning area.

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: NSTs, recreation trails, and connecting

or side trails. In 1978, historic trails were added as another category. Today, only Congress can

designate NHTs and NSTs.

The NTSA designated five trails (the Continental Divide Trail and the Oregon, Mormon Pioneer,

California, and Pony Express Historic Trails) as national trails. The NTSA, other supporting

legislation, and BLM policies direct the BLM to conserve and protect these national trails and the

nature and purposes for which each trail was established. The sections that follow identify the

nature and purposes of each of the Congressionally Designated Trails.

3.7.1.1. National Scenic Trails

The NTSA provides for the designation of NSTs “so located as to provide for maximum outdoor

recreation potential and for the conservation and enjoyment of the nationally significant scenic,

historic, natural, or cultural qualities of the areas through which such trails may pass” (Section

3(a)(2)). After passage of the NTSA, the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation (in accordance with the

NTSA) performed a study that endorsed designation of the Continental Divide Trail as an NST.

Continental Divide National Scenic Trail

The NTSA (Public Law 90-543) provides for the designation of NSTs “so located as to provide for

maximum outdoor recreation potential and for the conservation and enjoyment of the nationally

significant scenic, historic, natural, or cultural qualities of the areas through which such trails

may pass” (Section 3(a)(2)).

The CDNST is a 3,100-mile trail extending from Canada to Mexico and passing through

the Rocky Mountain States of Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, and New Mexico. An

89-mile on-the-ground route of the CDNST was designated through the planning area in 1999,

followed by an additional 3 miles of route in 2001. These 92 miles of the CDNST include 2

miles of hiking trail, 10 miles of cross-country travel, 4 miles of gravel roads, and 76 miles of

primitive two-track roads (Map 121). A cooperative agreement with the Wyoming State Lands

& Investment office provides for joint management of approximately 3 miles of scattered state

lands in the 92 miles of route.

After the passage of the NTSA, the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation (in accordance with the Act)

conducted a study that endorsed designation of the Continental Divide Trail as a NST (Bureau

of Outdoor Recreation 1976). The overall vision for the CDNST, as stated in the 1976 Study

Report follows:

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Congressionally Designated Trails
498 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

The primary purpose of this trail is to provide a continuous, appealing trail route,

designed for the hiker and horseman, but compatible with other land uses...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.

Similarly, the 2009 Comprehensive Plan for the CDNST (USFS 2009b), described the nature

and purposes of the CDNST:

The nature and purposes of the CDNST are to provide for high-quality scenic,

primitive hiking and horseback riding opportunities and to conserve natural,

historic, and cultural resources along the CDNST corridor.

In recognition of the above, the 2009 Comprehensive Plan emphasized the importance of visual

management as a key factor to ensure user enjoyment of the CDNST. The plan directed the

BLM to consider the trail a high sensitivity travel route. Importantly, the trail corridor across

the planning area encompasses diverse landscapes. A portion of the trail landscape encompasses

areas of “high absorption capacity,” meaning activities along these could be easily located out of

view. Conversely, another portion of the trail crosses a landscape that does not readily absorb

contrasting activities, that is observers traveling along this section of trail would be particularly

sensitive to activities that altered the characteristic landscape.

The portion of the CDNST in the planning areas travels through numerous differing landscapes.

The trail enters south of Green Mountain and travels northwest towards Crooks Gap. In the

Crooks Gap area the trail travels through a more industrialized zone with many resource uses

including major pipeline ROWs, reclaimed uranium mining, major motorized travel routes, and an

oil field on top of Crooks Mountain. Continuing in a northwesterly direction, the trail travels into a

zone with very little development or resource use. This zone contains some of the most wide-open

and undeveloped landscapes available on the entire CDNST. After crossing the Bison Basin Road,

the trail connects to the NHTs and travels across an area known as the Antelope Hills. Within the

Antelope Hills landscape are numerous granite outcrops and features that draw the observer’s

attention. The trail eventually crosses the Sweetwater River at the Phelps Dodge Bridge; here the

trail travels toward South Pass City State Historic Park and the South Pass Mining ACEC. This

section contains numerous cross-country sections and eventually drops the user into South Pass

City. Continuing on from the Willow Creek trailhead, the trail heads cross-country for some time

before returning to a primitive two-track and eventually encountering Wyoming Highway 28.

The diversity of landscapes and features encountered on each section of the trail has corresponding

different visual resource classes. The existing plan visual resource designation for the trail is

Class II-IV. These were established several years before the trail was designated; as a result,

most of the visual resource classes do not consider the trail corridor. The most recent VRI was

conducted in partnership with the University of Wyoming and considered the trail designation; as

a result, inventory classes displayed a higher visual value then those considered in 1987. The

new inventory found that the trail travels through VRI Classes II-IV, with a very high amount

in Class III or higher.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Congressionally Designated Trails February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 499

Visitor use by through-hikers is on a slight upward trend. Use in both 2003 and 2004 was in the

range of 40 to 60 through-hikers from May through September (BLM 2009e). Non-through-hiker

day-use and multiple-day use of the trail is low. Other recreational uses on the designated route

include hiking, hunting, mountain biking, and driving for pleasure, but are not considered uses

tied directly to the trail.

A trailhead was developed in the parking area of the South Pass City State Historic Site in 2002.

The trail uses the main site roadway before entering public land to follow the Volksmarch Trail

for approximately 2 miles. It then follows a series of two-track roads and cross-country travel

toward the Sweetwater River and beyond.

Further analysis of the recreation and visual trends of the trail are contained in the Visual

Resources and Recreation sections. Currently, no allowable use decisions exist on or adjacent to

the CDNST; this situation creates conflicting mandates for managers and members of the public.

A change in management is needed in order to provide a diversity of trail landscapes that meet

the demands of the NTSA, the Comprehensive Report, and the 2009 Comprehensive Plan. This

National Conservation System landscape is not currently protected under standard mitigation

guidelines or other planning decisions. Prescriptions to maintain this Congressionally designated

resource need to address the following: activities under the 1872 Mining Law, management of

ROWs, oil and gas development, management of OHVs, historical resource protection, as well as

the management of recreational use and enjoyment of the trail.

Management Challenges for the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail

At present, there are no allowable use decisions on or adjacent to the CDNST. This creates

one of the major management challenges for the CDNST: how to manage for multiple use

while maintaining the CDNST’s scenic value. For example, as the technology for wind-energy

development changes, the increased height of wind turbines increases the potential for a visual

impact to the CDNST.

To provide a diversity of trail landscapes that meet the demands of the NTSA, the Comprehensive

Report and the 2009 Comprehensive Plan require a change in management. This National

Conservation System landscape is currently unprotected under standard mitigation guidelines

or other planning decisions. Prescriptions to maintain this Congressionally designated resource

would need to address the following: activities under the 1872 General Mining Law, ROW

management, oil and gas development, management of motorized vehicles, and historical

resource protection, along with management of recreational use and enjoyment of the trail.

Refer to the Visual Resources section of this chapter for additional information on management

challenges for the CDNST related to visual resources.

3.7.1.2. National Historic Trails

The Oregon, Mormon Pioneer, California, and Pony Express NHTs are four nationally significant

historic trails that traverse the southern portion of the planning area. These trails mark the

mid-1800s period of mass migration for pioneering Americans who headed West (Map 123). The

Congressional designation of these trails as NHTs reflects their nationally recognized status as

symbols of one of the most important and influential movements of people in United States history.

The four routes converge onto one general route and are managed as a unit through much

of Wyoming. The NPS and the BLM have long described the Oregon, Mormon Pioneer,

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Congressionally Designated Trails
500 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

California, and Pony Express Trails and its variants in central and western Wyoming as some of

the best remains of these NHTs left in the United States. These trails include long stretches of

well-preserved ruts, swales, and mostly intact historical settings. In fact, the entire section of the

four NHTs within the planning area was designated as a High Potential Segment, which deserves

the highest level of protection and preservation. The following sections describe the four NHTs

and the Seminoe Cutoff, including the nature and purposes of each NHT.

The management emphasis for NHTs gives priority to the high-potential sites and segments of the

NHTs. These are considered to be “federal-protection components” (Sec. 3.16 U.S.C. 1242[a3]).

High-potential sites and segments are defined in the NTSA as follows:

Sec.12(1): “The term “high potential historic sites” means those historic sites

related to the route, or sites in close proximity thereto, which provide opportunity

to interpret the historic significance of the trial during the period of its major use.

Criteria for consideration as high potential sites include historic significance,

presence of visible historic remnants, scenic quality, and relative freedom from

intrusion.”

Sec. 12(2): “The term “high potential route segments” means those segments of

a trail which would afford high quality recreation experience in a portion of the

route having greater than average scenic values or affording an opportunity to

vicariously share the experience of the original users of a historic route.”

The Oregon National Historic Trail

The Oregon NHT is a portion of the transcontinental route that was a migration route for

prehistoric and early historic groups, and later became the main highway for European-American

emigrants looking for new land and a new beginning in the largely unsettled western territories.

This westward movement occurred primarily from the 1840s through the 1860s, but the Oregon

Trail remained in use as a wagon trail as late as 1912. Estimates claim the number of pioneers

who used the trail range from 350,000 to 500,000. Most of the emigrants traveled with wagon

trains, spending an average of 6 months walking and riding over the arduous route. At least

20,000 died along the various emigrant trails during this period.

A large number of Oregon Trail emigrants settled the widely available lands in Oregon and

Washington or set up commercial pursuits to serve the settlements. Later, discoveries of precious

minerals became an impetus for migrations to different parts of the West and provided the basis

for settlement of lands previously bypassed by the emigrants.

In the 1850s and 1860s, military and commercial interests used the Oregon Trail extensively. The

supply needs of settlements, travelers, and Native American tribes under treaty enabled freighting

companies to operate, while military garrisons were assigned to posts along the trail to protect the

emigrants and freighters. Communications services also developed along the Oregon Trail, the

most famous was the Pony Express. Stage lines also operated on the Oregon Trail, but some were

forced to move to the more southern Overland Trail because of Indian attacks.

The use of the Oregon Trail and its contribution to settlement and development in the west are an

important part of American history. Congress recognized this in 1978 by designating the Oregon

Trail an NHT. Under this status, the federally administered portions of the Oregon NHT are

protected from unwarranted impacts and are maintained for public enjoyment and use. The entire

section of the Oregon Trail within the planning area is designated as a High Potential Segment,

which deserves the highest level of protection and preservation.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Congressionally Designated Trails February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 501

The nature and purposes of the Oregon NHT through the planning area are:

● To identify, preserve, and interpret the sites, routes, and history of the Oregon Trail for all

people to experience and understand.

● To commemorate the westward movement of emigrants to the Oregon country as an important

chapter of our national heritage.

The Mormon Pioneer National Historic Trail

In the midst of the migration to Oregon and California, there was a smaller migration headed

toward Utah. Most of these emigrants were Mormons (members of the Church of Jesus Christ of

Latter-Day Saints), which was founded in 1830. The Mormon emigrants’ goal was to get to the

Great Salt Lake Valley where the new center of the Mormon Church had been established.

In 1846/1847, an advance party led by church leader Brigham Young headed west from Illinois

and chose their new home in the Great Salt Lake Valley. The route these first pioneer Mormons

used is the Mormon Pioneer NHT. In the two decades following their pioneering trek, thousands

of Mormons from the eastern United States and Europe traveled to Utah to live in the Great

Salt Lake Valley.

The route the Mormons used to get as far as mid-Nebraska differed from the Oregon Trail, but

when the two trails met on the Platte River they basically followed the same route from there to

Fort Bridger in southwest Wyoming. The Mormon Pioneer Trail complements the Oregon Trail as

a major symbol of the nation’s expansion. Whereas the Oregon Trail contributed to development

in the far western states, the Mormon Pioneer Trail was one of the major factors in the initial

development of the interior West. Congress observed the importance of the Mormon Pioneer Trail

by designating it as an NHT in 1978. As with the Oregon Trail, the Mormon Pioneer Trail is now

afforded protection from unwarranted disturbances and is maintained for public enjoyment and

use. The entire section of Mormon Pioneer Trail within the planning area is designated as a High

Potential Segment, which deserves the highest level of protection and preservation.

The nature and purposes of the Mormon Pioneer NHT through the planning area are:

● To identify, preserve, and explain the sites, routes, and history of the Mormon Pioneer Trail

for all people to experience and understand.

● To commemorate the 19th Century migration of Mormon emigrants to the Valley of the Great

Salt Lake as an important aspect of our national heritage.

The California National Historic Trail

Following the Oregon Trail to Fort Bridger, and then continuing west through Utah and Nevada, a

small number of emigrants blazed trails into California as early as 1841. In 1846, the number of

people headed to California is estimated to have been about 1,500. In 1848, gold was discovered

in the Sierra Nevada Mountains of California, and by 1849, those moving to California exceeded

those headed for Oregon. In 1850 alone, an estimated 44,000 emigrants arrived in California, and

as many as 250,000 people traveled the California Trail from 1841 through 1868.

Some segments of the California Trail followed slightly different routes in Wyoming than the

Oregon or Mormon Pioneer Trails. These cut-offs and short cuts were generally blazed to enable

hurried travelers to bypass the slow wagon trains prevalent on the other trails.

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Congressionally Designated Trails
502 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

The California Trail complements the Oregon Trail as a symbol of our nation’s expansion.

Emigration along the California Trail established a 2,400-mile transportation, commerce and

communications route and helped secure the West for the United States. Therefore the trail’s

social, political, and economic contributions to the fledgling United States are highly significant.

Congress observed the importance of the California Trail by designating it an NHT in 1999. As

with the Oregon and Mormon Pioneer Trails, the California Trail is now afforded protection from

unwarranted disturbances and is maintained for public enjoyment and use. The entire section of

the California Trail within the planning area is designated as a High Potential Segment, which

deserves the highest level of protection and preservation.

The nature and purposes of the California NHT through the planning area are:

● To enable all people to envision and experience, in a coherent and convenient way, the

heritage and impacts of the western overland migration.

● To encourage preservation of its history and physical remains.

The Pony Express National Historic Trail

By 1860, the population and commerce of the West had grown, civil war loomed, and fast,

reliable communications between East and West became critical. The freighting firm of Russell,

Majors & Waddell, hoping for a profitable federal postal contract, devised a relay system of riders,

stations, and stock handlers to move light mail quickly between St. Joseph, Missouri, and San

Francisco. This system, popularly known as the Pony Express, launched on April 3, 1860.

Although the Pony Express was efficient and popular, it was not profitable due to high overhead

costs, and the enterprise never secured a government contract. It was also not competitive with

transcontinental telegraph route, which was substantially completed in 1861. The Pony Express

was forced to discontinue service in November 1861, after operating for only a year and a half.

Nevertheless, the Pony Express is significant in American history because it proved the viability

of an all-season, central overland route for fast communications between East and West;

played a vital role in aligning California with the Union; and ensured timely transcontinental

communications during the first year of the Civil War before completion of the transcontinental

telegraph (NPS 1999).

The Pony Express Trail follows the Oregon Trail through the planning area. Although driven out

of business by the transcontinental telegraph after a year and a half, it remains part of national

history as an important American achievement. Congress observed the importance of the Pony

Express Trail by designating it an NHT in 1999. As with the other NHTs, the Pony Express NHT

is now afforded protection from unwarranted disturbances and is maintained for public enjoyment

and use. The entire section of the Pony Express Trail within the planning area is designated as a

High Potential Segment, which deserves the highest level of protection and preservation.

The nature and purposes of the Pony Express NHT through the planning area are:

● To identify, preserve, and explain the sites, routes, and history of the Pony Express for all

people to experience and understand.

● To commemorate the rapid mail delivery that linked eastern and western states.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Congressionally Designated Trails February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 503

The Seminoe Cutoff of the Oregon, Mormon Pioneer, California, and Pony

Express Trail

The Seminoe Cutoff of the Oregon, Mormon Pioneer, California, and Pony Express Trail

begins in the southeastern portion of the planning area where it cuts off from the main Oregon,

Mormon Pioneer, California, and Pony Express Trail. Probably named for Basil LaJeuness, a

trapper known as Seminoe, this route remains south of the Sweetwater River and was used by

freighters and travelers seeking a speedier trip. Although it avoids a number of river crossings,

it was also relatively dry and longer than the main Oregon, Mormon Pioneer, California, and

Pony Express Trail. The Seminoe Cutoff leaves the main Oregon, Mormon Pioneer, California,

and Pony Express Trail at Warm Springs and rejoins the main trail west of the Ninth Crossing

and a few miles east of South Pass (Wyoming SHPO 2009). As part of the California Trail,

the Seminoe Cutoff is afforded protection from unwarranted disturbances and is maintained

for public enjoyment and use. The entire section of the Seminoe Cutoff within the planning

area is designated as a High Potential Segment, which deserves the highest level of protection

and preservation.

Location and Geography of the NHTs

The four NHTs share a mostly common corridor from Horse Creek, east of Independence Rock,

to Burnt Ranch, south of Atlantic City. Some individual sites identified on Map 123 are depicted

because they are associated with mineral withdrawals. It is a route considered to be one of the

most pristine segments of these trails in the entire nation. The overall good-to-excellent condition

of the trail corridor is due to a lack of effects on the trails themselves, and to the mostly intact

historic setting around the trails. For this reason, the BLM and the NPS have designated this

stretch of NHTs as a High Potential Route Segment, a designation that carries the highest priority

for protection and management in the National Trails System. Map 123 shows the locations

of the NHTs in Wyoming.

Physical Condition and Use

After heavy use of the NHTs’ near the mid- to late- 19th Century, most of the trail corridor

reverted to minimal use by ranchers, recreationists, hunters, and other casual users. However,

commemorative anniversary wagon trains in the 1990s increased the popularity of the NHTs,

and use began to increase. By 2000, use in the western part of the planning area (especially by

Mormon groups) had increased dramatically, and the trails there began to be adversely affected.

By 2005, the BLM developed better management strategies to protect the historical values of the

NHTs. At present, most of the Oregon, Mormon Pioneer, California, and Pony Express Trails

are still in good-to-excellent condition, and the affected parts are likely starting to recover. See

Map 122 for High Potential NHT segments in the planning area.

The NHTs and particularly the Mormon Pioneer Trail are visited by tens of thousands each year,

often youth groups reenacting the emigrant experience. To many of the visitors, the NHTs are

Traditional Cultural Properties which provide opportunities for spiritual and religious experiences.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints wrote in comments on the Draft RMP and EIS,

that the BLM should “include language that recognizes and documents the full significance to

LDS Church members of using the Trails to reenact the handcart pioneers’ role in 19th Century

history...The treks provide LDS Church members opportunity for deeply moving and important

religious experiences, giving context to significant Church history and beliefs in an unmatched

setting. The treks reconnect Church members and others who participate with them to the historic

fabric of the 19th Century westward migrations, allowing participants to better understand the

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Congressionally Designated Trails
504 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

hardships, emotions, and courage of all pioneers of that time through a deeply personal experience

on the very trails the pioneers used” (Genho 2012).

Special Sites Associated with the NHTs

Associated with the NHTs are a number of sites on BLM-administered surface that figured

prominently in the combined history of the NHTs. These sites sometimes occur outside of the

current NHT corridor, but are included in this section because they are integral parts of the NHT

system. The sites are shown on Map 123, and include Martin’s Cove, Devil’s Gate, Split Rock,

Ice Slough, Rocky Ridge, Rock Creek Hollow, and Gilespie Place, all described below.

Martin’s Cove

Martin’s Cove is a historic site associated with the Mormon Pioneer NHT in the southeastern

part of the planning area (603 acres of BLM-administered surface) (Map 123). The Cove is

a sheltered recess among the Sweetwater Rocks where Mormon emigrants took refuge from

a winter storm in 1856. The cove is next to the bare granitic hills of the Sweetwater Rocks,

just north of the Sweetwater River, about 2 miles west of Devil’s Gate and 1 mile north of the

Oregon/Mormon Pioneer Trail.

The setting of this disaster involved Captain Edward Martin’s 6th Handcart Company, a large

group of Mormon converts who were headed to the Salt Lake Valley of Utah. The company

originated in England, and they planned to walk across the interior of the United States pulling

two-wheeled handcarts. A winter storm caught them weak and unprepared, and the emigrants

took refuge in Martin’s Cove. The company was eventually rescued and brought to Salt Lake

City, but not before 145 people in the company died from exposure and starvation.

Until recently, the site was only casually used by local ranchers and occasional history buffs.

However, in the 1990s, the Mormon Church purchased the ranch that controlled access into

the Cove. Visitation immediately increased, and the BLM and the Church jointly developed a

walking path, interpretive stations, and other facilities to handle the surge of visitors. Although

these modern facilities diminished the historical integrity of the Cove, they have kept the effects

from an estimated 40,000 visitors per year to an acceptable level.

Devil’s Gate

Devil’s Gate (395 acres of BLM-administered surface) is a historic site associated with the

NHTs just east of Martin’s Cove (Map 123). Devil’s Gate is a unique geological feature where

the Sweetwater River has cut through the Sweetwater Rocks leaving a narrow cleft measuring

approximately 370 feet deep, 2,500 feet long, and less than 50 feet wide in places. This site is

5 miles southwest of Independence Rock near the point where the NHTs begin to parallel the

Sweetwater River. Many pioneer diaries include remarks about Devil’s Gate, and some of the

emigrants wrote or carved their names on the cliffs around this landmark. Devil’s Gate appears

mostly as it did in the mid-1800s, except for an irrigation canal built along the river cut, and some

modern ranching developments near it. For more than a century, use of Devil’s Gate was minimal.

The site is accessible from the Martin’s Cove complex, and there has been increased use in recent

years without much of an effect on the site.

Split Rock

Split Rock is a geologic feature with historical associations to all four of the NHTs. The Split

Rock area includes an interpretive site (242 acres of BLM-administered surface) and the Split

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Congressionally Designated Trails February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 505

Rock/Twin Peaks NRHP site (645 acres of BLM-administered surface). Approximately 15 miles

west of Martin’s Cove and Devil’s Gate, Split Rock is a prominent and highly visible landmark

and served as a geographical guide for Native Americans, fur traders, and emigrants. This high

cleft in the granite of the Sweetwater Rocks could be seen soon after the emigrants left Devil’s

Gate, and the area near Split Rock was a favorite camping spot. During the 1860s, the Pony

Express, Overland Stage Line, and the Eleventh Ohio Cavalry maintained a post in the local area.

Although there has been some agricultural development near the Sweetwater River, the general

area is little changed from its 19th Century historical setting.

Ice Slough

Ice Slough is another historic site associated with the four NHTs (1,345 acres of

BLM-administered surface) (Map 123). Ice Slough is a wide, shallow, swampy drainage that was

often mentioned by the emigrant travelers on the Oregon, Mormon Pioneer, and California Trail.

This spring-fed boggy area, approximately 23 miles west of the Split Rock landmark, is paralleled

by the trail for several miles before the trail crosses it. The emigrants used the slough for grass,

water, camping, and reportedly as a source of summertime ice. The ice, found under peat and

water layers, could be obtained even in the hot summer months, and this oddity was a constant

and welcome surprise to the pioneers. Along the banks of the slough was a Pony Express station,

which operated in the 1860s. U.S. Highway 287 crosses the slough, and ditches have been cut

into it in places, but otherwise the site still appears mostly as it did in the 19th century. Heavy

grazing in Ice Slough was recently controlled by the installation of an electric fence, which was

designed to be minimally visible from the NHT.

Rocky Ridge

Rocky Ridge is a historic site associated with all four of the NHTs, and is in the southwestern

part of the planning area (833 acres of BLM-administered surface) (Map 123). Rocky Ridge was

a landmark of a different sort for the emigrants. This area, approximately 19 miles west of Ice

Slough, was a spot where the emigrants were forced to leave the lowlands along the Sweetwater

River and cross a high, barren and rocky ridgeline north of the river. Many of the pioneers’ diaries

speak of the rough, jarring ride they endured and the difficulty of the steep climb over the ridge.

The area today still exhibits rust stains on the rocks from the iron-tire wheels of the early wagons.

The Rocky Ridge area is isolated and retains much of its historical and natural character.

After the 1870s, Rocky Ridge reverted to minimal use by ranchers, hunters, and trail enthusiasts.

However, in the 1990s, commemorative anniversary wagon trains increased the popularity of

the NHT and Rocky Ridge, and use began to increase. By 2000, use of Rocky Ridge (especially

by Mormon groups) had increased dramatically, and the site began to be adversely affected. By

2005, vehicle use over Rocky Ridge had been prohibited, and non-vehicular use was beginning to

be better managed to protect the historical character of Rocky Ridge. At present, use is being

carefully monitored, and the site might be starting to heal. Part of Rocky Ridge is within the

current NHT ACEC and part is not.

Rock Creek Hollow

Rock Creek Hollow is a historic site associated with the Mormon Pioneer NHT (94 acres of

BLM-administered surface) (Map 123). This site (formerly known as Willie’s Handcart Rescue

Site) was one of the locations where the Willie’s Handcart Company took shelter after being

rescued in the fall/winter of 1856. The hollow, located approximately 6 miles west of Gilespie

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Congressionally Designated Trails
506 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Place, lies in the narrow floodplain of Rock Creek near the spot where the Oregon Trail crosses

the creek.

Rock Creek Hollow commemorates the disaster to Willie’s Handcart Company in October and

November of 1856. The same storm that trapped Martin’s Handcart Company also overtook

Willie’s Handcart Company. The Willie’s Company, was overtaken by the storm and took shelter

in several different areas, including Rock Creek. More than 70 people from this company died

during the disaster, including several people at Rock Creek. The Mormon Church has developed

the private land at this site, but the BLM portion to the south is mostly untouched and appears

much as it did in the 1850s. Under the existing plan, mining activities within one-eighth of

a mile of Rock Creek Hollow are required to have a Plan of Operations, and part of the site

is within the NHT ACEC.

Gilespie Place

Gilespie Place is a historic site associated with the four NHTs and later mining and settlement

history of the area (240 acres of BLM-administered surface) (Map 123). This site is along the

Oregon/Mormon/California Trail, just east of the historical mining camp of Lewiston. Gilespie

Place consists of two standing structures, several foundations with wall remains, and a flowing

spring. The site, located along a major transportation route, was associated with several historical

events of Wyoming’s early territorial and state history.

The earliest historical use of the site probably occurred during the Oregon/Mormon Pioneer

Trail era, when early emigrants passed through the region in the 1840s. Although there are no

known emigrant-diary accounts of this site, the site’s spring (Radium Spring) was probably often

used as a convenient water source. In addition, there was probably some overnight emigrant

camping at the site.

Radium Spring probably continued to be used by travelers over the entire emigrant trail era. In

the 1880s, mineral exploration began in earnest in the Lewiston Mining District, which included

the Radium Spring area. Although no records are available, there was probably some small-scale

exploration in the local area.

Structures were built on the site after the turn of the 20th Century, but there is no record of exactly

when sites were constructed. Artifactual evidence points to pre-1920s dates of occupation for at

least some of the structures. This evidence corresponds to newspaper accounts of a Mrs. S. F.

Gilespie having settled on 160 acres in the immediate area sometime around 1910 (BLM 2009a).

Touted as “Wyoming’s Copper Queen,” Mrs. Gilespie seems to have been heavily involved in

mining ventures in the local area around Lewiston. During this period, the spring was claimed to

have radium in its waters and was advertised to have healthful properties.

Several structures in fair-to-good condition still exist at the site. Under the existing plan, mining

activities within one-eighth of a mile of Gilespie Place are required to have a Plan of Operations.

Current Management of the NHTs

Guidelines, Management Plans, and Other Current Management Specific to NHTs

Specific to the Oregon, Mormon Pioneer, California, and Pony Express Trails, the BLM Wyoming

Oregon/Mormon Pioneer National Historic Trails Management Plan (BLM 1986) states:

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Congressionally Designated Trails February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 507

Because of the Trails’ status as congressionally designated components of the

National Trails System, management decisions have been made that significant

segments of the Oregon and Mormon Pioneer Trails are to be protected. It is

incumbent on BLM managers to maintain the scenic/historic integrity of historic

sites and cross-country segments on the public, to avoid destruction of trail

resources, to mitigate unavoidable impacts, to accord the trails a priority status

in the land use planning process, and generally extend to the trails the type of

protection afforded to other nationally significant historic sites. (Oregon/Mormon

Pioneer National Historic Trails Management Plan: Part I, Bureau of Land

Management Responsibilities, Section 3).

All historic sites and cross-country segments of the trails on federal lands should

be managed to protect and interpret their historic values. (Oregon/Mormon

Pioneer National Historic Trails Management Plan: Part II, General Management

Objectives, Section 3).

New fencing projects will cross the trail corridor at right angles to minimize

the number of feet per miles of fence within the corridor. Gates, and in some

cases, cattleguards will be installed in the fence at trail crossings. Fragile or

pristine trail ruts will be avoided with fence crossings. (Oregon/Mormon Pioneer

National Historic Trails Management Plan: Part III, Oregon/Mormon Trail General

Management Policy, Fencing section).

The existing plan focuses on general methods of management that protect and maintain important

trail values while allowing public use and enjoyment of the NHTs. Important segments of the

trails and trail-related sites are recommended for special protection, interpretation, use, or other

management measures. The management decisions outlined in the Oregon/Mormon Pioneer

Trails Management Plan are consistent with the decisions in the RMP (BLM 1987b).

The NHTs are managed for cultural and recreational values. The NPS and the BLM have

designated the portions of the NHTs in the planning area as a High Potential Route Segment.

Under current management, a corridor one-quarter mile on each side of the NHTs has an NSO

restriction for leasable minerals, locatable mineral exploration (occasional withdrawals and

plans of operations requirements), utility systems (avoided), wind development and other ROWs

(avoided), and motorized travel use (limited and closed at Rocky Ridge).

National Historic Trails ACEC

The current NHTs ACEC consists of approximately 27,728 acres of BLM‐administered surface

along the Oregon, Mormon Pioneer, California, and Pony Express NHTs, all of which follow

essentially the same east‐west route through southwestern Natrona County and southern Fremont

County (Map 130). This trails corridor follows the Sweetwater River for most of its length.

Resources that met the ACEC importance and relevance criteria in the 1987 RMP included

cultural and scenic values. Those resources continue to meet the criteria for this RMP revision.

The ACEC includes several other significant historical sites (e.g., Independence Rock, Devil’s

Gate, Martin’s Cove, Split Rock, Ice Slough, Sixth Crossing, Rocky Ridge, and Burnt Ranch)

that are associated with the NHTs. One‐quarter mile on either side of the trails is designated as

VRM Classes I or II.

Proposed Expansion

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Congressionally Designated Trails
508 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

The proposed expansion of the NHTs ACEC is on either side of the existing ACEC and would

expand the ACEC to 468,183 acres of BLM‐administered surface. As with the existing ACEC,

the proposed expansion area contains scenic values and historic resources. This expansion is

proposed to address visual sensitivity within 5 miles of the trail (or the foreground/middleground

zone). Public interest and visual sensitivity in the viewshed along these trails in the area

encompassed by this proposed expansion has increased since publication of the existing plan.

Management challenges for the existing ACEC also apply to the expansion.

Refer to Chapter 2 of this document for detailed management prescriptions for the NHTs (Special

Designations – Congressionally Designated Trails).

National Register of Historic Places and National Historic Landmark

Specific sites along the NHTs require special management. One site along the NHTs is part of a

National Historic Landmark (NHL) (Devil’s Gate), two sites are listed on the NRHP (Martin’s

Cove and Split Rock), and four are eligible for listing on the NRHP (Ice Slough, Rocky Ridge,

Rock Creek Hollow and Gilespie Place).

Devil’s Gate

Devils Gate is part of the Tom Sun NHL and is managed for cultural and recreational values. The

NPS and the BLM have designated this site as a High Potential Historic Site. The site has an NSO

restriction for leasable minerals; is withdrawn from locatable mineral entry; avoided for utility

systems, wind development, and other ROWs; and open to limited motorized travel. Devil’s Gate

is only partly within the current NHT ACEC, but is within the area nominated to become part of

an expanded NHT ACEC. The condition trend for Devil’s Gate is stable; surprisingly, heavy use

at nearby Martin’s Cove has not caused an increase in impacts to Devil’s Gate.

Martin’s Cove

Martins Cove is listed on the NRHP and is managed for cultural and recreational values. The

NPS and the BLM have designated this site as a High Potential Historic Site. The BLM and the

Mormon Church jointly manage Martin’s Cove. The site has an NSO restriction for leasable

minerals; is withdrawn from locatable minerals; avoided for utility systems, wind development,

and other ROWs; is fenced from grazing; and is open to limited motorized travel. Martin’s Cove is

not part of an ACEC, but is within the area nominated to become part of an expanded NHT ACEC.

The condition trend for Martin’s Cove was down, but has now stabilized. Martin’s Cove is one of

several sites associated with the NHTs where heavy use has caused measurable damage. Intensive

management has stopped the downward trend, with improvement of previous damage occurring.

Split Rock

Split Rock is listed on the NRHP and is managed for cultural and recreational values. The

NPS has designated this site as a High Potential Historic Site. The site has an NSO restriction

for leasable mineral; is withdrawn from locatable minerals; avoided for utility systems, wind

development, and other ROWs; and is closed or open to limited motorized travel. Split Rock is

only partly within the current NHT ACEC, but is within the area nominated to become part of

an expanded NHT ACEC. The condition trend for Split Rock is stable because it is not easy to

access and does not receive heavy use.

Ice Slough

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Congressionally Designated Trails February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 509

Ice Slough is eligible for listing on the NRHP and is managed for cultural, recreational, and

grazing values. The NPS and the BLM have designated this site as a High Potential Historic Site.

The site has an NSO restriction for leasable minerals; requires a Plan of Operations for locatable

mineral entry; is avoided for utility systems, wind development, and other ROWs; and closed or

open to limited motorized travel. Ice Slough is only partly within the current NHT ACEC, but

is within the proposed NHT expansion ACEC. The condition trend for Ice Slough was down,

but has now stabilized. A riparian-wetland fence was built several years ago to relieve grazing

pressure on the Slough, and this has markedly improved the site’s condition.

Rocky Ridge

Rocky Ridge is eligible for listing on the NRHP and is managed for cultural and recreational

values. The NPS and the BLM have designated this site as a High Potential Historic Site.

The site has an NSO restriction for leasable minerals; is withdrawn from locatable mineral

exploration; avoided for utility systems, wind development, and other ROWs; and is open to

limited motorized travel. Rocky Ridge is only partly within the current NHT ACEC, but is within

the area nominated to become part of an expanded NHT ACEC. The condition trend for Rocky

Ridge was down, but has now stabilized. Rocky Ridge is one of several sites associated with the

NHTs where heavy use has caused measurable damage. Intensive management has stopped the

downward trend, with some healing of earlier damage being observed.

Rock Creek Hollow

Rock Creek Hollow is eligible for listing on the NRHP and is managed for cultural and

recreational values. The site has an NSO restriction for oil and gas leasing; is withdrawn for

locatable mineral exploration; avoided for utility systems, wind development, and other ROWs;

and is open to limited motorized travel. Rock Creek Hollow is only partly within the current NHT

ACEC, but is within the area nominated to become part of an expanded NHT ACEC.

The condition trend for Rock Creek Hollow is down, mostly due to over-development. Rock

Creek Hollow is one of several sites associated with the NHT where excessive development and

use has caused measurable damage. However, the BLM-administered portion of the site remains

in stable to only slightly down condition due to restrictions on its use.

Gilespie Place

This site is eligible for listing on the NRHP and is managed for cultural and recreational values.

The site has an NSO restriction for oil and gas development; is withdrawn for locatable mineral

exploration; avoided for utility systems, wind development, and other ROWs; and is open to

limited motorized travel and grazing use. Gilespie Place is only partly within the current ACEC,

but is within the area nominated to become part of an expanded NHT ACEC. The condition trend

for Gilespie Place was down; however, stabilization of the standing structures at the site has

stopped the downward trend.

Oregon Trail Withdrawals

There are several existing Oregon Trail withdrawals along the NHTs that were approved in

the 1970s when the Oregon Trail was established as a NHT. These mineral withdrawal areas

were chosen because they included emigrant inscriptions and campsites, or were the locations

of NHT related historical events. They comprise three separate parcels that cover 315 acres

of BLM-administered surface. They were carried forward in the existing plan and are still

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Congressionally Designated Trails
510 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

applicable. These withdrawals are managed for cultural and recreational values. The sites have an

NSO restriction for oil and gas development; are avoided for utility systems, wind development,

and other ROWs; and are open to limited motorized travel. The Oregon Trail withdrawals are

only partly within the current NHT ACEC, but are within the area nominated to become part of

an expanded NHT ACEC.

The condition of the NHTs in the withdrawal areas varies from stable to deteriorating, depending

on the location. The portion of the NHTs between 6th Crossing (of the Sweetwater River)

and Rock Creek Hollow has experienced heavy use and measurable damage. More intensive

management on the part of the BLM has slowed the downward trend, with some healing of

earlier damage being observed.

Management Challenges for National Historic Trails

As with other nonrenewable resources, balancing the BLM’s commitment to multiple-use with

the preservation needs of NHTs presents a management challenge. Pressures on NHTs would

likely increase from continued development. Indirect and cumulative effects degrade the trails’

historic and natural landscape.

Issues related to preservation of the viewshed are particularly complicated due to wind-energy

development, potential location of transmission lines, and other development. The setting

is an essential component in determining whether a particular trail segment contributes to the

trail’s overall significance and in maintaining the historic setting that is critical to providing a

quality experience for visitors. The Visual Resources section of this chapter provides additional

information regarding visual resources along NHTs.

The demand for consumptive use of NHT resources through tourism is relatively high in the

planning area and is anticipated to increase over time, reflecting an increasing interest in history

and heritage tourism. However, due to the growing interest in the trails, impacts to NHT resources

would have to be managed to avoid adverse effects to them. Visitor use of the NHTs is an

indicator of public interest in and regard for these traces of the westward emigration, a highly

significant trend in our nation’s history. Lower visitation might therefore benefit the physical

resources, but would imply that the public does not place much value in them. Therefore,

visitation should not be discouraged, but managed so as to minimize physical impacts while

encouraging visitor use and appreciation of the resource.

In addition to programmed uses in the planning context, collecting, looting, and vandalism of

NHT historic sites are forecast to continue to be a problem in the planning area. Some of these

unlawful activities are attributable to new types of motorized and nonmotorized vehicles, which

have increased the utilization of more remote parts of the NHTs. This factor has also increased the

potential for degradation in remote NHT segments and sites due to human-caused activities and

impacts. This type of impact is difficult to quantify, but certain types of sites, especially historic

station locations and structures, would continue to suffer damage from these kinds of activities.

3.7.2. Wilderness Study Areas

The Wilderness Act of 1964 established a national system of lands designed to preserve a

representative sample of ecosystems in a natural condition for the benefit of future generations.

With the passage of FLPMA in 1976, Congress directed the BLM to inventory, study, and

recommend which public lands under its administration should be designated as wilderness.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Wilderness Study Areas February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 511

Areas identified under this direction are WSAs. To be designated as wilderness, an area must

have the following characteristics:

● Size: roadless areas of at least 5,000 acres of public lands or of a manageable size

● Naturalness: generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature

● Opportunities: provides outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined

types of recreation

There are no Congressionally designated wilderness areas in the planning area; however,

there are eight WSAs (see Table 3.59, “Current WSA Acreage in the Planning Area and

BLM-Recommended Acreage for Wilderness Areas” (p. 511) and Map 128). The BLM’s

authority to establish new WSAs expired on October 21, 1993 (BLM 2003). With the increase

in demand for consumptive and non-consumptive resources, and with increased housing and

subdivision development near natural and primitive areas, the WSAs preserve unique ecosystem

niches that can support desired outcomes.

The BLM is required by Congress to manage WSAs to preserve the wilderness characteristics

under the non-impairment standard until Congress designates the lands under wilderness

review as wilderness, or releases the lands to uses other than wilderness (BLM Manual 6330,

Management of Wilderness Study Areas). The BLM performs inventories of these areas and

makes recommendations regarding the areas and acreage that it recommends for designation as

wilderness. These recommendations are based on factors such as the manageability of the area,

how well it meets the characteristic of wilderness, conflicts or potential for conflicts with other

users and uses, and other relevant factors. Table 3.59, “Current WSA Acreage in the Planning

Area and BLM-Recommended Acreage for Wilderness Areas” (p. 511) shows the current acreage

for WSAs in the planning area and the BLM’s recommendations for the number of acres that

should be designated as wilderness.

Table 3.59. Current WSA Acreage in the Planning Area and BLM-Recommended Acreage

for Wilderness Areas

Area Managed as Wilderness Wilderness Study Areas

(BLM-administered surface acres)

Recommended for Wilderness

(BLM-administered surface acres)

Whiskey Mountain 519 0

Dubois Badlands 4,561 0

Sweetwater Canyon 9,135 5,538

Lankin Dome 6,347 0

Split Rock 13,964 0

Savage Peak 7,178 0

Miller Springs 6,697 0

Copper Mountain 6,936 0

Total 55,337 5,538

Source: BLM 1991

BLM Bureau of Land Management

WSA Wilderness Study Area

An important distinction between WSAs and Wilderness areas lies in the fact that WSAs are

areas that have been found to possess wilderness characteristics. The Wyoming BLM made

recommendations to Congress (1991) in regards to which areas met the criteria to be managed

as Wilderness. To date, no WSAs managed by the BLM in Wyoming have been designated or

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Wilderness Study Areas
512 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

released from the wilderness system by Congress. For a WSA to become Wilderness, Congress

must so designate those lands; until Congress acts on these areas BLM is obligated to manage

these lands so as not to impair Congress’s ability to designate the area as Wilderness. All WSAs

are managed in accordance with BLM Manual 6330, Management of Wilderness Study Areas,

which replaces the Interim Management Policy for Lands Under Wilderness Review (H-8550-1).

Whiskey Mountain WSA (WY-030-110)

The Whiskey Mountain WSA includes 519 acres of BLM-administered surface approximately 5

miles south of Dubois bordering the USFS Fitzpatrick Wilderness Area (Map 128). The Whiskey

Mountain WSA is bounded by the Ross Lake trail on the east, the Fitzpatrick Wilderness Area

on the south and west, and private lands to the north. The WSA is on the northern slope of

Whiskey Mountain in the Wind River Mountains. In 1931, a fire burned a large portion of the

Wind River Mountains, including the WSA, and the area is currently not distinguishable from

the surrounding areas. The terrain is rough and mountainous, and the dominant vegetation is

limber pine and Douglas-fir, interspersed with burnt snags. The area possesses scenic qualities

and provides opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation. The area is used for a variety

of recreational activities. Primary factors that attract visitors are the areas’ topography, scenic

vistas, and wildlife resources.

Dubois Badlands WSA (WY-030-109)

The Dubois Badlands WSA contains 4,561 acres of BLM-administered surface just north of the

Wind River and 2 miles east of the town of Dubois (Map 128). The WSA is approximately 4

miles long and between 1 and 2 miles wide. The area can be seen by motorists on U.S. Highway

287 south of Dubois. The WSA’s topography consists of badlands and flat-topped hills that

are extensively eroded and separated by drainage patterns. The red and tan sedimentary rock

bandings in the WSA are particularly noticeable when the vegetation along the Wind River is a

contrasting green. The total relief above the Wind River is approximately 400 feet, with notable

topographic features, including eroded pinnacles and spires.

Sweetwater Canyon WSA (WY-030-101)

The Sweetwater Canyon WSA contains 9,135 acres of BLM-administered surface in Fremont

County, approximately 15 miles east of South Pass City (Map 128). The boundary of the WSA is

defined by roads and state and private lands, but does not include private or state in-holdings.

The two basic types of topography in the WSA are the Sweetwater Canyon and its tributary draws

and the rolling hills that surround the canyon. Sweetwater Canyon is a water-carved gorge almost

500 feet deep and between 6 and 7 miles long. The walls are almost vertical in places along

the canyon. There are bare rock outcrops throughout the canyon interspersed with a variety of

vegetation, including sagebrush, grasses, other shrubs, and pockets of aspen and willow. The

topography and vegetative features of the canyon contrast strongly with the surrounding hills.

In addition to topography, the river that runs through Sweetwater Canyon offers high-quality

brown and rainbow trout fishing. The WGFD has classified this waterway a trout water of regional

importance. Recreational visitors from Wyoming and nearby states fish and float the waterway.

The primary management challenge for the WSA is conflict with livestock grazing, which is

currently allowed in the Sweetwater Canyon WSA, and recreational uses of the area. The BLM

fenced the canyon in the mid-1990s and local grazing permittees agreed to suspend grazing for

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Wilderness Study Areas February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 513

five years following this action. This management change has resulted in an overall trend of

improved range condition and improved recreation experiences. However, since the reinstitution

of grazing, the BLM has received input from recreationists indicating that their wilderness

experience was affected by livestock grazing. Visitors have reported encountering livestock

in or near dispersed camps, in riparian-wetland areas, and in meadows, and manure in camp

sites, livestock tracks in riparian-wetland areas, and odors (BLM 2009a). Research supports the

position that livestock grazing can detract from wilderness experiences (Johnson et al. 1997)

and indicates that certain groups of recreationists, such as fishermen, are more sensitive to the

presence of livestock (Sanderson et al. 1986).

Lankin Dome WSA (WY-030-120)

The Lankin Dome WSA contains 6,347 acres of BLM-administered surface in the eastern portion

of the planning area (Map 128). Elevations in the area range from approximately 6,200 feet at

the western boundary road to 7,700 feet on Lankin Dome. The primary topographic features of

the WSA are uplifted mountains of reddish granite rocks, slabs, and exfoliating domes, and the

flats of Noel Pocket. Vegetation cover varies between the two different topographic forms. The

mountainous rocky topography supports little vegetation except along drainages where pockets of

limber pine, juniper, aspen, and sagebrush can be found. These green vegetation pockets contrast

with the reddish granite rocks and add visual interest.

The primary management challenge for the Lankin Dome WSA is recreational access. The BLM

has received comments on the recreational value of the Sweetwater Rocks and Granite Mountains

within the WSA, and on the need for better access throughout the Granite Mountains area. Any

action to improve public access in the areas surrounding the WSAs would need to be developed

to ensure any increase in visitation did not conflict with BLM Manual 6330, Management of

Wilderness Study Areas and travel management designations for the WSA. Inadvertent trespass

by public lands users is also an issue of concern in this area due to adjacent private land.

Split Rock WSA (WY-030-122)

The Split Rock WSA contains 13,964 acres of BLM-administered surface (Map 128). The WSA

is part of the Granite Mountain Uplift, a large east-west uplift that separates the greater Green

River Basin from the Wind River Basin. The area is composed of reddish eroding granite

divided by numerous small drainages or pockets. Many of the granite uplifts form large slabs,

domes, piles of broken rocks, and slope exceeding 100 percent in places. Elevations range from

approximately 6,200 feet in Beaton Pocket to above 8,500 feet on McIntosh Peak. The total

relief in the WSA is approximately 1,800 feet.

In addition to scenic resources created by the areas’ topography, the WSA contains cultural

and recreation resources. Historic features in the area include Miller Cabin, archeological sites

containing arrowhead and thumb scraper chippings, and a buffalo jump used by prehistoric

hunters. Within the drainage, small wooded patches allow visitors to experience solitude near

the access points to the WSA. The contrast between the green vegetation in these drainages

and the red granite rocks adds visual interest.

Savage Peak WSA (WY-030-123a)

The Savage Peak WSA contains 7,178 acres of BLM-administered surface near Savage Peak

(Map 128). Most of the WSA consists of rugged and mountainous terrain with large vertical

relief. Large expanses of bare granite are not found elsewhere in central Wyoming, and these

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Wilderness Study Areas
514 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

rocks form a scenic backdrop for the Sweetwater River Valley. Bare rock predominates and

vegetation is generally sparse, except in small stands of Douglas-fir, limber pine, aspen, and

cottonwood along drainages. Outside of the drainages, scattered juniper trees are the primary

vegetation in rocky areas. Steeply rising slopes surround large areas of open grass and sagebrush

on the western portion of the WSA.

Miller Springs WSA (WY-030-123b)

The Miller Springs WSA contains 6,697 acres of BLM-administered surface (Map 128).

The WSA is part of the Sweetwater Rocks complex, and is characterized almost entirely by

rough, broken granite domes and outcrops. Parts of the unit resemble piles of monolithic rock.

Vegetation in the area is composed of juniper and scattered limber pine along the rocky slopes,

and aspen along the base of the rocks. The remaining area is composed of sagebrush flats, which

make up between 10 and 15 percent of the WSA.

Copper Mountain WSA (WY-030-111)

The Copper Mountain WSA contains 6,936 acres of BLM-administered surface in Fremont

County approximately 10 miles north of Shoshoni and east of the Boysen Dam at the upper end of

the Wind River Canyon (Map 128). Steep canyons and rocky slopes dominate the area. Rugged

mountains in the WSA rise from between 5,000 feet and 6,400 feet. Total relief in the unit is

1,400 feet. Scenic vistas from the WSA include the Wind River Basin and Boysen Reservoir

south and west of the WSA, and the Wind River Mountains and Beaver Rim.

Management Challenges for Wilderness Study Areas

Overall management of WSAs is in compliance with BLM Manual 6330, Management of

Wilderness Study Areas, and the Lander Field Office has no documented violations on file. BLM

WSA management guidance under BLM Manual 6330, Management of Wilderness Study Areas

and previously under the Interim Management Policy for Lands Under Wilderness Review

(H-8550-1) has been adequate to protect the wilderness characteristics in the WSAs. Continuing

challenges to WSA management include motorized vehicle management and the enhancement of

wilderness experience for visitors to these areas. Motorized vehicle management limitations apply

to all WSAs and are directed by BLM Manual 6330, Management of Wilderness Study Areas and

the BLM Land Use Planning Handbook (H-1610-1). The Land Use Planning Handbook states

that travel management designation for WSAs must be at least limited to roads and trails in

existence at the time of WSA designation, with open areas only appropriate for sand dunes and

over-the-snow travel. Refer to the Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management section of this

document for additional information on travel management designations.

The BLM separately manages lands found to contain wilderness characteristics that were

identified after the BLM’s authority to establish WSAs expired. The discussion of these areas is

found in the Lands with Wilderness Characteristics section of this chapter.

3.7.3. Wild and Scenic Rivers

The National Wild and Scenic River System (NWSRS) is a system of nationally designated

rivers preserved in a free-flowing condition; their immediate environments are recognized for

outstanding scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural, and other similar

values. The system consists of three types of rivers:

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Wild and Scenic Rivers February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 515

1. Recreation – rivers or sections of rivers that are readily accessible by road or railroad,

that might have some development along their shorelines, and that might have undergone

some impoundments or diversion in the past.

2. Scenic – rivers or sections of rivers free of impoundments with shorelines or watersheds

still largely undeveloped, but accessible in places by roads.

3. Wild – rivers or sections of rivers free of impoundments and generally inaccessible, except

by trails, with essentially primitive watersheds or shorelines, and unpolluted waters.

The BLM is responsible for evaluating all rivers on BLM-administered land to determine

if they are appropriate for addition to the NWSRS. The BLM also makes, as appropriate,

recommendations for legislative actions to accomplish such additions. Congress ultimately

decides whether to include a waterway segment in the NWSRS.

In accordance with the Wild and Scenic Rivers Manual (8351), the BLM evaluates identified river

segments for their eligibility and suitability for WSR river designation through its RMP process.

BLM shall afford protective management to all eligible river segments as necessary to ensure

that the existing qualities upon which their eligibility is based are not degraded. All eligible river

segments are tentatively classified and management measures instituted as necessary to ensure

appropriate protection of the values supporting the eligibility and classification determination.

Actual classification is a Congressional legislative determination; BLM’s classification is a

planning determination and is only tentative prior to congressional action. Each eligible river

segment is further evaluated in the RMP process to asses whether or not it would be suitable for

inclusion in the NWSRS. The planning determination of suitability provides the basis for any

decision to recommend legislation. The Wild and Scenic River review (BLM 2002a) will be

reviewed and revisited through this Land Use Planning process. At the conclusion of this land use

planning process the BLM (through public involvement) will make final: tentative classification

for eligible waterways, develop interim management prescriptions for these waterways, and

conclude with determinations of suitability.

At present, there are no Congressionally designated WSRs in the planning area; however, nine

waterways have been found to meet the eligibility criteria for WSR designation, and two of

these waterways have been preliminary determined to meet suitability factors. The Lander

Field Office Review of Potential Wild and Scenic Rivers in the Lander Planning Area (BLM

2002a) documents these findings. The BLM is seeking public comment on the Wild and Scenic

River Report (BLM 2002a). Comments received during this RMP Revision will be incorporated

into the Final Wild and Scenic River Report. Recommendations to Congress for inclusion of

BLM-administered land and waterways in the NWSRS will consider public comments.

Step I – Eligibility Criteria

The Lander Field Office reviewed a total of 157 waterways in the planning area for eligibility

as part of its 2002 WSR review (BLM 2002a). The Lander Field Office Review of Potential

Wild and Scenic Rivers in the Lander RMP Planning Area contains detailed descriptions of

the waterway identification and review processes. To begin these reviews, the BLM identified

natural waterways (including both perennial and non-perennial rivers and streams) in the

planning area based on a broad definition of free-flowing that included all waterways on

BLM-administered land. Following this initial inventory, the BLM Interdisciplinary Team

members reviewed the waterways to determine if they met eligibility criteria of containing at least

one of the outstandingly remarkable values described in BLM Manual 8351. These outstandingly

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Wild and Scenic Rivers
516 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

remarkable values include scenic, recreational, geologic, fish, wildlife, cultural, historic, and other

similar values (e.g., ecologic/biologic diversity, paleontologic, or botanic values). Of the 157

waterways reviewed, 148 were found not to possess outstandingly remarkable values. These 148

waterways were subsequently dismissed from further consideration.

Nine waterways were determined to meet the WSR eligibility criteria. Two of these nine

waterway review segments include a main waterway segment and one or more tributaries that

have been grouped together for review as “waterway units.” The BLM gave all eligible waterway

segments a tentative classification of either wild, scenic, or recreational. The BLM determined

tentative classifications based on the degree of development along the waterway and on adjacent

lands at the time of the evaluation. Table 3.60, “Characteristics for Wild and Scenic River-Eligible

Waterways in the Planning Area” (p. 516) lists these nine waterways and waterway units, their

total lengths, their outstandingly remarkable values, and their tentative classifications (segments

found suitable for listing are identified on Map 129).

On review of the original inventory in preparation for the RMP revision, the Lander Field Office

initially identified a few reaches of the Upper Willow Creek area in the Sweetwater drainage as

potentially having been not reviewed. Subsequent evaluation determined that these reaches

had been properly reviewed.

Table 3.60. Characteristics for Wild and Scenic River-Eligible Waterways in the Planning

Area

Waterway Reviewed

Segment and Length

(miles)

Free Flowing

Outstandingly

Remarkable Values

on Public Lands

Tentative

Classification

Baldwin Creek

(includes Upper

Baldwin Creek

and Lower Baldwin

Creek)

8.1 Yes

Scenic, Recreational,

Wildlife

Wild/Scenic

Ice Slough 1.6 Yes Historical Wild

Little Popo Agie River

1.5 Yes

Scenic, Recreational,

Cultural

Wild

North Popo Agie

River

0.7 Yes

Scenic, Recreational,

Cultural

Wild

Rock Creek 4.0 Yes Historical Scenic

Sweetwater River

(includes Granite,

Mormon, Strawberry,

and Willow Creeks)

12.9 Yes

Scenic, Recreational,

Historical, Other -

Ecological

Wild

Warm Springs Creek 1.3 Yes Geological, Historical Recreational/Scenic

Willow Creek

1.3 Yes

Recreational,

Historical

Scenic

Wind River 0.5 Yes Scenic, Geological Scenic

Source: BLM 2002a

Step II – Suitability Factors

All waterway segments that met the eligibility criteria were reviewed to determine if they were

also suitable for inclusion in the NWSRS. The Wild and Scenic River Act and BLM Manual 8351

list a number of factors that should be considered when assessing the suitability of waterways for

inclusion in the NWSRS. Of the nine eligible waterway segments and waterway units, two were

also found to be suitable for designation: the Baldwin Creek and the Sweetwater River segments.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Wild and Scenic Rivers February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 517

Several factors caused eligible waterways to be recommended as not suitable for inclusion in

the NWSRS. These factors included management conflicts and/or challenges due to adjacent

non-BLM-administered land, use conflicts on private and/or public lands in the waterway corridor

that could be incompatible with inclusion in the NWSRS, the effectiveness of current non-WSR

management in protecting the identified outstandingly remarkable values, and determinations that

the segments were not worthy of WSR designation. Refer to the Lander Field Office Review of

Potential Wild and Scenic Rivers in the Lander RMP Planning Area (BLM 2002a) for additional

detail on the suitability determinations. The BLM evaluated the constraints that lead to the

determination that the Warm Springs Creek did not meet the “suitable” criteria. A withdrawal

for power that appeared to conflict with WSR suitability is now considered non-determinative

of suitability. Instead the BLM has found that to provide for seamless management with the

Shoshone National Forest, segment 1 of the Warm Springs Unit will be recommended as suitable.

The BLM will pursue removal of the Power Withdrawal that exists on this parcel.

The interim management prescriptions are designed to protect or enhance the identified

outstandingly remarkable values and maintain the tentative classifications assigned to these

waterways. The BLM has determined that the management associated with these existing special

designations is sufficient to protect these waterways; therefore, the BLM has developed no

additional interim management prescriptions. Chapter 2 of this document identifies the current

management of these waterways.

3.7.4. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

An ACEC is defined in FLPMA, Section 103(a) as an area within public lands where special

management attention is required to protect and prevent irreparable damage to important historic,

cultural, and scenic values, fish and wildlife, and other natural systems or processes. ACECs are

also designated to protect life and ensure safety from natural hazards. Designation of ACECs

during revisions of land use plans is mandatory under FLPMA: “In the development and revision

of land use plans, the Secretary shall ... give priority to the designation and protection of

areas of critical environmental concern ...” FLPMA, Section 202(c)(3). BLM regulations for

implementing the ACEC provisions of FLPMA are found at 43 CFR 1610.7-2(b).

As per 3809.11(c), an ACEC designation carries the following management prescription: a

3809-Plan of Operations is required for operations causing surface disturbance greater than casual

use. Without ACEC designation, a Plan of Operations is required only for locatable mineral

mining activities, exploration causing more than 5 acres of disturbance, and bulk sampling of

1,000 tons or more. All other management prescriptions are developed on a site-specific basis,

depending on the resources to be protected and the identified threats to those resources.

The Lander Field Office currently manages nine ACECs in the planning area (Map 130):

● Lander Slope

● Red Canyon

● Dubois Badlands

● Whiskey Mountain

● East Fork

● Beaver Rim

● Green Mountain

● South Pass Historic Mining District

● National Historic Trails

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern
518 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

In addition to these existing ACECs, the BLM received a number of recommendations for

expanding existing ACECs and for new ACECs through public and internal scoping processes.

The BLM reviewed all such recommendations to determine if they met the importance and

relevance criteria required for consideration as an ACEC. Of the nominations received, four new

proposed ACECs met the criteria, as did expansion areas adjacent to five existing ACECs.

Table 3.61, “Existing and Proposed ACECs in the Planning Area” (p. 518) lists the existing

and proposed ACECs, their acreage, and the value(s) of concern that justify their consideration

as ACECs.

Table 3.61. Existing and Proposed ACECs in the Planning Area

Acreage (BLM-administered surface)

Area

Existing Proposed

Value(s) of Concern

Existing ACECs (no expansion proposed)

Lander Slope 25,065 N/A Fish and wildlife, scenic

values, natural processes

Red Canyon 15,109 N/A Wildlife, special status

species, scenic values,

geologic features

Dubois Badlands 4,903 N/A Wildlife, soils, scenic

values

Whiskey Mountain 8,776 N/A Wildlife, scenic values

Existing ACECs (and proposed expansion)

East Fork 4,431 7,744 Wildlife

Beaver Rim 6,421 20,532 Fish and wildlife, plant

communities, scenic

values, geologic features,

paleontological

Green Mountain 14,612 24,860 Wildlife, plant communities

South Pass Historic Mining

Area

12,576 23,439 Hazards, cultural

South Pass Historical

Landscape 1

N/A 124,229 Hazards, cultural

National Historic Trails 27,728 468,183 Scenic values, cultural

Proposed ACECs

Continental Divide National

Scenic Trail

N/A 259,380 Scenic

Cedar Ridge N/A 7,039 Cultural

Castle Gardens N/A 8,469 Cultural

Sweetwater Rocks N/A 152,347 Scenic values, geologic

features, cultural

Regional Historic Trails and

Early Highways

N/A 89,016 Cultural

Government Draw/Upper

Sweetwater Sage-Grouse

N/A 1,246,791 Wildlife

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 519

Acreage (BLM-administered surface)

Area

Existing Proposed

Value(s) of Concern

Twin Creek2 N/A 35,102 Wildlife

Source: BLM 2010e

1 The proposed South Pass Historical Landscape ACEC is designated under

Alternative D. The existing South Pass Historic Mining Area ACEC is contained

within the boundaries of the proposed South Pass Historical Landscape ACEC.

2 The proposed Twin Creek ACEC is designated under Alternative D and is contained within the area proposed as

the Government Draw/Upper Sweetwater Sage-Grouse ACEC under Alternative B.

ACEC Area of Critical Environmental Concern

BLM Bureau of Land Management

N/A Not Applicable

3.7.4.1. Existing ACECs

This section describes the existing ACECs in the planning area (Map 130). Chapter 2 of this

document provides specific management prescriptions for existing ACECs.

Lander Slope

The Lander Slope ACEC consists of 25,065 acres of BLM-administered surface of high-elevation

slopes and drainages south and west of Lander (Map 130). Most of the area consists of

high-elevation slopes and drainages covered by mountain shrub communities, with smaller areas

of forest and wet meadow communities. Resources that met the ACEC importance and relevance

criteria in the 1987 RMP were fish and wildlife, scenic values, and natural processes. Those

resources continue to meet the criteria for this RMP revision. The ACEC provides crucial winter

range for elk and mule deer, and supports a large percentage of the South Wind River elk herd.

This elk herd provides hunting opportunities for both resident and nonresident hunters and

revenue to local economies. Several of the steep canyons provide habitat for bighorn sheep and

peregrine falcons, a BLM sensitive species. The Lander Slope is visible from Lander and Sinks

Canyon State Park and its prominence from these vantage points makes it a visually sensitive

area. The ACEC is also an important component of the watershed that supplies water to Lander;

a potential for flooding in Lander from the Popo Agie River makes watershed management in

this area important.

Management challenges for this area include development pressure and impacts from

surface-disturbing activities. The area is important winter wildlife habitat and contains scenic

vistas susceptible to the impacts of development, mining, ROWs, habitat fragmentation,

motorized vehicle use, and the expansion of existing invasive plant species infestations. In

addition, the ACEC has WUI issues related to fire and fuels management and steep slopes

sensitive to erosion. At present, the BLM manages the area as VRM Classes II and III; mineral

and realty actions in the ACEC are open with major constraints, and travel is limited to designated

roads and trails with seasonal limitations.

Red Canyon

The Red Canyon ACEC consists of 15,109 acres of BLM-administered surface of high-elevation

slopes and drainage in the foothills of the Wind River Mountains south and west of Lander (Map

130). Resources that met the ACEC importance and relevance criteria in the 1987 RMP were

wildlife, special status species, scenic values, and geologic features. Those resources continue to

meet the criteria for this RMP revision. The ACEC, which is part of the WGFD Red Canyon

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern
520 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Habitat Management Unit, contains crucial winter range for elk and mule deer and supports a

large percentage of the South Wind River elk herd. This elk herd provides hunting opportunities

for both resident and nonresident hunters and revenue to the local economy. There are five

sensitive plant species known to occur in the area (Barneby’s clover, Beaver Rim phlox, Fremont

bladderpod, Rocky Mountain twinpod, and persistent sepal yellowcress), of which one species is

only known to occur in this area (Barneby’s clover).

Red Canyon has the highest visual sensitivity of any landscape in the planning area and is a

draw for visitors, artists, and photographers. The geology of the ACEC provides an example of

differential erosion of sedimentary layers, with the harder layers of sandstone and limestone

forming cliffs and benches and the easily eroded shales and siltstones forming valleys and

gulches. Color variation between the rock layers allows non-geologists a chance to understand the

stratigraphy and structure of the canyon. The southern portion of the Red Canyon ACEC was

designated a NNL in recognition of these geologic values.

Management challenges for this area include development pressure and impacts from

surface-disturbing activities (e.g., phosphate mining), motorized vehicle use, and invasive plant

species. The area contains nationally recognized visual resources and important wildlife habitat

(corridors and crucial winter range) threatened by visual intrusions from development and habitat

fragmentation. Much of the private land adjoining the ACEC has been subdivided, increasing

pressure on these public lands to meet wildlife needs. The expansion of existing invasive plant

infestations in the area could affect sensitive plant species, potentially leading to ESA listing.

The ACEC also has steep slopes sensitive to erosion. At present, the BLM manages the area as

VRM Classes I and II; mineral and realty actions in the ACEC are open with major constraints

(except the NNL and crucial winter range, which are closed to phosphate leasing); and travel is

limited to designated roads and trails with seasonal limitations.

Dubois Badlands

The Dubois Badlands ACEC consists of 4,903 acres of BLM-administered surface at the

northwest corner of the planning area bordering the WRIR along the north bank of the Wind

River to 2 miles west of Dubois (Map 130). The area consists of badlands characterized by

extensive erosion patterns and colorful soil banding. Resources that met the ACEC importance

and relevance criteria in the 1987 RMP were wildlife, soils, and scenic values. Those resources

continue to meet the criteria for this RMP revision. The area provides year-round habitat for a

resident herd of bighorn sheep and hunting opportunities. The Dubois Badlands are highly visible

from the town of Dubois and along an important travel route to Yellowstone and Grand Teton

National Parks. The badland soils (variegated claystones, silt stones, and sandstones from the

Wind River and Indian Meadows Formations) in the ACEC are highly erosive and scenic due to

their red, gray, and purple banding.

Management challenges for this area include impacts of motorized vehicle use on soil, and

bighorn sheep. Additionally, due to its location, any activity that would change the characteristic

landscape of this area would be highly visible and could affect scenic values. At present, the BLM

manages the area as VRM Classes I and II; mineral and realty actions in the ACEC are open with

major constraints; and travel is limited to designated roads and trails with seasonal limitations.

Whiskey Mountain

The Whiskey Mountain ACEC consists of 8,776 acres of BLM-administered surface on Whiskey

Mountain south and southeast of Dubois (Map 130). The ACEC contains high-elevation,

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 521

wind-swept slopes and rocky cliffs. Resources that met the ACEC importance and relevance

criteria in the 1987 RMP were wildlife and scenic values. Those resources continue to meet the

criteria for this RMP revision. The area provides crucial winter range for the Whiskey Mountain

bighorn sheep herd (managed as the WGFD Whiskey Mountain Wildlife Habitat Management

Unit), one of the largest and most visible herds in North America. The area has been the site of

active land acquisition by the BLM and a conservation easement by The Nature Conservancy

to protect this herd.

The Whiskey Mountain ACEC is an economic driver for Dubois, making it not just a gateway

to Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks but also a tourism destination. In the period

following the initial ACEC designation, there has been substantial economic investment in the

town of Dubois focusing on bighorn sheep. Perhaps the most important of these, but not the only

example, is the establishment of the National Bighorn Sheep Center on the main street through

Dubois heading towards the national parks.

Management challenges for this area include stresses on bighorn sheep and development activities.

The resident bighorn sheep herd is recovering from a decline in the 1990s due to extreme winter

conditions and remains vulnerable to additional stresses, (e.g., human disturbance, disruptions

in forage supply, diseases from domestic sheep and goats, and predation). To ensure adequate

forage is available for wintering bighorn sheep and to minimize disturbances, most of the ACEC

is currently closed to domestic livestock grazing and is closed to motorized vehicle use during the

winter. The area is within view of the Fitzpatrick Wilderness Area (USFS), and visitors to that

area might be sensitive to visual changes in the ACEC. At present, the BLM manages the area

as VRM Classes I and II; mineral and realty actions in the ACEC are closed and predominantly

withdrawn; and travel is limited to designated roads and trails with seasonal limitations.

3.7.4.2. Existing ACECs with Proposed Expansions

This section describes existing ACECs in the planning area that have proposed expansion areas.

Chapter 2 of this document provides specific management prescriptions for existing ACECs

and proposed expansions.

East Fork

The East Fork ACEC consists of 4,431 acres of BLM-administered surface in the drainages of the

East Fork of the Wind River, Wiggins Fork, Bear Creek, and Alkali Creek 5 miles northeast of

Dubois (Map 130). The area consists of high elevation, wind-swept slopes and sagebrush draws

near timber patches. The resource that met the ACEC importance and relevance criteria in the

1987 RMP was wildlife. This resource continues to meet the criteria for this RMP revision. The

area is crucial winter habitat for elk and is managed as part of the Inberg/Roy Wildlife Habitat

Management Area, which contains interspersed BLM- and WGFD-administered lands. This elk

herd is one of the largest not supported by a state or federal feed ground.

The primary management challenge for this area is habitat fragmentation. Development in the

Dubois area on private lands and pine beetle infestation in surrounding areas are the primary

causes of fragmentation. The area is currently closed to livestock grazing to allow sufficient

forage for big game. At present, the BLM manages mining and leasing actions in the ACEC as

closed/withdrawn and avoided, and travel is limited to existing roads and trails.

Proposed Expansion

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern
522 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

The proposed expansion of the East Fork ACEC would include land in the Spence/Moriarity

Wildlife Management Area and areas adjacent to the USFS and WRIR boundaries northeast of

the Spence/Moriarity Wildlife Management Area and would expand the ACEC to 7,745 acres

of BLM-administered surface (Map 131). As with the existing ACEC, the proposed expansion

contains wildlife resources related to elk winter habitat. Management challenges for the existing

ACEC also apply to the expansion. At present, BLM-administered lands in the proposed

expansion area are open to livestock grazing.

Beaver Rim

The Beaver Rim ACEC consists of 6,421 acres of BLM-administered surface in south-central

Fremont County, north and west of Sweetwater Station (Map 130). The Beaver Rim ACEC is an

east-west trending escarpment that separates the Sweetwater River drainage basin from the Wind

River drainage basin. Resources that met the ACEC importance and relevance criteria in the 1987

RMP were fish and wildlife, geologic features, paleontological values, plant communities, and

scenic values. Those resources continue to meet the criteria for this RMP revision. Beaver Rim

provides nesting habitat and hunting perches for many raptor species, with rock wall cavities,

rock ledges, and trees located above, below, or within the rim typically used for nesting. Several

Wyoming BLM sensitive plant species are found on the shallow soils and rocky slopes along

the rim. The topographical and soil characteristics in the area also create a micro-climate in

isolated pockets along the rim, which contain plant communities typical of a moister climate (e.g.,

Douglas-fir stands and riparian-wetland areas). Geologically, the area contains an unusually

complete sequence of Tertiary deposits representative of the Early Eocene Epoch (about 53

million years BP) through the Middle Miocene Epoch (about 10 million years BP). The ACEC

is also representative of the deflational and erosional boundary between the degrading Wind

River Basin to the north and west, and the stable upland Sweetwater Plateau. Fossil remains

occur in the exposed stratigraphy along Beaver Rim. Although not found to meet importance

and relevance criteria, the ACEC area also contains numerous archeological sites, some of which

are important to local tribes.

Management challenges for this area include ROW development, particularly wind-energy

development, and other disturbances. The scenic horizontal feature of the rim is vulnerable to

visual disturbances from vertical developments and erosion due to surface disturbance. Because

of their fragile nature, the geologic features in the ACEC are also vulnerable to degradation. At

present, the BLM manages the area as VRM Classes II through IV; mineral and realty actions

in the ACEC are open with moderate or no constraints and restrictions; and travel is limited

to existing roads and trails.

Proposed Expansion

The proposed expansion of the Beaver Rim ACEC would encompass a larger portion of the

Beaver Rim and would expand the ACEC to 20,532 acres of BLM-administered surface (Map

131). As with the existing ACEC, the proposed expansion area contains fish and wildlife,

geological and paleontological resources, plant communities, and scenic values. The proposed

expansion would include the entire portion of this scenic feature as viewed from U.S. Highway

287, a sensitive observation route. The proposed ACEC expansion area is also important for the

preservation of volcanic deposits derived from the Yellowstone-Absaroka volcanic field to the

northwest, and the Rattlesnake volcanic field to the east. Management challenges for the existing

ACEC also apply to the expansion area.

Green Mountain

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 523

The Green Mountain ACEC consists of 14,612 acres of BLM-administered surface on the north

slopes of Green Mountain and Crooks Mountain in southeast Fremont County, south of Jeffrey

City (Map 130). The area is characterized by sagebrush grasslands at the lower elevations and

conifers at the mid to higher elevations. Resources that met the ACEC importance and relevance

criteria in the 1987 RMP were wildlife and plant communities. Those resources continue to meet

the criteria for this RMP revision. The area contains important elk winter range and constitutes

almost all of the winter range for the Green Mountain elk herd. The important plant communities

in this area are the riparian-wetland systems scattered throughout the ACEC, including wet

meadow complexes formed by beaver dams. Though it did not meet the importance and relevance

criteria, the ACEC also contains the locally important Sparhawk Cabin, which F.O. Sparhawk, the

first USFS ranger on the Shoshone National Forest, built in the 1930s. The ACEC receives public

use in the form of hunting, fishing, camping, and firewood gathering.

The primary management challenge for this area is energy development. Energy development

activity could result in the loss or alteration of the elk crucial winter range, which could

threaten the viability of the Green Mountain herd. The area has historically undergone intensive

exploration and development for uranium and, to a lesser degree, oil and gas. The resurgence

of the uranium market has resulted in renewed mining activity in the area. There has also been

increased interest in wind-energy development and drilling for oil and gas in and surrounding

the ACEC. In addition to energy development, vegetation in the area is vulnerable to recreation,

livestock grazing, and wild horse grazing. At present, the BLM manages the area as VRM

Classes II and III; mineral and realty actions in the ACEC are open with major constraints (except

around campgrounds and picnic sites, which are withdrawn); and travel is limited to designated

roads and trails.

Proposed Expansion

The proposed expansion of the Green Mountain ACEC would include lands south of the existing

ACEC and would expand the ACEC to 24,860 acres of BLM-administered surface (Map 131). As

with the existing ACEC, the proposed expansion contains wildlife resources. In addition, the

expansion area includes elk parturition area near the top of Green Mountain which is the only

designated parturition range for the Green Mountain elk herd. This portion of Green Mountain

consists of open sagebrush surrounded by forested areas. Management challenges for the existing

ACEC also apply to the expansion.

South Pass Historic Mining Area

The South Pass Historic Mining Area ACEC is 12,576 acres of BLM-administered surface,

consisting of a historic gold mining region southwest of Lander (Map 130). The ACEC has both

sagebrush steppe and forested areas, with steep to rolling hills. The value that met the ACEC

importance and relevance criteria in the 1987 RMP was cultural resources. For the current RMP

revision, cultural resources and hazards (abandoned mines) are the resources that have met the

importance and relevance criteria. The area contains important historic resources from mining

activities. Historic resources range from early mining towns like Miner’s Delight and South Pass

City to numerous prospect holes. Many of these resources are still intact and visited by the public.

However, abandoned mines resulting from this activity now constitute hazards to the public.

Abandoned mine shafts and adits can be dangerous to visitors, and some of the tailings and

deteriorated construction materials are hazardous and/or unstable.

Management challenges for this area primarily include the preservation of cultural resources and

the reclamation of unsafe mines. Due to the fragile nature of the historic sites in the ACEC, these

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern
524 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

resources are vulnerable to effects from development, looting and vandalism, and wildland fire.

The reclamation of dangerous abandoned mine sites can be problematic because the BLM and the

State of Wyoming have not yet been able to alleviate all hazards. At present, the BLM manages

the area as VRM Classes II through IV; mineral and realty actions in the ACEC are open with

major constraints (except a portion that is withdrawn); and travel is limited to existing roads

and trails with seasonal limitations.

Proposed Expansion

The proposed expansion of the South Pass Historic Mining Area ACEC would include lands

adjacent to the existing ACEC and would expand the ACEC to 23,439 acres of BLM-administered

surface under Alternative B (Map 131). Under Alternative D, the South Pass Historic Mining

Area would be located within the newly designated South Pass Historical Landscape ACEC

(124,229 acres) (Map 132). As with the existing ACEC, the proposed expansions contain

cultural resources and hazards associated with historic mining activities. In addition, the area

proposed as the South Pass Historical Landscape ACEC contains 27.15 miles of Congressionally

Designated Trails. Historic resources in the proposed expansions include historic ditches,

dredging, and structures. The risks posed by abandoned mines in the expansion areas are

perhaps even more pronounced than in the existing ACEC because of the areas’ remoteness

and limited public knowledge of the hazards. Management challenges for the existing ACEC

also apply to the expansions. Additional management challenges associated with the proposed

South Pass Historical Landscape ACEC include protecting the NHTs and their settings from

surface-disturbing activities and other activities.

National Historic Trails ACEC

Discussion of the NHTs ACEC and proposed expansion is provided within the Congressionally

Designated Trails section.

3.7.4.3. Proposed ACECs

This section describes the areas proposed as new ACECs (Map 131 and Map 132). Chapter 2 of

this document provides specific management prescriptions for proposed ACECs.

Continental Divide National Scenic Trail

Discussion of the CDNST proposed ACEC is provided within the Congressionally Designated

Trails section.

Cedar Ridge

The proposed Cedar Ridge ACEC consists of approximately 7,039 acres of BLM-administered

surface in northeastern Fremont County (Map 131). Cedar Ridge is a northwest-southeast

trending ridge in central Wyoming. It is on the southwestern edge of the Bighorn Mountain Range

and overlooks a large part of the Wind River Basin to the south. The resources that meet the

ACEC importance and relevance criteria are cultural, and Cedar Ridge has been determined by

the BLM and Wyoming SHPO as eligible for listing on the NRHP as both a TCP and a prehistoric

archeological resource. The Cedar Ridge TCP was recognized in 1997 as sacred to several

tribes. This locality has been used for more than 5,500 years as a ceremonial site for prayers

and rituals, and represents a sacred place for Eastern Shoshone religious observances. Due to

the fragile nature of the remains in this TCP, these resources are vulnerable to development and

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 525

other types of disturbance. Changes to this area could create conflicts with traditional Eastern

Shoshone religious beliefs or practices. At present, the BLM manages the area of the proposed

ACEC as VRM Classes II through IV; mineral and realty actions in the area are open; and travel

is limited to existing roads and trails.

Castle Gardens

The proposed Castle Gardens ACEC consists of approximately 8,469 acres of BLM-administered

surface in the eastern portion of the Wind River Basin (Map 131). The Castle Gardens area

consists of a rugged and broken landscape containing uplifted layers of sandstone, shale, and

coal exposed along a northwest-southeast trending anticline. The area’s shallow soils support

a varied vegetative community. The resources that meet the ACEC importance and relevance

criteria are cultural. The east end of Castle Gardens has a concentration of regionally significant

prehistoric rock art which is listed on the NRHP. It contains a large number of painted and incised

prehistoric rock art, and is generally recognized as one of the best shield motif rock art sites in the

Northern High Plains. The site is also considered sacred by several tribes, such as the Eastern

Shoshone and Northern Arapaho. Vegetation communities in the area, although they do not meet

importance and relevance criteria, contain many relic plant communities that could have been

related to the prehistoric settlement of the area.

The existing plan recognized the important cultural values associated with the Northern High

Plains shield motif rock art at Castle Gardens, but did not designate the site as an ACEC.

Management prescriptions have thus far not reversed the deterioration of the site from vandalism,

natural deterioration, and neglect. At present, the BLM manages the immediate site area as VRM

Class II; mineral and realty actions in the area are closed, withdrawn, and excluded. The rest of

the proposed ACEC is open to mineral and realty actions and is managed as VRM Class III and IV.

Sweetwater Rocks

The proposed Sweetwater Rocks ACEC consists of approximately 152,347 acres of

BLM-administered surface in the Granite Mountain Range, starting at Long Creek Mountain east

to the Sentinel Rocks, in Fremont, Natrona, and Carbon Counties (Map 131). The Sweetwater

Rocks portion of the Granite Mountain Range consists of four WSAs: Lankin Dome, Savage

Peak, Miller Springs, and Split Rock. Resources that met the ACEC importance and relevance

criteria were geologic, cultural, and scenic. The Granite Mountains-Sweetwater Rocks area

represents a preserved landscape from Wyoming’s geologic past, unique in Wyoming for its

mountain tops’ partial burial in upper Tertiary sedimentary deposits. Other mountain ranges in

Wyoming have been almost entirely exhumed, and the Tertiary sedimentary record destroyed

by erosion. The geologic history that caused this phenomenon has also resulted in uranium ore

deposits and jade and agate occurrences. Scenic values in the area include large granite spires,

domes, and peaks, which the most recent VRI found to be one of the most scenic areas in the

planning area. The Granite Mountains are a focal point for travelers along State Highways 220

and 287, where there are several rest areas, scenic pullouts, and interpretive facilities. Climbing

in the Granite Mountain area is a rapidly increasing activity. Cultural values in the area include

landmarks used during the historic western migration through this portion of Wyoming (e.g.,

Devil’s Gate, Split Rock, Three Crossings, and Independence Rock).

Threats to the proposed ACEC include damage to scenic or cultural values from surface

disturbance. Observers from Highways 220 and 287 and recreational users could be sensitive to

changes to the form, color, and texture of the landscape resulting from such activities. At present,

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern
526 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

the BLM manages the area of the proposed ACEC as VRM Classes I through IV; mineral and

realty actions in the area are open (except within the WSA).

Regional Historic Trails and Early Highways

The proposed Regional Historic Trails and Early Highways ACEC consists of approximately

89,016 acres of BLM-administered surface along regionally significant historic trails and

early highways that run through various parts of the planning area (Map 131). These trails

and highways include the Bridger Trail, the Casper to Lander Stage Road, the Rawlins-Fort

Washakie Stage Trail, the Green River-Fort Washakie Stage Road, the Birdseye Pass Stage

Trail, the Point of Rocks to South Pass Stage Trail, the Yellowstone Highway, and the National

Park to Park Highway. The resource that meets the ACEC importance and relevance criteria is

cultural. These trails and early highways were in use from the 1860s until the 1920s and were

considered important components of efforts during this time to settle and expand industry in

Wyoming. All the historic trails and highways are eligible for nomination to the NRHP and are of

at least statewide significance. Due to the fragile nature of the historic trails, these resources are

vulnerable to surface-disturbing and other activities. At present, mineral and realty actions in

the area are open (except within 1⁄4 mile or the visible horizon, which are open with moderate

constraints), and travel is limited to existing roads and trails on non-historic roads.

Government Draw/Upper Sweetwater Sage-Grouse

The proposed Government Draw/Upper Sweetwater Sage-Grouse ACEC under Alternative B

consists of approximately 1,246,791 acres of BLM-administered surface east of Lander and south

of the WRIR to its boundary with the Sweetwater River (Map 131). The proposed ACEC consists

of sagebrush-steppe habitat intermixed with riparian-wetland habitats ranging in elevation from

approximately 5,080 feet to 8,760 feet. The resource that meets the ACEC importance and

relevance criteria is wildlife. The area contains breeding, nesting, brood-rearing, and winter

habitats for greater sage-grouse. There are 87 occupied and 8 unoccupied leks within the proposed

boundary of the ACEC. Breeding and nesting occurs throughout sagebrush-grass habitats in the

area and brood-rearing occurs predominantly in riparian-wetland habitats south of U.S. Highway

287. The area of the proposed ACEC has one of the greatest densities of male greater sage-grouse

per square mile in Wyoming and is considered to be an important component in the conservation

of greater sage-grouse throughout its range.

The area consists of relatively undisturbed greater sage-grouse habitat, and several research

projects have been conducted in the area that have statewide application. Because of the

knowledge about greater sage-grouse numbers and population trends, their seasonal ranges, and

the opportunity to use the area to study greater sage-grouse, this area was nominated by the

Wind River‐Sweetwater River Sage‐Grouse Local Working Group and the WGFD for ACEC

designation. Greater sage-grouse winter use areas are found throughout the proposed ACEC,

although the greatest amount of winter use occurs in the taller sagebrush stands in the northern

half of the proposed area. Increased interest in wind-energy development and CBNG projects in

the area in recent years could affect the greater sage-grouse population and its seasonal habitats.

At present, mineral and realty actions in the area are open with greater sage-grouse considerations,

and travel is limited to existing roads and trails.

A small portion of the area proposed as the Government Draw/Upper Sweetwater Sage-Grouse

ACEC under Alternative B that straddles State Highway 287 to the southwest of Lander in

the Hudson to Atlantic City area is designated as the Twin Creek ACEC under Alternative D

(35,102 acres) (Map 132). The proposed Twin Creek ACEC has the same values of concern as the

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 527

proposed Government Draw/Upper Sweetwater Sage-Grouse ACEC. There are seven occupied

and one unoccupied leks within the proposed boundary of the Twin Creek ACEC. The area

has high bentonite potential that, if developed, would fragment greater sage-grouse habitat and

connectivity in the area. Because the proposed Twin Creek ACEC is contained within the area

proposed as the Government Draw/Upper Sweetwater Sage-Grouse ACEC, current management

of the two areas is similar.

3.8. Socioeconomic Resources

This section addresses social conditions, economic conditions, public health and safety,

environmental justice, and tribal treaty rights. Each resource section describes the resource, the

existing condition of the resource, and management challenges and actions related to the resource,

as appropriate.

The social and economic data on which the following analysis is based are from the period prior

to the economic downturn that began nationally in 2007. Although the impact of the recession

was not felt generally in Wyoming until much later than the nation as a whole, the rapid decrease

in the price of petroleum equivalents was felt immediately in Wyoming, with resulting impacts to

the oil and gas industries.

3.8.1. Social Conditions

Management decisions on BLM-administered lands have the potential to impact surrounding

communities and state and private lands, and the BLM must consider such impacts. This section

provides a framework for analysis of potential impacts to social conditions in the planning area.

Human social conditions are related to towns, cities, rural areas, and the custom, culture, history,

and existing social values. BLM management actions can impact social conditions in the planning

area and in nearby communities; therefore, this section describes conditions for an area larger

than the planning area (the study area). The study area is comprised of the entire counties of

Carbon, Fremont, Hot Springs, Natrona, and Sweetwater. While the planning area crosses all

five counties, it contains only small portions of Natrona, Carbon, Hot Springs, and Sweetwater

Counties and primarily lies in Fremont County. Therefore, social conditions in Fremont County

most accurately reflect social conditions in the planning area. An additional important component

of the study area is the WRIR, which is in Fremont and Hot Springs Counties, and data in this

section for those counties includes people living on the WRIR. This section also includes some

WRIR specific information.

The following sub-sections summarize population and demographic information for the study

area, including housing, customs and social trends, public safety and educational services. Social

conditions are often based on a wide range of community and demographic characteristics and

involve broad areas of community interest.

Population and Demographics

In 2008, Natrona was the most populous county in the study area, with 73,129 people; Carbon

County had a population of 15,624; Fremont County had a population of 38,113; Hot Springs

County had a population of 4,622; and Sweetwater County had a population of 39,944 (Wyoming

Economic Analysis Division 2009a). Except for Hot Springs County, populations in each of these

counties increased in the late 1970s and early 1980s during the oil and gas boom, and decreased

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Socioeconomic Resources
528 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

following the oil bust in the mid-1980s. By comparison, the population of Wyoming in 2008 was

529,630 (Wyoming Economic Analysis Division 2009a).

Figure 3.20, “Population Trends in Carbon, Fremont, Hot Springs, Natrona, and Sweetwater

Counties, Wyoming, 1970-2008” (p. 528) shows population trends for the five counties from

1970 to 2008. Since 1990, the population has stayed relatively constant in Hot Springs County,

increased steadily in Natrona and Fremont Counties, decreased slightly in Carbon County, and,

until 2000, decreased in Sweetwater County (Sweetwater County has recently seen a population

increase).

Sources: BEA 2009; Wyoming Economic Analysis Division 2009b

Figure 3.20. Population Trends in Carbon, Fremont, Hot Springs, Natrona, and Sweetwater

Counties, Wyoming, 1970-2008

The WRIR encompasses approximately 2.2 million acres, primarily in Fremont County, with a

portion in Hot Springs County. The 2000 Census reported a population of about 23,000 within

the boundaries of the WRIR, including about 6,500 Native Americans (Headwaters Economics

2009a). About two-thirds of the Native American population is Northern Arapaho, about

one-third is Eastern Shoshone (Massey 2004).

The Northern Arapaho tribe filed a lawsuit against Fremont County and the State of Wyoming in

late 2008 challenging the boundaries of the WRIR (Merrill 2008). Depending on the outcome

of the lawsuit, the reservation boundaries may be amended to include an area north of the Big

Wind River and east of the Popo Agie River; which could influence population and demographic

conditions. Native Americans living in this area would also be exempt from certain state and

county taxes and vehicle registration fees (Merrill 2008).

Table 3.62, “Population of Counties and Towns Over Time in the Study Area” (p. 529) summarizes

the population of each county and the incorporated cities and towns in each county. The largest

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Social Conditions February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 529

city in the study area is Casper, the county seat of Natrona County; the second largest is Rock

Springs, the county seat of Sweetwater County. Neither of these cities are in the planning area.

The only incorporated towns and cities in the planning area are in Fremont County. The largest

city in the planning area is Riverton.

A substantial proportion of the population in the study area lives outside incorporated cities and

towns. For example, about half of Fremont County’s population lives outside incorporated areas.

In contrast, about 15 percent of the population in Carbon, Natrona, and Sweetwater Counties, and

about 30 percent in Hot Springs County, live outside cities and towns (Table 3.62, “Population of

Counties and Towns Over Time in the Study Area” (p. 529)). This population pattern contributes

to the small-town character of the area.

Table 3.62. Population of Counties and Towns Over Time in the Study Area

Area 1990 2000 2008

Percent

Change

(1990-2000)

Percent

Change

(2000-2008)

Percent

Change

(1990-2008)

Fremont County 33,662 35,804 38,113 +6.4 +6.4 +13.2

Dubois town 895 964 1,053 +7.7 +9.2 +17.7

Hudson town 392 407 429 +3.8 +5.4 +9.4

Lander city 7,023 6,914 7,264 -1.6 +5.1 +3.4

Pavillion town 126 165 169 +31.0 +2.4 +34.1

Riverton city 9,202 9,251 10,032 +0.5 +8.4 +9.0

Shoshoni town 497 635 689 +27.8 +8.5 +38.6

Unincorporated Areas 1 15,527 17,468 18,477 +12.5 +5.8 +19.0

Carbon County 16,659 15,639 15,624 -6.1 -0.1 -6.2

Baggs town2 272 348 400 +27.9 +14.9 +47.1

Dixon town2 70 79 81 +12.9 +2.5 +15.7

Elk Mountain town2 186 192 200 +3.2 +4.2 +7.5

Grand Encampment town2 490 443 452 -9.6 +2.0 -7.8

Hanna town2 1,076 873 866 -18.9 -0.8 -19.5

Medicine Bow town2 389 274 267 -29.6 -2.6 -31.4

Rawlins city2 9,380 9,008 8,740 -4.0 -3.0 -6.8

Riverside town2 85 59 63 -30.6 +6.8 -25.9

Saratoga town2 1,969 1,726 1,759 -12.3 +1.9 -10.7

Sinclair town2 500 423 405 -15.4 -4.3 -19.0

Unincorporated Areas1 2,242 2,214 2,391 -1.2 +8.0 +6.6

Hot Springs County 4,809 4,882 4,622 +1.5 -5.3 -3.9

East Thermopolis town2 221 274 264 +24.0 -3.6 +19.5

Kirby town2 59 57 55 -3.4 -3.5 -6.8

Thermopolis town2 3,247 3,172 2,971 -2.3 -6.3 -8.5

Unincorporated Areas1 1,282 1,379 1,332 +7.6 -3.4 +3.9

Natrona County 61,226 66,533 73,129 +8.7 +9.9 +19.4

Bar Nunn town2 835 936 1,828 +12.1 +95.3 +118.9

Casper city2 46,765 49,740 54,047 +6.4 +8.7 +15.6

Edgerton town2 247 169 176 -31.6 +4.1 -28.7

Evansville town2 1,486 2,259 2,393 +52.0 +5.9 +61.0

Midwest town2 495 408 435 -17.6 +6.6 -12.1

Mills town2 2,267 2,832 3,143 +24.9 +11.0 +38.6

Unincorporated Areas1 9,131 10,189 11,107 +11.6 +9.0 +21.6

Sweetwater County 38,823 37,613 39,944 -3.1 +6.2 +2.9

Bairoil town2 228 97 96 -57.5 -1.0 -57.9

Granger town2 126 146 145 +15.9 -0.7 +15.1

Green River city2 12,711 11,808 12,149 -7.1 +2.9 -4.4

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Social Conditions
530 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Area 1990 2000 2008

Percent

Change

(1990-2000)

Percent

Change

(2000-2008)

Percent

Change

(1990-2008)

Rock Springs city2 19,050 18,654 20,200 -2.1 +8.3 +6.0

Superior town2 273 244 237 -10.6 -2.9 -13.2

Wamsutter town2 240 261 269 +8.8 +3.1 +12.1

Unincorporated Areas1 6,195 6,403 6,848 +3.4 +6.9 +10.5

State of Wyoming 453,588 493,782 529,630 +8.9 +7.3 +16.8

Sources: Wyoming Economic Analysis Division 2009a; Wyoming Economic Analysis Division 2002

1 Might include some people who live in the county but outside the Lander Field Office boundaries.

2 These cities are outside the Lander Field Office boundaries, but within the five-county study area.

There have been changes in the distribution of different age groups in the study area. Since

1990, the proportion of people age 60 and over and those aged 40 to 59 have increased in all

five counties. However, the proportion of people age 20 to 39 and the proportion of school age

children (age 5 to 19) have decreased. One implication of this change is declining enrollments in

primary and secondary schools, a trend addressed later in this section. Table 3.63, “Change in

Population Age Groups in Study Area Counties, 1990-2008” (p. 530) summarizes the changing

demographics in each county. As the table shows, the trend toward an older population (higher

percentage of residents over age 40) is also a statewide trend.

Table 3.63. Change in Population Age Groups in Study Area Counties, 1990-2008

Fremont Carbon Hot Springs

Percent of population in

age group

1990 2000 2008 1990 2000 2008 1990 2000 2008

Percent aged 0-4 8 7 8 7 6 7 5 5 5

Percent aged 5-19 26 24 20 25 21 18 23 20 14

Percent aged 20-39 28 23 24 31 25 25 24 18 20

Percent aged 40-59 22 28 28 23 31 32 23 30 29

Percent aged 60 and over 16 18 20 14 17 19 25 27 32

National Sweetwater Wyoming

Percent of population in

age group

1990 2000 2006 1990 2000 2006 1990 2000 2006

Percent aged 0-4 8 6 7 8 7 9 8 6 7

Percent aged 5-19 24 23 20 29 26 21 25 23 20

Percent aged 20-39 31 26 27 32 26 26 31 26 27

Percent aged 40-59 21 28 28 21 30 30 21 29 29

Percent aged 60 and over 15 17 17 10 11 14 14 16 18

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau 1990; U.S. Census Bureau 2000a; Wyoming Economic Analysis Division 2009c

Table 3.64, “Population Age Groups by Race and Ethnicity in Select Areas, 2000” (p. 531) lists

age groups in 2000 for key racial and ethnic categories. The table focuses on Fremont County, the

WRIR, and the State of Wyoming. The table shows that the median age is substantially lower

for Native Americans and Hispanic and Latino people than for the population as a whole, both

statewide and in Fremont County and the WRIR. Correspondingly, the percentage of people aged

0 to 4 and 5 to 19 in these racial/ethnic categories is also higher than for the population as a

whole. The median age of the white (European-American) population is somewhat higher than

for the population as a whole, and the percent of people age 40 to 59 and 60 and over among

European-Americans is greater than for the overall population.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Social Conditions February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 531

Table 3.64. Population Age Groups by Race and Ethnicity in Select Areas, 2000

Demographic Total Population White (EuropeanAmerican)

Native American Hispanic or Latino

of any Race

Fremont County

Percent aged 0-4 7 5 11 12

Percent aged 5-19 24 21 34 33

Percent aged 20-39 23 22 28 28

Percent aged 40-59 28 31 19 19

Percent aged 60+ 18 21 8 8

Median age (year 2000) 37.7 41.2 23.0 23.3

Median age (year

2005-2007)

39.0 44.0 22.4 24.7

WRIR

Percent aged 0-4 7 6 11 12

Percent aged 5-19 25 22 34 32

Percent aged 20-39 24 23 28 28

Percent aged 40-59 27 30 19 20

Percent aged 60+ 16 20 8 7

Median age (year 2000) 35.0 40.0 22.9 23.6

Median age (year

2005-2007)

38.4 44.0 22.4 27.3

State of Wyoming

Percent aged 0-4 6 6 10 11

Percent aged 5-19 23 23 31 30

Percent aged 20-39 26 26 30 31

Percent aged 40-59 29 29 22 20

Percent aged 60+ 16 16 8 8

Median age (year 2000) 36.2 37.2 26.0 24.8

Median age (year

2005-2007)

37.3 38.7 26.4 26.7

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau 2000a; U.S. Census Bureau 2008a

Note: All data are for 2000 unless otherwise noted.

Housing

Because boom and bust cycles can impact the demand for housing, it is important to know the

supply of housing in the study area. Table 3.65, “Population and Housing Units Over Time in

the Study Area” (p. 531) shows the number of housing units over time in the study area. From

2000 to 2008, the number of housing units in all five counties has increased only slightly (by 8

percent in Sweetwater County, 6 percent in Natrona County, 1 percent in Hot Springs County, and

4 percent in the remaining counties). As the table shows, the growth in housing units has been

generally consistent compared to the changes in population in each county.

Table 3.65. Population and Housing Units Over Time in the Study Area

Percent Change Since 2000

Measure

2008

(number) 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Fremont

(Population)

38,113 0 0 1 3 5 6

Fremont

(Housing

Units)

16,234 2 3 4 4 4 4

Carbon

(Population)

15,624 -3 -3 -4 -4 -1 0

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Social Conditions
532 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Percent Change Since 2000

Measure

2008

(number) 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Carbon

(Housing

Units)

8,619 1 1 2 2 3 4

Hot Springs

(Population)

4,622 -6 -7 -8 -7 -7 -5

Hot Springs

(Housing

Units)

2,573 1 1 1 1 1 1

Natrona

(Population)

73,129 2 3 4 6 8 10

Natrona

(Housing

Units)

31,767 1 2 3 4 5 6

Sweetwater

(Population)

39,944 -3 -2 -1 1 5 6

Sweetwater

(Housing

Units)

17,153 1 1 2 4 5 8

Source: Wyoming Economic Analysis Division 2009d

Housing costs have also increased in recent years. Figure 3.21, “Change in Median Family

Income and Average Home Price since 2001 in Fremont County and Wyoming” (p. 532) shows

how median family income, per capita income, and average home sales price have changed

since 2001 for Fremont County and Wyoming. Increases in the average home sales price have

generally outpaced increases in per capita and family income in Fremont County and in Wyoming.

This observation is especially true in recent years. For example, from 2001 to 2007 median

family income and per capita income increased 30 percent and 54 percent in Fremont County,

respectively, while the average home sales price increased 81 percent.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Social Conditions February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 533

Source: Wyoming Housing Database Partnership 2009

Note: All percent changes are based on nominal income and price because the intent of the figure is to show how

income has changed in relation to one element of the cost of living (housing for purchase).

Figure 3.21. Change in Median Family Income and Average Home Price since 2001 in

Fremont County and Wyoming

This figure above underscores how growth in average home prices has generally outpaced growth

in income. However, note that per capita income has grown at a faster rate than median family

income and, in some cases, comparably to average home sales prices. Similar to home prices,

monthly rents have generally increased faster than median family income in some places in the

study area. Table 3.66, “Monthly Rent and Median Family Income in 2008 and Change from

2000” (p. 534) lists monthly rents in 2008 and changes since 2000, and for comparison, changes

in median family income for the same period. Median family income increased from 2000 to

2008, but rents also increased in all areas. Apartment rents increased faster than median family

income, and in all areas except Hot Springs, house rents increased substantially faster than median

family income. Rent for mobile homes generally increased more than median family income

or increased at the same pace except for Fremont County where mobile home rents increased

slightly slower than median family income and in Hot Springs County where mobile home rents

have remained constant since 2000.

Rent for mobile home lots grew faster, or at the same pace, compared to median family income

for all counties with data (there is no available 2008 data for Hot Springs County). The area

experiencing the greatest rise in rents in relation to median income was Carbon County, followed

by Sweetwater County and Natrona County. While rents in Fremont County outpaced median

family income, the increase was less than surrounding counties (except Hot Springs County)

compared to the state as a whole.

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Social Conditions
534 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table 3.66. Monthly Rent and Median Family Income in 2008 and Change from 2000

Median Family

Income

Apartment

Rent1 House Rent2 Mobile Home Rent3 Mobile Home Lot

Rent4

Area5

2008

($)

Percent

Change

From

2000

2008

($)

Percent

Change

From

2000

2008

($)

Percent

Change

From

2000

2008

($)

Percent

Change

From 2000

2008

($)

Percent

Change

From

2000

Fremont 49,700 +34.3 524 +46.8 675 +47.1 190 +27.5 577 +78.1

Carbon 55,600 +24.1 706 +107.6 900 +107.4 298 +170.9 691 +155.0

Hot

Springs

51,600 +31.6 401 +37.3 492 +33.0 150 0.0 N/A

Natrona 60,700 +37.6 702 +95.0 1088 +108.0 229 +51.7 548 +42.0

Sweetwater

71,300 +22.9 779 +112.3 1113 +130.0 294 +49.2 749 +92.1

Wyoming

60,400 +35.1 645 +68.0 931 +70.8 254 +50.3 592 +47.6

Sources: Wyoming Housing Database Partnership 2009; Wyoming Economic Analysis Division 2009e (rental costs

for 2008); Wyoming Economic Analysis Division 2000 (rental costs for 2000)

N/A Not disclosed due to limited observations.

1 Two bedroom, unfurnished unit; excludes gas and electric.

2 Two or three bedroom single family house; excludes gas and electric.

3 Single-wide mobile home lot, including water.

4 Total monthly rental expense, including lot rent.

5 Rents are based on a sample in communities that meet certain population thresholds. Carbon County is based

on Rawlins; Fremont County is based on Lander and Riverton; Hot Springs County is based on Thermopolis;

Natrona County is based on Casper; and Sweetwater County is based on Green River and Rock Springs. Data for

Wyoming as a whole is based on 28 communities across the state, including the largest community in each county

and other communities with a population of more than 5,000 or a population of at least 85 percent of the county’s

largest city or town.

Table 3.67, “Rental Vacancy Rates Over Time in the Study Area (Percent)” (p. 534) lists rental

vacancy rates by county in the study area. The Wyoming Housing Database Partnership (2009)

reported on a survey of rental vacancy rates by county. Across all counties, the vacancy rates

have generally decreased over the seven years reviewed. In general, the vacancy rates in 2008

were especially low. Carbon, Fremont, and Natrona Counties all had vacancy rates between 1

and 2 percent; Sweetwater County had a vacancy rate slightly above 1 percent. Carbon and Hot

Springs Counties had the highest vacancy rates in 2008, with levels higher than those seen since

2002-2003 in both counties. Based on the data, there does not appear to be a clear seasonal

variation of vacancy rates in any of the counties. Because the data are based on a sample, it is

not certain whether these rates represent a trend toward lower rental vacancy rates or sampling

error. It is important to note that the table lists only rental vacancy rates. Comprehensive vacancy

data (including properties for sale) from the 2000 Census indicate that vacancy rates in Carbon,

Fremont, Hot Springs, Natrona, and Sweetwater Counties were 26, 13, 17, 10, and 11 percent,

respectively (U.S. Census Bureau 2000b).

Table 3.67. Rental Vacancy Rates Over Time in the Study Area (Percent)

Fremont Carbon Hot Springs Natrona Sweetwater

Year June/

July

December

June/

July

December

June/

July

December

June/

July

December

June/

July

December

2001 6.6 5.4 5.7 16.1 5.4 6.4 2.5 1.9 8.2 4.5

2002 16.1 8.5 15.0 9.6 11.0 11.7 3.6 4.5 6.1 4.5

2003 3.5 5.7 11.9 11.0 10.6 9.9 2.7 3.4 2.1 0.9

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Social Conditions February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 535

Fremont Carbon Hot Springs Natrona Sweetwater

Year June/

July

December

June/

July

December

June/

July

December

June/

July

December

June/

July

December

2004 4.6 2.9 8.4 14.5 6.8 4.7 2.6 2.8 0.9 1.6

2005 1.2 1.9 7.6 3.7 8.3 6.8 2.7 2.0 2.4 2.4

2006 2.5 1.4 2.4 1.0 4.4 8.5 1.6 1.7 1.9 0.6

2007 0.8 1.4 0.8 2.0 5.4 5.3 0.6 1.1 1.2 0.1

2008 1.6 1.9 1.6 10.8 9.3 5.9 1.1 1.0 1.2 1.6

Source: Wyoming Housing Database Partnership 2009

Figure 3.22, “Assessed Property Valuation Trends by County, 1997-2008” (p. 535) shows

recent trends in assessed property valuation by county, based on inflation-adjusted 2008 dollars.

Assessed property valuation in Hot Springs County has remained relatively constant, with a slight

increase in recent years, but well below the valuation in the other four counties. The trends in

assessed property valuation in Fremont, Carbon, Natrona, and Sweetwater Counties are similar.

Assessed property valuation for these school districts experienced a sharp decrease between 2002

and 2003, followed by a steady and substantial increase in assessed property valuation between

2003 and 2006. As shown in the figure, the trend at the state level is consistent with the trend

observed in these four counties. Overall, assessed property valuation increased substantially

between 1997 and 2006 in these four counties and in the state as a whole (Wyoming Department

of Education 2008a). This substantial increase was followed by a steep decrease between 2006

and 2008, particularly in Fremont and Sweetwater Counties.

Source: Wyoming Department of Education 2008a

Note: Adjusted for inflation (to 2008 dollars) using the Wyoming Cost of Living Index for central Wyoming

(Wyoming Economic Analysis Division 2009e).

Figure 3.22. Assessed Property Valuation Trends by County, 1997-2008

Customs, Culture, and Social Trends

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Social Conditions
536 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

State and federal agencies administer approximately 58 percent of the land in Fremont County.

The Lander Field Office administers relatively small portions of Hot Springs, Carbon, Natrona,

and Sweetwater Counties, although other BLM field offices administer lands in these counties.

The BLM also administers federal mineral estate in all five counties. Therefore, BLM

management decisions can impact social conditions in all five counties. However, regarding

social conditions related to ranching on public lands, for which surface ownership is the primary

consideration, management decisions in this document have more potential to impact conditions

in Fremont County than Carbon, Hot Springs, Natrona, and Sweetwater Counties (Fremont

County accounts for the most BLM-administered surface area in the planning area).

Land use, resource development, community values, and economic development are closely

intertwined, and BLM land and resource management decisions can impact social and economic

conditions for all of the communities in the study area. Community values regarding land and

resource management are central to social issues in the study area because they are closely tied

to issues of economic development, customs and culture, and quality of life. Understanding the

development, culture, and history of the area provides valuable insight into how changes in the

study area might impact the livelihood and quality of life of residents.

Before European settlement, the Eastern Shoshone inhabited the planning area. The Eastern

Shoshone were confined to the original boundaries of the WRIR in 1863. In 1877, the surviving

members of the Northern Arapaho tribe were placed on the WRIR, and in 1878, the original

44 million-acre reservation was reduced to approximately 2.3 million acres (Massey 2004).

In 1906, WRIR tribal representatives ceded reservation lands north and west of the “big bend

of the Wind River” to the U.S. government. This cessation led to the opening of these lands

to European-American settlement under the Homestead Act, the establishment of nonnative

owned farming areas near the big bend of the Wind River, and founding of the town of Riverton

(Riverton Museum 2007).

Historically, economic development in the study area has been based on resource extraction and

tourism. Agriculture, particularly sheep and cattle ranching, has contributed to the economy and

the social fabric of communities since the first nonnative settlement. Sugar beet production also

contributed to development historically, but there is little sugar beet production in the planning

area today. Tourism has historically represented an important economic generator, primarily in

Dubois and Lander. Timber played an important role in development in Fremont County from the

1910s through the 1940s. Oil and gas development and minerals mining also played a role, with

uranium from 1953 to the 1980s constituting the primary mineral “boom.”

Oil was discovered near Riverton in approximately 1918. Since that time, there has always been

some oil and gas development, but historically, uranium contributed more to mineral development

in the area. The discovery of uranium in the Gas Hills near Riverton in 1953 brought a new boom

to the Riverton area. According to the Riverton Museum, the uranium industry transformed

Riverton from a quiet farming community of 2,500 people into a bustling commercial center of

more than 10,000 (Riverton Museum 2007). Although market forces brought dramatic cutbacks

in area mining during the 1980s (most of the area is now being reclaimed), during the uranium

boom Riverton became the largest community in west-central Wyoming. Riverton continues to

have a relatively diversified commercial economy and attracts people from a wide area. Lands

outside the planning area, but in the five-county study area, also represent important areas for

mining and mineral development. For example, Sweetwater County is the only county in the state

that produces trona (soda ash), which is used in glassmaking and other industries.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Social Conditions February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 537

Beginning in 1914, railroad ties in the forests north and west of Dubois were cut and floated down

the Wind River to Riverton, where they were delivered to the Chicago and North Western Railroad

(see cultural resources discussion of the Warm Springs Flume). This operation was one of the

principal suppliers of ties for the Chicago and North Western Railroad until the late 1940s. Many

of the tie hacks were Scandinavian immigrants, some descendants whom still live in the area.

As early as the 1920s, Lander was known as “where the rails end and the trails begin,” a reference

to the freight and passenger rail service that extended from Casper to Lander in 1906 as part of

the Wyoming and Northwestern Railway Company. The rail service never extended west of

Fremont County, but the line to Lander contributed to the development of the towns of Riverton,

Hudson, and Shoshoni, all of which had depots. In the early 20th Century, commercial bus service

provided access from Lander to Yellowstone National Park. Lander also provided recreational

opportunities in its own right. Tourists would frequently visit dude ranches in Dubois, with the

height of the dude ranch activity coming in the 1930s and 1940s (Jost 2007).

Agriculture has contributed to the local economy since the domestic livestock industry began

in the 1860s and 1870s. Around the turn of the century, the open range sheep industry was

more substantial than the cattle industry (Jost 2007). Today, there are still large numbers of

both cattle and sheep grazed in the planning area, a portion of which rely on public lands

grazing. The development of irrigation water supplies increased in the 1920s when the U.S.

Bureau of Reclamation took over the big bend of the Wind River area that had been opened for

European-American settlement, and helped to speed up agricultural development. Irrigated

crop farming is most prominent near Pavillion and Riverton and, to a lesser extent, in Lander

(Jost 2007).

Although ranching today makes a relatively small contribution to the economy in the study area,

it is an important part of its culture and history. Historically, and today, ranching has provided

direct and indirect employment; maintenance of scenic vistas; stewardship of remote, privately

owned lands; wildlife habitat; and the continuation of a way of life that helps draw tourists to

the state. However, livestock grazing has its critics. Improper livestock grazing management

has degraded the health of some public lands. As a result, there is an ongoing dialog between

the BLM and some of the livestock operators focusing on stocking levels and seasons of use.

At present, approximately 97 percent of the planning area is available for livestock grazing

under 310 permits; some permittees have multiple permits. Increasingly, these permits are held

by out-of-state owners with no historic ties to the community.

With mounting economic pressures on the livestock sector, some ranch owners have raised

money for their retirement by subdividing portions of their land into “ranchettes” that are then

sold to individuals, often “amenity retirees” who chose the area for its open spaces, recreational

opportunities, and other lifestyle aspects. The sale of these ranchettes provides liquidity to

ranchers who frequently have most of their assets in land. This trend is reflected in both the

increase in value of farm land and the decrease in farmed acres, as discussed below.

Because of these sales, there are often more fences and road development on private lands, which

can adversely impact open views near developed communities, wildlife habitat, and rangeland

health amenities valued by many residents, including many of those who live on ranchettes. This

trend is important because of the potential for BLM-authorized actions to affect the profitability

of ranching that depends on public lands grazing and thereby increase the trend of subdividing

lands that have been traditionally part of livestock operations. The development of ranchettes on

the hills around Lander is entirely on privately owned and mostly subdivided ranches.

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Social Conditions
538 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

The availability of a wide spectrum of recreational opportunities on public lands is another

important component of many lifestyles and communities. Many towns in the planning area

continue to serve as “gateway cities” for recreational activities in Yellowstone and Teton National

Parks, and have become recreation destinations in their own right. Because recreation involves

diverse groups with activities that are sometimes competing, changes in management of public

lands can impact the various recreational sectors and interests differently.

The land itself has influenced the social fabric of the communities. The land has provided hunting

and fishing opportunities for people from the Native American inhabitants before European

settlement to today’s residents. It also has provided job opportunities related to tourism. Tourists

travel to the area to enjoy scenic vistas and historic places that appeal not only to non-local

travelers but also permanent residents. In addition to tourism, the Economic Conditions section

provides information on the contributions of mining and other sectors to current employment,

earnings, and tax revenues.

One factor that affects the customs, culture, and social trends in communities is the cost of living.

The Wyoming Economic Analysis Division calculates relative changes in cost of living over time

by estimating the cost of a set of goods and services that represents the average consumer’s

purchases for housing, food, health care, travel costs, and other items. If the cost of living for a

particular area increases faster than average income, that could mean that long-time residents,

especially those on fixed incomes, find their lifestyle less affordable over time. Over the long

term, a higher cost of living might encourage people to relocate from a community and discourage

migration into the community because households would not seek to relocate where there are no

employment opportunities.

The Wyoming Economic Analysis Division calculates changes in the cost of living over time for a

three-county region (Converse, Fremont, and Natrona Counties) in central Wyoming (Wyoming

Economic Analysis Division 2009e). Figure 3.23, “Cost of Living Changes in Central Wyoming,

Wyoming and the Nation, 1996-2008” (p. 538) shows how the cost of living in central Wyoming

has changed in relation to the cost of living for the entire state and in the United States. Starting in

about 2000, the cost of living in the central region and Wyoming as a whole began to increase at

a greater rate than the nation. However, it is important to note that the three-county region for

which data are shown differs from the planning area in several ways, including the inclusion of

Converse County and all of Natrona County, and excluding Carbon, Hot Springs, and Sweetwater

Counties. Therefore, it is possible that trends observed in the central region deviate slightly

from the actual trends in the planning area.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Social Conditions February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 539

Source: Wyoming Economic Analysis Division 2009e

Figure 3.23. Cost of Living Changes in Central Wyoming, Wyoming and the Nation,

1996-2008

Public Safety

This section describes recent trends in crime rates and vehicle traffic, both of which BLM

management decisions could affect. Figure 3.24, “Arrests per 10,000 Persons in the Study Area,

2000-2008” (p. 539) shows arrests per 10,000 people for each of the counties in the study area

and for the state. Since 1999, the crime rate in Wyoming has increased somewhat and currently

stands at almost 800 arrests per 10,000 people. Over the same period, the rate in Fremont County

has been below or approximately equal to that for Wyoming. The crime rates in Carbon, Natrona,

and Sweetwater Counties have been consistently higher than in Wyoming, and especially higher

in Carbon and Natrona Counties. The crime rate in Carbon County increased from 2002 through

2006, but has decreased since 2006. The crime rate in Natrona County decreased from 2004

through 2006, but has risen since 2006.

Drug-related crimes, including sale, manufacture, and possession of controlled substances,

increased substantially since 2000 in all five counties, more than doubling in Sweetwater and

Hot Springs Counties, and outpaced population growth substantially (BLM 2009a). In the study

area in general, the largest increase in drug-related crimes occurred between 2000 and 2004 and

then either stabilized or decreased between 2004 and 2005. Sweetwater County experienced

increases through 2005, and Hot Springs County observed a spike in drug-related crimes between

2005 and 2006. All five counties saw decreases in index crimes (homicide, rape, robbery,

aggravated assault, burglary, larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft) since 2000. Driving under

the influence increased between 2000 and 2006 in all five counties. In Fremont County, driving

under the influence increased approximately 40 percent compared to the state average increase of

approximately 18 percent.

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Social Conditions
540 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Sources: Wyoming Division of Criminal Investigation 2001; Wyoming Division of Criminal Investigation 2002;

Wyoming Division of Criminal Investigation 2003; Wyoming Division of Criminal Investigation 2004; Wyoming

Division of Criminal Investigation 2005; Wyoming Division of Criminal Investigation 2006; Wyoming Division of

Criminal Investigation 2007; Wyoming Division of Criminal Investigation 2008; Wyoming Division of Criminal

Investigation 2009

Figure 3.24. Arrests per 10,000 Persons in the Study Area, 2000-2008

Vehicular traffic in all five counties has increased over the last 10 years (BLM 2009a). Specifically,

vehicle miles traveled increased 23 percent, 22 percent, 3 percent, 26 percent, and 28 percent in

Fremont, Carbon, Hot Springs, Natrona, and Sweetwater Counties, respectively, between 1997

and 2006. Over the same 10 years, population increased approximately 4 percent in Fremont

County, 6 percent in Natrona County, stayed virtually constant in Sweetwater County, and

decreased 4 percent and 8 percent in Carbon and Hot Springs Counties, respectively. At the state

level, vehicle miles traveled increased 24 percent between 1997 and 2006 (from 14.1 million miles

to 17.5 million miles), whereas the population increased only 5.2 percent over the same period.

With the exception of Sweetwater County, compared to the increase in vehicle miles traveled

described above, the number of vehicle crashes has either declined or increased by a smaller

margin in the last 10 years (BLM 2009a). Specifically, the number of crashes dropped 10 percent

in Fremont County, 3 percent in Carbon County, and 30 percent in Hot Springs County, and

increased only 4 percent in Natrona County. In Sweetwater County, both vehicle miles traveled

and the number of crashes increased 28 percent. At the state level, the number of crashes

increased only 2 percent between 1997 and 2006 (16,663 to 17,429 crashes) compared to a

24-percent increase in vehicle miles traveled.

Educational Services

BLM management of public lands has the potential to directly affect many of the economic

sectors in the study area, and local tax revenues are correspondingly affected; in turn, this affects

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Social Conditions February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 541

local services funded by those revenues. However, in the case of school districts, funding is a

function of what is defined as “local resources” and “entitlements.” In general, Wyoming school

districts have a “guarantee” regarding funding. The guaranteed level of district funding is a

function of the number of students and the number of schools in the district. If the local resources

exceed entitlements, the excess is “recaptured” and made available to other school districts

throughout the state. Conversely, if local resources are less than the guarantee, that difference

is made up from entitlements. Therefore, while local revenues do not directly affect education

funding because of the Recapture component, changes in local tax revenues do affect education

funding from a statewide perspective.

Figure 3.25, “School Enrollment Trends by County, 1997-2008” (p. 541) shows historical

school enrollment trends by county based on data from the Wyoming Department of Education

(Wyoming Department of Education 2008b). Consistent with trends for the school-age population

previously shown, Figure 3.25, “School Enrollment Trends by County, 1997-2008” (p. 541) shows

the school enrollment level in 2008 has declined from enrollment levels in 2000 for all counties

besides Sweetwater. However, school enrollment levels remained the same or increased slightly

starting in 2003 or 2004. Enrollment decreased steadily at the state level between 1997 and 2005

and increased slightly between 2006 and 2008.

Source: Wyoming Department of Education 2008b

Note: Enrollment figures are measured on October 1 of each year.

Figure 3.25. School Enrollment Trends by County, 1997-2008

Because people have different values regarding changes in demographics and communities,

residents might have different opinions and values regarding the decline in school enrollment

and property evaluations. Part of the BLM mission is to work with local governments to ensure

that its management decisions support local goals and plans, community values, and the needs of

residents, and to address regional and national issues.

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Social Conditions
542 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

3.8.2. Economic Conditions

Economic conditions relate to the analyses of production, distribution, and consumption of goods

and services. Economic conditions describe how individuals and communities participate in

the exchange of goods and services by earning a living and consuming products and services

they need and want. The BLM has the capacity, through its decision-making responsibilities, to

manage resource development in the planning area and influence the economy of the wider

region. As for social conditions, the study area for economic conditions is all of Carbon, Fremont,

Hot Springs, Natrona, and Sweetwater Counties. This section summarizes demographic and

economic information, including trends and existing conditions. It also identifies and describes

major economic sectors in the study area that BLM management actions could affect.

Economic Activity and Output

Industries most affected by BLM land management policies and programs in the study area

are mining (including oil and gas exploration and development), tourism and recreation, and

agricultural production. BLM policies and programs also affect, in a somewhat more limited

fashion, logging and the harvest of forest. However, in recent years, there has been a limited

amount of commercial cutting in forested areas in the study area. The focus of the local timber

market is on local demand for various wood products, including house logs, character wood,

and fencing material (BLM 2009a).

Mining and Mineral Production

Mining and mineral production, including oil and gas exploration and development, constitutes a

substantial economic activity in the study area. Table 3.68, “Estimated Mineral Production Value

by County in the Study Area, Production Year 2007” (p. 542) summarizes the quantity and value

of mineral production in the counties in the study area and the State of Wyoming. Economically,

the largest contributors to mining activity in all five counties are oil and gas exploration and

development, most substantially in Sweetwater and Fremont Counties. There is also substantial

coal and trona mining in Sweetwater County, but it occurs entirely outside of the planning area.

The Mineral Resources section of this document provides additional information about mineral

resources produced in the planning area.

Table 3.68. Estimated Mineral Production Value by County in the Study Area, Production

Year 2007

Mineral Carbon Fremont Hot Springs Natrona Sweetwater Wyoming

Production or Sales (units)

Oil (bbls sold) 1,462,699 3,132,380 3,158,113 3,759,457 5,359,955 52,411,076

Gas (mcf sold) 103,569,986 123,122,643 243,474 27,990,886 185,169,485 2,012,866,007

Coal (tons

produced)

134,207 0 443 0 10,090,002 451,963,767

Trona (tons

produced)

0 0 0 0 19,660,455 19,660,455

Bentonite

(tons)

0 0 2,849 72,160 0 4,031,817

Sand and

Gravel (tons)

888,207 575,195 45,922 1,198,969 1,280,683 16,035,609

Uranium (lbs) 0 0 0 0 0 1,984,267

Decorative

Stone (tons)

0 0 0 0 0 4,484

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Economic Conditions February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 543

Mineral Carbon Fremont Hot Springs Natrona Sweetwater Wyoming

Taxable Valuation ($ million)

Oil (bbls sold) $90 $144 $145 $235 $351 $2,843

Natural Gas $530 $338 $1 $118 $840 $7,271

Coal (tons

produced)

$4 $0 $0.01 $0 $131 $3,280

Trona (tons

produced)

$0 $0 $0 $0 $340 $340

Bentonite $0 $0 $0.03 $1 $0 $49

Sand and

Gravel

$2 $1 $0.05 $3 $2 $28

Uranium $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $20

Decorative

Stone

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0.2

Source: Production and valuation are for July 1, 2007, through June 30, 2008, from Wyoming DOR 2008.

Notes: Taxable valuation might differ from market or sales value because it excludes certain costs of production.

This table includes all minerals for which the Wyoming Department of Revenue (Wyoming DOR 2008) provides

data on production from the counties in the study area.

bbl barrel

lb pound

mcf thousand cubic feet

Figure 3.26, “Assessed Valuation of Oil Production by County in the Study Area,

1998-2007” (p. 543) and Figure 3.27, “Assessed Valuation of Gas Production by County in the

Study Area, 1998-2007” (p. 544) show the trends in the value of oil and gas production over

recent years for the study area counties. The assessed valuation in the figures is adjusted for

inflation using the Wyoming Cost of Living Index for the central region (Converse, Fremont, and

Natrona Counties) as defined by the Wyoming Economic Analysis Division (Wyoming Economic

Analysis Division 2009e). As Figure 3.26, “Assessed Valuation of Oil Production by County in

the Study Area, 1998-2007” (p. 543) shows, oil production value has generally risen since 2002,

but the greatest rise has been in Fremont and Sweetwater Counties. Gas production value has

also substantially risen in Carbon, Fremont, and Sweetwater Counties since 1998; however, gas

production value fell in 2002 and again in 2006 for these three counties. Gas production rose

moderately in Natrona County, and the small production in Hot Springs County has further

decreased since 1998. Figure 3.27, “Assessed Valuation of Gas Production by County in the

Study Area, 1998-2007” (p. 544) does not display the assessed valuations of gas production in

Hot Springs County because the gas production valuation is approximately $1 million or less

(varies from $0.3 to $1.1 million over the period shown), which is so much smaller than the other

counties that it does not show on the graph.

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Economic Conditions
544 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Sources: Wyoming DOR 1999; Wyoming DOR 2000; Wyoming DOR 2001a; Wyoming DOR

2002; Wyoming DOR 2003; Wyoming DOR 2004; Wyoming DOR 2005; Wyoming DOR

2006; Wyoming DOR 2007; Wyoming DOR 2008.

Note: Adjusted for inflation using Wyoming Economic Analysis Division 2009e.

Figure 3.26. Assessed Valuation of Oil Production by County in the Study Area, 1998-2007

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Economic Conditions February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 545

Sources: Wyoming DOR 1999; Wyoming DOR 2000; Wyoming DOR 2001a; Wyoming DOR

2002; Wyoming DOR 2003; Wyoming DOR 2004; Wyoming DOR 2005; Wyoming DOR

2006; Wyoming DOR 2007; Wyoming DOR 2008.

Notes: Adjusted for inflation using Wyoming Economic Analysis Division 2009e

Assessed valuation of gas production in Hot Springs County is $1 million and below for the entire time period,

and therefore does not show on the graph.

Figure 3.27. Assessed Valuation of Gas Production by County in the Study Area, 1998-2007

As noted in detail in the Locatable Minerals section of this chapter, Fremont County has produced

more than 26 million tons of uranium ore since the 1950s, but all producing mines have been

closed for more than 20 years. The recent increase in the price of uranium ore has sparked renewed

interest in uranium exploration in several areas. There are numerous notices, plans of operation,

and two pending or expected EISs related to uranium exploration and development in the

planning area. Although uranium exploration is not at a stage where it contributes to the existing

employment and economic base, depending on market conditions and mineral recoverability,

uranium mining could again contribute to economic conditions in the planning area.

In 1981, the Wyoming Geological Survey identified the potential for gold deposits in the

Rattlesnake Hills area, and subsequent exploration has revealed a large-tonnage, low-grade

deposit with the potential to host more than 1 million ounces of gold. In a December 2008

news release, one company exploring the area announced that it found a large halo of gold

mineralization (BLM 2009a). In 2009, this company filed a Plan of Operations to expand its

drilling program, and an EIS to support an eventual mining operation is possible in the future.

Thus, like uranium, gold mining could eventually contribute some employment and economic

base in the planning area. The Locatable Minerals section of this chapter provides additional

information about gold deposits.

Wind for electric power generation is another resource in the planning area that does not currently

contribute large amounts of earnings and employment but could in the future. The BLM PEIS

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Economic Conditions
546 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

for a wind-energy development program identified Lander as a low-potential area for wind

development due to the lack of transmission infrastructure. The Lander Field Office has nine

ROW applications for wind site testing and monitoring, although it has no applications for full

wind-energy development (BLM 2009a). Wind generated electricity is still highly speculative for

most areas of Wyoming including the planning area. Located far from population centers and

with limited existing transmission capacity the planning area may not be competitive enough to

justify the very high capital costs associated with wind generation even without regard to resource

conflicts such as greater sage-grouse habitats and Congressionally Designated Trails.

Pending federal legislation and other factors could lead to increased interest in wind-energy

development solar-power development in the planning area. At present, there are several private

solar projects of various sizes in the area – NOLS Rocky Mountain installation in Lander is one of

the largest in the state – and there is potential for future generation. Wind- and/or solar-power

generation could eventually provide employment opportunities. Refer to the Renewable

Energy section of this chapter for additional information on the potential for renewable energy

development in the planning area.

Recreation

Recreation activities also contribute to the region’s economy. In 2003, the WGFD found that

direct expenditures from hunting, fishing, and wildlife watching in the counties in the study area

totaled $26.6 million (WGFD 2003). About $10.3 million of these expenditures were attributable

to activities on BLM-administered surface area in the planning area (WGFD 2003). Direct

expenditures include visitor spending on lodging, food and groceries, gasoline, motor vehicle

repairs and service, outfitters and guides, access fees, entertainment, souvenirs, equipment, and

other categories.

The WGFD has not performed a more recent survey of expenditures from hunting, fishing, and

wildlife watching for the planning area (Stewart 2008). However, trend data for 2001 through

2007 (Figure 3.28, “Travel and Tourism Spending in the Study Area, 2001-2007” (p. 546))

shows that, generally, travel and tourism spending (including recreation and other travel-related

spending), adjusted for inflation, has recently increased in all five counties. The figure shows

that inflation-adjusted spending remained the same or decreased between 2001 and 2002 and has

increased steadily since 2002. Between 2006 and 2007, inflation-adjusted spending increased

slightly or remained about the same for all of the counties in the study area.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Economic Conditions February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 547

Source: Dean Runyan Associates 2008

Note: Adjusted for inflation using Wyoming Economic Analysis Division 2009e.

Figure 3.28. Travel and Tourism Spending in the Study Area, 2001-2007

Note that travel and tourism spending includes all travel to the counties, except for commuting

and other routine travel; therefore, trips for non-recreational purposes also are included. The

Wyoming State Office of Travel and Tourism reported that more than 90 percent of all trips to

Wyoming were for pleasure; this percentage could differ for specific counties (WTT 2007).

When discussing the economic contribution of recreational activities, it is noteworthy that one of

the largest permitted outfitters in the United States, NOLS, has its international headquarters in

Lander. NOLS provides wilderness based education in technical outdoor skills, leadership, and

environmental studies. It employs approximately 100 full-time and 40 seasonal employees in

Wyoming, its students contribute an estimated $1.1 million in annual retail sales in Lander, and it

comprises 20 percent of the commercial air travel through the Riverton Airport (NOLS 2006).

The continued operation of the local recreation-based portion of NOLS’s activities, including the

contribution of its students, is predicated on the continued management of the BLM and USFS

managed lands in and surrounding the planning area in a manner that is conducive to wilderness

based and remote activities.

Similarly, the Wyoming Catholic College is planning the development of a “green campus” on

private lands adjoining BLM-managed lands in the South Pass-Red Canyon area. The goal of the

college is to integrate the campus and its students into the remote and undeveloped lands. These

lands are currently protected by ACEC designation that limits surface-disturbing activities.

Livestock Grazing

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Economic Conditions
548 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

There are 310 grazing allotments covering 2,352,458 acres of BLM-administered surface with

approximately 279,000 AUMs. While cattle use most of the AUMs, sheep and horses also graze

on BLM-administered lands.

BLM-administered lands are important to local ranch operations using allotments in all five

counties, particularly Fremont County. On average, the BLM leases grazing allotments at lower

fees than state or private lands. Federal (BLM) grazing fees in Wyoming were $1.56 per AUM in

2006, and $1.35 per AUM in 2007 and 2008 (BLM and USFS 2007, BLM and USFS 2009). For

comparison, grazing fees on state land were $4.78 per AUM in 2006, $5.17 per AUM in 2007,

and $5.21 in 2008 (Pannell 2008). The average grazing rate on privately owned non-irrigated

land in Wyoming was $15.10 per AUM in 2006, $15.40 in 2007, and $15.70 in 2008 (Shepler

2008, NASS 2009).

However, the lower lease fees correspond to potentially greater use restrictions and responsibilities

for the lessee. Federal grazing leases typically restrict the number and species of animals that

may be grazed; on private leases, there is normally no penalty for grazing more animals other

than potential nonrenewal of the lease. Federal leases tend to be less flexible than private

leases regarding turnout and roundup dates. There are differences in terms of construction and

maintenance of rangeland improvements, although a perfect comparison is not possible because

there are different specifications that vary for private leases. On federal leases, construction of

improvements can be accomplished in a variety of ways, and expenses other than materials might

be the responsibility of the lessee, who is generally responsible for maintaining the improvements.

On private leases, the landowner typically bears a substantial part of the cost of major range

improvements and typically pays for revegetation (USFS and BLM 1992).

Although statewide the number of farms has remained constant, in Fremont County the number of

farms has increased while the total acreage devoted to agriculture decreased. Figure 3.29, “Total

Number of Farms in Fremont County, 1992-2007” (p. 548) shows the total number of farms in

Fremont County from 1992 to 2007 (USDA - NASS 2009). The number of farms includes all

farms and not just those utilizing public lands for livestock grazing.

Source: USDA - NASS 2009

Figure 3.29. Total Number of Farms in Fremont County, 1992-2007

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Economic Conditions February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 549

Figure 3.30, “Total Farm Acres in Fremont County, 1992-2007” (p. 549) shows the total number

of acres (private, state, and federal) used for farming in Fremont County from 1992 to 2007.

Source: USDA - NASS 2009

Figure 3.30. Total Farm Acres in Fremont County, 1992-2007

There were changes in the number of farms of all sizes as measured by sales of farm

products, but the most substantial change was in the number of farms with less than $25,000

in sales. Figure 3.31, “Number of Farms in Fremont County Grouped by Sales Volume,

1992-2007” (p. 549) shows the change in number of farms in Fremont County grouped by sales

volume from 1992 through 2007. The growth in number of farms with smaller output is in accord

with the pattern of increasing number of farms with decreasing acreage of farm lands.

Figures 3.29 through 3.31 include all farms in Fremont County, not just those with public land

grazing. As noted above, there are only 310 public land allotments, with some permittees holding

more than one permit. At least six permittees hold 10 or more allotments.

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Economic Conditions
550 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Source: USDA - NASS 2009

Figure 3.31. Number of Farms in Fremont County Grouped by Sales Volume, 1992-2007

Cattle inventories in the study area declined steadily from 2000 to 2003, rose slightly in 2004, and

fluctuated between 2005 and 2007. Overall, the number of cattle decreased from 330,000 in 2000

to 303,000 in 2007. Fremont County had the highest inventory with 105,000 cattle in 2007.

Breeding-sheep inventories declined steadily between 2000 and 2004, stabilized in 2005, but

again declined slightly in 2006. The overall decrease was from 90,000 in 2000 to 59,000 in 2008

(USDA - NASS 2009). An extended multi-year drought across much of the Rocky Mountain west

contributed to the declines. The presence and magnitude of drought could also affect the portion

of permitted grazing area permittees utilize. For example, between 1980 and 2006, the proportion

of permitted land actually used for grazing in the Green Mountain common allotment ranged from

16.3 percent to 73.1 percent; low levels of usage correspond with periods of drought.

A 1991 study by University of Wyoming economists revealed that agriculture is an important

source of export income for the state’s economy, because many agricultural products produced

in the state are sold outside the state. The study also showed that most inputs to agricultural

production come from within the state, and that profits and other income from agricultural

production tend to stay in the state. Taken together, these findings indicate that agricultural

production is an important contributor to Wyoming’s economy (Moline et al. 1991).

It is uncertain whether these trends are still valid, because there has been an increase in ranching

operations owned by entities other than the families, all federally licensed slaughter houses in

the State of Wyoming have been closed, and there has been an increase in use of out-of-state

concentrated animal feeding operations.

In a 2000 study, economists at the University of Wyoming compared the income provided to

county governments and public schools to the financial demands on community services from

agricultural and residential developments. The study showed that, on average in Wyoming,

ranching activity generates almost twice as much income for community services as it requires in

expenditures from community services, whereas residential development generates about half

as much income as it requires in expenditures (Taylor and Coupal 2000). The study did not

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Economic Conditions February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 551

assess the cost to communities to support the subdivision of private ranches into ranchettes or the

cost of the resulting loss of wildlife habitat.

Figure 3.32, “Average Market Value per Acre of Farms in Fremont County,

1992-2007” (p. 551) shows the rise in fair market value of farm land in Fremont County from

1992 through 2007 (USDA 2009, USDA 1997). Note that the values in the figure have not

been adjusted for inflation.

Source: USDA - NASS 2009

Figure 3.32. Average Market Value per Acre of Farms in Fremont County, 1992-2007

The importance of BLM-administered land for livestock grazing in Fremont County was analyzed

using a simulated enterprise level ranch budget (Taylor et al. 2004). Most ranches depend only

partially on federal land grazing for forage, but this forage source is a critical part of their

livestock operations because of seasonal dependency, even when the proportion of acres of AUMs

federal land grazing contributes is relatively small for the operation. Private ranches use much

of their land to produce hay for winter feeding. Using hay-producing acreage to graze cattle

during summer means a ranch has to purchase hay for winter. The rigidity of seasonal forage

availability means that the optimal use of other forages and resources are affected when federal

AUMs are not available (Taylor et al. 2004). From 1975 through 2002 potential reductions in

income and net ranch returns were greater than the direct economic loss from reductions in

federal grazing (Taylor et al. 2004).

Income

Fremont County had the lowest per capita personal income in 2007 of the five counties in the

study area; residents of Fremont County had an average per capita income of $38,744, including

wages, salaries, income from investments and rent, and transfer payments such as social security

(BEA 2009). This reflects the high unemployment rate on the WRIR which was 32.2 percent in

1999 (Massey and Blevins 1999).

Table 3.69, “Personal Income by Source in Study Area Counties, 2007 (Percent of

Total)” (p. 552) summarizes sources of personal income by county in 2007. Among the sectors

for which data are available, government, mining, and construction are substantial contributors to

income in all five counties.

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Economic Conditions
552 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis data, the contribution of the farming and ranching

sector in Carbon, Fremont, Hot Springs, and Sweetwater Counties was negative in 2007. This

may mean the economic losses in these sectors for proprietors outweighed profits and wages;

however, this could also result from an accumulation of inventory – that is, more goods were

produced than sold (BEA 2009). The 2007 USDA Census of Agriculture reported that most

farming and ranching income in Carbon (97 percent), Fremont (74 percent), and Hot Springs (89

percent) Counties is from livestock and livestock products (USDA - NASS 2009).

Trend data provide a good overview of how the contributions from different sectors in the

planning area have changed over time. However, because of a change in the industrial

classification system in 2000, it is not possible to construct a single continuous data set that

would provide sector-level data both before and after 2000. Accordingly, Figure 3.33, “Historical

Earnings Trends, Five-County Aggregation, 1980-2000” (p. 553) shows trend information on

sources of income for the five counties, aggregated, from 1980 through 2000.

As Figure 3.33, “Historical Earnings Trends, Five-County Aggregation, 1980-

2000” (p. 553) shows, from 1980 through 2000, changes in income (adjusted for inflation) were

largely driven by changes in non-labor income, such as investment income and Social Security

payments. Income from both government and manufacturing was higher in the early 1980s,

but has been lower, and relatively steady, since approximately the mid-1980s. Income from

construction increased steadily in the late 1990s. Generally, the relative contributions from

different high-level sectors did not change substantially from 1980 through 2000.

Table 3.69. Personal Income by Source in Study Area Counties, 2007 (Percent of Total)

Personal Income

Source

Carbon Fremont Hot Springs Natrona Sweetwater

Farm Earnings -0.4 -0.2 -0.9 0.0 -0.1

Forestry, Fishing,

and Other

N/A 0.2 N/A N/A N/A

Mining 3.6 6.2 14.9 18.9 32.1

Utilities 0.8 N/A N/A N/A N/A

Construction 16.0 4.6 N/A 4.9 8.4

Manufacturing N/A 1.2 2.1 3.4 6.9

Wholesale Trade 3.0 N/A N/A 5.8 N/A

Retail Trade 4.1 5.0 2.5 4.7 4.7

Transportation

and Warehousing

6.4 2.1 2.2 N/A 6.6

Information 0.4 0.9 0.6 0.7 0.4

Finance and

Insurance

1.3 1.3 1.4 2.2 1.5

Real Estate

and Rental and

Leasing

0.8 1.6 0.4 2.4 2.0

Professional

and Technical

Services

1.6 3.2 1.8 3.3 2.5

Management of

Companies and

Enterprises

0.2 0.2 N/A 0.3 0.2

Administrative

and Waste

Services

0.9 0.7 N/A 1.3 2.1

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Economic Conditions February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 553

Personal Income

Source

Carbon Fremont Hot Springs Natrona Sweetwater

Educational

Services

0.0 N/A 0.1 0.1 0.1

Health Care and

Social Assistance

N/A N/A 5.4 7.7 2.5

Arts,

Entertainment,

and Recreation

0.7 1.0 1.9 0.5 N/A

Accommodation

and Food Services

2.8 1.9 2.5 1.7 2.6

Other Services,

Except Public

Administration

1.6 2.0 1.2 2.5 3.1

Government

and Government

Enterprises

17.0 19.0 13.6 8.8 11.5

Categories for

which Data were

Not Disclosed

10.9 8.4 4.5 3.0 5.9

Non-Labor

Income1

31.7 38.5 42.2 27.9 14.1

Residence

Adjustment2

-3.3 2.3 3.7 -0.1 -7.2

Total Personal

Income (millions

of dollars)

619 1,330 179 3,772 1,819

Source: BEA 2009

N/A Not available (data were not disclosed due to confidentiality reasons; the Bureau of Economic Analysis

does not report data when there are three or fewer employers in a sector). The line item “Categories for

which Data were Not Disclosed” shows the total income attributable to these categories for each county.

1Non-labor income includes dividend, interest, and rental income, and net transfer payments (retirement,

disability, insurance, Medicare, and welfare, less contributions for government social insurance, which are

included in earnings for each sector but not included in total personal income). See the text for detail.

2Residence adjustment represents the net inflow of the earnings of inter-area commuters (here, expressed as a

percentage of total personal income). A positive number indicates that on balance, county residents tend to commute

outside the county to find jobs; a negative number indicates that on balance, people from other counties tend to

commute in to find jobs. See the text for detail.

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Economic Conditions
554 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Source: BEA 2009

Note: Adjusted to 2006 dollars using Headwaters Economics 2009b.

Incl including

Figure 3.33. Historical Earnings Trends, Five-County Aggregation, 1980-2000

Figure 3.34, “Historical Earnings Trends, Fremont County, 2001-2007” (p. 554) shows similar

earnings trends from 2001 through 2007. However, this figure shows data only for Fremont

County. Building meaningful trend information for multiple counties is difficult due to the

number of sectors for which the Bureau of Economic Analysis does not disclose data (for

confidentiality reasons). For example, across the five counties and seven years from 2001 through

2007, data are consistently reported for only seven out of the Bureau of Economic Analysis’s 21

top-level sectors. This problem is alleviated for data from 1980 through 2000 because Headwaters

Economics developed a special algorithm to estimate disclosed sectors for these years; however,

at present, there is no algorithm for the 2001 through 2007 series. Non-disclosure still prevents

some data from being shown for Fremont County, but the problem is reduced by selecting just one

county (Fremont) instead of aggregating information for all five counties.

Figure 3.34, “Historical Earnings Trends, Fremont County, 2001-2007” (p. 554) shows that in

Fremont County, mining, construction, government, information, finance and insurance, and real

estate contributed the most in earnings from 2001 through 2007. Growth in earnings over the

last few years since the mid-2000s has been largely due to growth in earnings from mining,

construction, professional services, and government. Generally, the relative contributions from

different high-level sectors did not change substantially from 2001 through 2007.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Economic Conditions February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 555

Source: BEA 2009. Adjusted to 2007 dollars using Wyoming Economic Analysis Division 2009e

Note: Sectors not disclosed are utilities, wholesale trade, educational services, and health care and social assistance

in all years, and in 2001 through 2002 also include management services and administrative and waste services.

ag svcs agriculture services

mgmt management

Figure 3.34. Historical Earnings Trends, Fremont County, 2001-2007

Census County Business Patterns (U.S. Census Bureau 2008b) provides additional data on mining

related earnings and employment. Table 3.70, “Earnings and Employment for Mining Activities

in Study Area Counties, 2007” (p. 555) lists mining related earnings and employment for the

counties in the study area from this source.

Table 3.70. Earnings and Employment for Mining Activities in Study Area Counties, 2007

Carbon Fremont Hot Springs

Industry

Description Employees1 Payroll

(1,000$)

Employees

Payroll

(1,000$)

Employees

Payroll

(1,000$)

Mining 185 10,565 841 35,313 397 16,646

Oil and Gas

Extraction

20-99 N/A2 90 7,831 20-99 N/A2

Crude

Petroleum

and Natural

Gas

Extraction

20-99 N/A2 90 7,831 20-99 N/A2

Natural

Gas Liquid

Extraction

0-19 N/A2 - - - -

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Economic Conditions
556 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Carbon Fremont Hot Springs

Industry

Description Employees1 Payroll

(1,000$)

Employees

Payroll

(1,000$)

Employees

Payroll

(1,000$)

Mining

(except oil and

gas)

0-19 N/A2 0-19 N/A2 0-19 N/A2

Coal

Mining

- - 0-19 N/A2 - -

Bituminous

Coal and

Lignite

Surface

Mining

- - 0-19 N/A2 - -

Metal Ore

Mining

0-19 N/A2 0-19 N/A2 - -

Gold Ore

and Silver

Ore Mining

- - 0-19 N/A2 - -

Gold Ore

Mining

- - 0-19 N/A2 - -

Other

Metal Ore

Mining

0-19 N/A2 0-19 N/A2 - -

UraniumRadiumVanadium

Ore Mining

0-19 N/A2 0-19 N/A2 - -

Nonmetallic Mineral

Mining and

Quarrying

0-19 N/A2 - - 0-19 N/A2

Stone

Mining and

Quarrying

- - - - 0-19 N/A2

Dimension

Stone

Mining and

Quarrying

- - - - 0-19 N/A2

Sand,

Gravel,

Clay, and

Ceramic

and

Refractory

Minerals

Mining and

Quarrying

0-19 N/A2 - - - -

Construction Sand

and Gravel

Mining

0-19 N/A2 - - - -

Support

Activities for

Mining

92 3,685 743 26,692 360 14,705

Drilling Oil

and Gas

Wells

0-19 N/A2 195 5,999 100-249 N/A2

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Economic Conditions February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 557

Carbon Fremont Hot Springs

Industry

Description Employees1 Payroll

(1,000$)

Employees

Payroll

(1,000$)

Employees

Payroll

(1,000$)

Support

Activities

for Oil

and Gas

Operations

81 2,875 534 19,918 192 11,932

Support

Activities

for Coal

Mining

- - 0-19 N/A2 - -

Natrona Sweetwater

Industry Description

Employees

Payroll

(1,000$)

Employees

Payroll

(1,000$)

Mining 2,913 180,653 2,621 160,175

Oil and Gas Extraction 214 13,746 328 21,998

Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas Extraction 208 13,246 153 10,336

Natural Gas Liquid Extraction 0-19 N/A2 100-249 N/A2

Mining (except oil and gas) 20-99 N/A2 500-999 N/A2

Coal Mining - - 500-999 N/A2

Bituminous Coal and Lignite Surface Mining - - 500-999 N/A2

Bituminous Coal Underground Mining - - 100-249 N/A2

Metal Ore Mining 0-19 N/A2 - -

Gold Ore and Silver Ore Mining - - - -

Gold Ore Mining - - - -

Other Metal Ore Mining 0-19 N/A2 - -

Uranium-Radium-Vanadium Ore Mining 0-19 N/A2 - -

Nonmetallic Mineral Mining and Quarrying 20-99 N/A2 100-249 N/A2

Stone Mining and Quarrying - - 0-19 N/A2

Other Crushed and Broken Stone Mining and

Quarrying

- - 0-19 N/A2

Sand, Gravel, Clay, and Ceramic and

Refractory Minerals Mining and Quarrying

20-99 N/A2 - -

Construction Sand and Gravel Mining 0-19 N/A2 - -

Clay and Ceramic and Refractory Minerals

Mining

20-99 N/A2 - -

Other Nonmetallic Mineral Mining and

Quarrying

0-19 N/A2 100-249 N/A2

Potash, Soda, and Borate Mineral Mining - - 100-249 N/A2

All Other Nonmetallic Mineral Mining 0-19 N/A2 - -

Support Activities for Mining 2,642 N/A2 1,389 81,626

Drilling Oil and Gas Wells 1,149 80,717 119 8,552

Support Activities for Oil and Gas Operations 1,456 81,641 1,217 60,843

Support Activities for Coal Mining 0-19 N/A2 2,049 N/A2

Support Activities for Metal Mining 0-19 N/A2 - -

Support Activities for Nonmetallic Minerals

(except Fuels)

0-19 N/A2 0-19 N/A2

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2008b

Note: Number of employees is for mid-March 2007. Payroll data are for the entire year.

1For some sectors and sub-sectors, the data source reveals only a range for the number of employees

so as not to disclose confidential business information (there are very few employers in the sector).

2The data source does not reveal data on payrolls for this sub-sector due to confidentiality requirements (there are

relatively few employers in the sector).

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Economic Conditions
558 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Although the County Business Patterns data do not disclose all data on employee counts and

payrolls due to confidentiality requirements, the data provided help to show the economic

importance of mineral commodities. Table 3.70, “Earnings and Employment for Mining

Activities in Study Area Counties, 2007” (p. 555) shows that oil and gas extraction and operations

support activities substantially contribute to mining-related earnings in all five counties. Based

on summing actual employment where those data are provided, and the lower bounds of

ranges where actual employment is not shown, oil and gas extraction and operations support

contributes at least 101 jobs in Carbon County (at least 55 percent of mining-related jobs), 819

jobs in Fremont County (97 percent of mining-related jobs), at least 312 jobs in Hot Springs

County (at least 79 percent of mining-related jobs), 2,819 jobs in Natrona County (97 percent of

mining-related jobs), and 1,664 jobs in Sweetwater County (63 percent of mining-related jobs).

Transfer payments such as Social Security, disability, insurance, Medicare, and welfare, and

income from dividends, interest, and rent, make up a substantial portion of income in all five

counties. Figure 3.35, “Percent of Total Personal Income from Dividends, Interest, Rent, and

Transfer Payments ” (p. 558) shows the trend in percentage of income from these sources over

time. As the figure shows, the share of total income from unearned income remained relatively

constant in Fremont County between 1996 and 2007, starting at 44 percent and ending at 45

percent. In Sweetwater County, the percentage of total income from unearned income rose from

1996 to 2002 and then declined between 2002 and 2006. Between 2006 and 2007, the percentage

of total income from unearned income in Sweetwater County rose slightly from 24 percent to 25

percent, about 2 percent lower than the 1996 level. The percentage of income from unearned

income fell 5 percent in Natrona County between 1996 and 2000, and between 2001 and 2007

the percentage of income from unearned income remained relatively constant between 34 and

35 percent. In Hot Springs County, the percentage of income from unearned income increased

between 1996 and 2004, reaching up to 50 percent before decreasing to 48 percent in 2007.

The total percentage of income from unearned income in Carbon County increased up to 46

percent by 2005 before decreasing to the 1996 level of 40 percent by 2007. In Wyoming as a

whole, the percentage of income from unearned income remained relatively constant, increasing 3

percent from 37 percent to 40 percent between 1996 and 2007. Note, however, that the absolute

amount (adjusted for inflation) of income from transfer payments, dividends, interest, and rent has

increased in all five counties (Figure 3.36, “Amount of Dividends, Interest, Rent, and Transfer

Payments” (p. 559)) and the state.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Economic Conditions February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 559

Source: BEA 2009

Figure 3.35. Percent of Total Personal Income from Dividends, Interest, Rent, and Transfer

Payments

Most of the counties had more non-labor (unearned) income than the United States as a whole in

2007 (nationally, the rate was 32 percent). Several factors could cause a higher proportion of

income from dividends, interest, rent, and transfer payments, including a higher proportion of

families with incomes derived from assets such as stocks and real estate, or a higher proportion of

people receiving income from government payments such as Social Security.

At a regional level, a larger share of non-labor income could lead to views different from those

traditionally held in an area dominated by extractive industries. In addition, these changes in

views often tend to support preservation policies that favor a less-intense dependence on the

extractive industries.

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Economic Conditions
560 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Source: BEA 2009

Note: Adjusted for inflation using the Wyoming Cost of Living Index for the central region (Converse, Fremont,

and Natrona Counties) (Wyoming Economic Analysis Division 2009e).

Figure 3.36. Amount of Dividends, Interest, Rent, and Transfer Payments

Diversified regional economies in the west that are located next to protected public lands tend to

do better from an economic standpoint compared to those that rely primarily on the extractive

industries (BLM 2009a). In addition to being more stable, there is some evidence to suggest that

more diverse economic regions tend to generate faster growth over the long term. A recent

study by a nonprofit research group (Headwaters Economics 2008) compared long-term growth

in “energy-focusing” counties in the western United States with “peer counties” of similar size

and found that over the long term, employment and income grew measurably faster in the peer

counties. The study identified 26 energy-focusing counties, rural counties with populations

less than 57,000 and more than 7 percent of private-sector employment from energy-related

industries, and compared their growth with 254 peer counties (comparable counties with lower

energy-related employment). The study found that from 1990 to 2005, inflation-adjusted personal

income in the energy-focusing counties grew at an average rate of 2.3 percent, compared to

2.9 percent for the peer counties. Employment in energy-focusing counties grew an average

of 1.8 percent compared to 2.3 percent for peer counties. The analysis period for long-term

growth studies must be chosen carefully so as to not bias the results through the choice of an

ending year that coincides with an energy bust. In this case, the timeframe was well chosen. The

starting year for the analysis coincides with both a national recession and a relative low point

for energy development, and the ending year coincides with the approximate peak of the most

recent economic expansion, which included an energy boom.

Not fully captured in this analysis is the influx of residents who are attracted to the Lander area by

the amenities of the community, in part reflecting the management of public lands, and in part

reflecting the institutions such as NOLS located in the community. To the extent that economic

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Economic Conditions February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 561

condition is measured by labor income, the economic contribution of these residents to the local

communities can be understated or not measured.

Another indicator of income is the residence adjustment, which measures cross-county flows of

income and earnings. While many people live and work in the same county, other people work

outside the county in which they live (they commute across county boundaries). For each county,

the net residence adjustment represents the net inflow of earnings due to cross-county income

flows, or the difference between the income of those who reside in the county and those who work

in the county. Thus, a residence adjustment more than zero indicates that, on balance, the flow of

income due to inter-county commuting is positive; that is, people tend to commute outside the

county to find jobs. Similarly, a county with a residence adjustment less than zero indicates that

people from other counties tend to commute in to find jobs. Figure 3.37, “Resident Adjustment

Factors” (p. 561) shows the residence adjustment factors for each of the five counties, in real

terms (adjusted for inflation). The figure shows that the residence adjustment in Sweetwater

County is far more substantial than in the other four counties in the study area; Sweetwater

County has a large negative residence adjustment (-$143 million in 2007), which indicates that

there are a large number of people commuting into Sweetwater County to work. In 2007, Carbon

and Natrona were the only other counties with a net influx of workers, with residence adjustments

of -$22 million and -$3 million, respectively. The residence adjustment was $34 million for

Fremont and $7 million for Hot Springs County; therefore, Fremont County had the largest

income generated by jobs outside the county.

Source: BEA 2009

Note: Adjusted for inflation using the Wyoming Cost of Living Index for the central region (Converse, Fremont,

and Natrona Counties) (Wyoming Economic Analysis Division 2009e).

Figure 3.37. Resident Adjustment Factors

Employment

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Economic Conditions
562 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

The breakout of employment by industry shows a pattern similar to that of the personal income

statistics, highlighting the importance of mining, government, construction, and services in all

five counties (excluding mining in Carbon County). Table 3.71, “Employment by Industry in

Study Area Counties, 2007 (Percent of Total)” (p. 562) summarizes total employment by sector

for the counties in the study area. Note that data on employment for a finer breakout of the

mining sector is shown inTable 3.71, “Employment by Industry in Study Area Counties, 2007

(Percent of Total)” (p. 562).

Table 3.71. Employment by Industry in Study Area Counties, 2007 (Percent of Total)

Source Number of Jobs

Carbon Fremont Hot Springs Natrona Sweetwater Wyoming

Farm

Employment

4.4 4.6 5.8 0.8 0.6 2.9

Forestry,

Fishing, and

Other

N/A 0.8 N/A N/A N/A 0.7

Mining 3.2 4.2 7.6 9.5 20.0 8.0

Utilities 0.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.7

Construction 14.2 8.2 N/A 7.9 8.9 9.4

Manufacturing N/A 2.7 2.9 4.1 4.3 3.1

Wholesale

Trade

2.7 N/A N/A 5.4 N/A 2.5

Retail Trade 9.8 11.4 9.3 12.3 10.0 10.7

Transportation

and

Warehousing

5.5 2.6 2.8 N/A 5.9 3.8

Information 0.7 1.5 1.5 1.2 0.8 1.2

Finance and

Insurance

2.0 2.1 2.8 3.4 2.1 3.0

Real Estate

and Rental and

Leasing

4.5 4.7 3.1 5.1 3.5 4.6

Professional

and Technical

Services

2.6 3.7 3.6 4.7 2.7 4.4

Management of

Companies and

Enterprises

0.2 0.2 N/A 0.2 0.2 0.3

Administrative

and Waste

Services

2.7 2.3 N/A 4.2 3.5 3.4

Educational

Services

0.3 N/A (L) 0.6 0.5 0.8

Health Care

and Social

Assistance

N/A N/A 11.0 11.1 4.3 7.2

Arts,

Entertainment,

and Recreation

1.9 1.6 3.1 1.7 N/A 1.7

Accommodation and Food

Services

9.5 7.0 10.4 6.9 8.1 8.5

Other Services,

Except Public

Administration

4.9 6.2 7.2 6.1 4.9 5.2

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Economic Conditions February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 563

Source Number of Jobs

Carbon Fremont Hot Springs Natrona Sweetwater Wyoming

Government

and

Government

Enterprises

19.1 22.8 18.4 11.2 14.1 17.9

Data were Not

Disclosed

11.3 13.3 10.2 3.4 5.4 0.0

Total

Employment

(2007)

11,340 24,040 3,192 53,927 30,878 389,776

Source: BEA 2009

N/A Not available (not disclosed by the data source for reasons of confidentiality).

(L) Less than 10 jobs, but the estimates for this item are included in the totals.

As in the earnings section, this section provides trend data to illustrate how the contributions from

different sectors in the planning area have changed over time. The same change in the industrial

classification system in 2000 makes it impossible to construct a single continuous data set that

would provide sector-level data both before and after 2000. In addition, the same problems

with non-disclosure make it impossible to provide meaningful data for the five counties for

the seven years from 2001 through 2007. Accordingly, Figure 3.38, “Historical Employment

Trends, Five-County Aggregation, 1980-2000” (p. 563) shows trend information on sources of

employment for the five counties, aggregated, from 1980 to 2000, and Figure 3.39, “Historical

Employment Trends, Fremont County, 2001-2007” (p. 564) shows information on employment

for Fremont County from 2001 to 2007.

As Figure 3.38, “Historical Employment Trends, Five-County Aggregation,

1980-2000” (p. 563) shows, from 1980 through 2000, changes in employment were largely driven

by changes in service and professional employment. Employment in construction and mining was

higher in the early 1980s than at any other point through 2000, but did grow somewhat from a low

in the late 1980s through 2000. Generally, the relative contributions from different high-level

sectors did not change substantially from 1980 through 2000.

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Economic Conditions
564 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Source: BEA 2009

Gov’t Government

Figure 3.38. Historical Employment Trends, Five-County Aggregation, 1980-2000

Figure 3.39, “Historical Employment Trends, Fremont County, 2001-2007” (p. 564) shows that

in Fremont County all sectors grew more or less equally; that is, the relative contributions from

different high-level sectors did not change substantially from 2001 through 2007. The relative

contribution of the mining sector grew slightly over the period shown, but for all other sectors,

relative contributions have been basically stable since 2001.

Average earnings per job in 2007 were lower than the national and state averages in Carbon,

Fremont, and Hot Springs Counties. Sweetwater County and Natrona County had an average

earnings per job higher than both the nation and state. Table 3.72, “Average Earnings per Job

for Study Area Counties, Wyoming, and the Nation, 2007” (p. 565) lists the average earnings

per job by county in 2007. Figure 3.40, “Average Earnings per Job, 2001-2007 (adjusted for

inflation)” (p. 565) shows the average earnings per job by county from 2001 through 2007. In

each of the counties, the state, and the nation, average earnings per job remained more or less

steady, sometimes with very slight increases or decreases.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Economic Conditions February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 565

Source: BEA 2009

Note: Sectors not disclosed are utilities, wholesale trade, educational services, and health care and social assistance

in all years, and in 2001 through 2002 also include management services and administrative and waste services.

ag svcs Agriculture services

mgmt management

Figure 3.39. Historical Employment Trends, Fremont County, 2001-2007

Table 3.72. Average Earnings per Job for Study Area Counties, Wyoming, and the Nation,

2007

Locality Average Earnings Per Job

Carbon County $39,047

Fremont County $32,766

Hot Springs County $30,268

Natrona County $50,472

Sweetwater County $54,847

Wyoming $42,506

United States $48,900

Source: BEA 2009

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Economic Conditions
566 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Source: BEA 2009

Note: Adjusted for inflation using Wyoming Economic Analysis Division 2009e.

U.S. United States

Figure 3.40. Average Earnings per Job, 2001-2007 (adjusted for inflation)

It is important to consider how different average wages could affect the ability of different

employers to attract workers. For example, a study in nearby Sublette County (Jacquet 2006)

found that wages for jobs in gas development and exploration are higher than in any other sector

and are high for both unskilled and skilled workers. Depending on the need for labor in relatively

high-paying sectors, this could adversely affect the ability of other employers (in relatively

low-paying sectors) to attract workers. Table 3.73, “Fourth Quarter 2008 Average Monthly

Employment and Average Weekly Wage for the Five Counties in the Study Area” (p. 567) lists

recent data (from the fourth quarter of 2008) on relative earnings by sector and total employees in

each sector for the five counties. As the table shows, with the exception of Carbon County, the

mining sector (including oil and gas development) has the highest average weekly wage of any

sector. This observation is also true for the state as a whole. In Carbon County, construction has

high, albeit comparable, average weekly wages compared to the mining sector. Furthermore, in

Sweetwater County, average weekly wages in the manufacturing sector are comparable to the

mining sector.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Economic Conditions February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 567

Table 3.73. Fourth Quarter 2008 Average Monthly Employment and Average Weekly Wage

for the Five Counties in the Study Area

Carbon Fremont Hot Springs

Sector Average

Monthly

Employment

Average

Weekly Wage

($)

Average

Monthly

Employment

Average

Weekly Wage

($)

Average

Monthly

Employment

Average

Weekly Wage

($)

Agriculture,

Forestry,

Fishing, and

Hunting

198 652 107 467 N/A N/A

Animal

Production

183 668 71 411 N/A N/A

Mining 467 1,307 898 1,376 192 1,447

Oil and Gas

Extraction

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Mining,

Except Oil

and Gas

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Support

Activities

for Mining

407 1,296 592 1,219 122 1,405

Utilities 55 1,035 55 1,381 N/A N/A

Construction 908 1,430 1,154 804 104 1,016

Manufacturing N/A N/A 423 656 66 600

Wholesale

Trade

75 898 348 869 28 804

Retail Trade 794 505 2,101 530 183 409

Transportation

and

Warehousing

260 1,028 413 1,066 82 920

Information 82 571 243 603 44 313

Finance and

Insurance

145 694 333 784 49 782

Real Estate

and Rental and

Leasing

96 343 397 890 8 344

Administrative

and Waste

Services

113 682 179 827 N/A N/A

Health Care

and Social

Assistance

447 711 1,693 735 282 551

Arts,

Entertainment,

and Recreation

50 741 108 252 47 279

Accommodation and Food

Services

906 321 1,399 265 251 252

Other Services,

Except Public

Administration

159 521 506 587 57 384

Total

Government

2,061 795 5,737 748 556 649

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Economic Conditions
568 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Carbon Fremont Hot Springs

Sector Average

Monthly

Employment

Average

Weekly Wage

($)

Average

Monthly

Employment

Average

Weekly Wage

($)

Average

Monthly

Employment

Average

Weekly Wage

($)

All Private

Sectors (NonGovernment)5,369 861 11,156 714 1,492 659

All Sectors 7,430 843 16,892 726 2,048 656

Natrona Sweetwater Wyoming

Sector Average

Monthly

Employment

Average

Weekly Wage

($)

Average

Monthly

Employment

Average

Weekly Wage

($)

Average

Monthly

Employment

Average

Weekly Wage

($)

Agriculture,

Forestry,

Fishing, and

Hunting

140 717 11 628 2,373 617

Animal

Production

109 791 N/A N/A 1,656 620

Mining 3,995 1,670 6,266 1,592 30,372 1,511

Oil and Gas

Extraction

814 1,592 544 1,510 4,719 1,704

Mining,

Except Oil

and Gas

97 1,506 2,257 1,714 9,876 1,500

Support

Activities

for Mining

3,083 1,697 3,465 1,526 15,776 1,460

Utilities N/A N/A N/A N/A 2,657 1,598

Construction 3,078 1,233 2,162 1,278 27,915 1,014

Manufacturing 1,915 984 1,329 1,522 10,169 990

Wholesale

Trade

2,738 1,262 810 1,149 9,240 1,164

Retail Trade 5,404 554 2,545 552 32,383 500

Transportation

and

Warehousing

953 956 1,486 1,222 11,018 913

Information 518 707 213 514 4,673 686

Finance and

Insurance

1,085 1,016 454 962 7,290 933

Real Estate

and Rental and

Leasing

976 994 508 1,195 4,450 823

Administrative

and Waste

Services

1,305 585 537 748 7,873 600

Health Care

and Social

Assistance

5,208 952 962 652 32,086 840

Arts,

Entertainment,

and Recreation

375 302 132 207 3,744 518

Accommodation and Food

Services

3,807 292 2,469 347 29,752 317

Other Services,

Except Public

Administration

1,931 767 659 734 8,889 628

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Economic Conditions February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 569

Carbon Fremont Hot Springs

Sector Average

Monthly

Employment

Average

Weekly Wage

($)

Average

Monthly

Employment

Average

Weekly Wage

($)

Average

Monthly

Employment

Average

Weekly Wage

($)

Total

Government

5,650 900 4,380 811 64,756 837

All Private

Sectors (NonGovernment)35,187 935 21,656 1,114 222,722 854

All Sectors 40,837 930 26,036 1,063 287,478 850

Sources: Wyoming Department of Employment 2009a; Wyoming Department of Employment 2009b; Wyoming

Department of Employment 2009c; Wyoming Department of Employment 2009d; Wyoming Department of

Employment 2009e; Wyoming Department of Employment 2009f; Wyoming Department of Employment 2009g

N/A Not available (not disclosed in the data source, for reasons of confidentiality).

All five counties follow the general unemployment trend observed at the national and state levels

from 1997 through 2010. As of November 2010, all five counties had lower unemployment

than the national average of 9.6 percent. Fremont County had an unemployment rate of 7.1

percent, Carbon County 6.7 percent, Hot Springs County 5.3 percent, Natrona County 6.7

percent, and Sweetwater County had an unemployment rate of 5.6 percent. Wyoming had 6.4

percent unemployment overall (BLS 2011a, BLS 2011b). These rates are generally about three

percentage points higher than prior to the latest economic downturn, when unemployment in

the five counties was generally between 2 and 5 percent. Figure 3.41, “Unemployment Rates,

2000-2008” (p. 569) shows unemployment rates in recent years for the five counties in the study

area, Wyoming, and the United States. Unemployment in the study area has been lower than the

national rate since at least 2002, and has been decreasing since 2003 in all five counties (and since

2002 in Sweetwater and Hot Springs Counties). Unemployment in Fremont County has been

larger than in the four other counties and the state during this period.

Unemployment statistics are shifting rapidly due to the economic downturn that began in

December 2007. While the recession appears to have affected Wyoming less than other states,

the state has not been immune. For each of the counties in the study area, unemployment rose

between 2007 and 2008 for the first time since 2003.

Tax Revenue

Activities on public lands contribute to the fiscal well-being of federal, state and local

governments. BLM management actions have the potential to affect tax revenues from mining

and mineral production; travel, tourism, and recreation; and livestock grazing.

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Economic Conditions
570 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Sources: BLS 2009, BLS 2011a, and BLS 2011b

U.S. United States

Figure 3.41. Unemployment Rates, 2000-2008

Mining, Including Oil and Gas

The mining industry contributes substantially to state and local tax revenues and explains in

part why Wyoming has no income tax. The Wyoming State Auditor reported that state mineral

severance taxes and federal mineral royalties returned to the state represented 31 percent of total

state revenues in Fiscal Year 2007, a total of $1.45 billion. Sales and use taxes represented another

11 percent of total state revenues (Wyoming State Auditor 2008). The Wyoming Legislative

Service Office (WLSO 2003) indicated that the mining sector paid about $806 million in state

and local tax revenues in Fiscal Year 2002. This represents 54 percent of total state and local tax

revenues from major tax sources (severance, ad valorem, sales and use, cigarettes, gross receipts,

liquor, and franchise taxes) for Fiscal Year 2002 (WLSO 2003).

Oil and gas production on federal lands in Wyoming is subject to state, federal, and local taxes.

Ad valorem production and production-equipment taxes are payable to the county in which the

production occurs. Because oil and gas are produced from all five study area counties, ad valorem

production and production equipment taxes are important for these counties.

State severance taxes are levied on current production at the rate of 6 percent of the taxable value

of crude oil and natural gas, and at 7 percent of taxable value for surface coal, 4 percent for trona,

and 2 percent for most other minerals. Taxable value is defined as the gross sales value minus

certain allowable deductions for royalties, transportation, and natural gas processing. Rates are

lower for less productive stripper wells and new wells (Wyoming DOR 2008). State and local

taxes, including the ad valorem tax, also apply to coal and trona mining. Using the data on

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Economic Conditions February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 571

production valuation shown above, along with state severance tax rates, it is possible to estimate

state severance tax collections for each county for the different mineral products. Table 3.74,

“Estimated State Severance Tax Collections (dollars) on Mineral Production in the Study Area

Counties, Production Year 2007” (p. 571) lists estimated state severance tax collections for the

counties for Production Year 2007.

Table 3.74. Estimated State Severance Tax Collections (dollars) on Mineral Production in

the Study Area Counties, Production Year 2007

Mineral Carbon Fremont Hot Springs Natrona Sweetwater

Crude Oil 4,985,500 7,716,500 5,653,800 13,042,300 20,989,500

Stripper Oil 272,400 624,100 2,019,200 706,800 33,600

Natural Gas 31,810,200 20,274,400 62,200 7,059,200 50,407,500

Surface Coal 266,800 0 700 0 6,708,600

Underground Coal 0 0 0 0 1,329,800

Trona 0 0 0 0 13,587,400

Bentonite 0 0 500 11,300 0

Sand and Gravel 31,200 18,700 1,000 60,600 45,400

Uranium 0 0 0 0 0

Decorative Stone 0 0 0 0 0

Total 37,366,100 28,633,700 7,737,400 20,880,200 93,101,800

Source: Calculated from data in Wyoming DOR 2008.

Note: Estimated using state severance tax rates of 6 percent of taxable valuation for crude oil and natural gas, 4

percent for stripper oil and trona, and uranium, 7 percent for surface coal, 3.75 percent for underground coal, and 2

percent for all other minerals shown. Rounded to the nearest $100.

As the table shows, state severance taxes based on production in the counties in the study area

were greatest in Sweetwater County, which is consistent with the relative importance of mining

for employment and earnings in that county. Natural gas was the largest contributor to state

severance taxes for all counties except Hot Springs (crude oil).

Table 3.74, “Estimated State Severance Tax Collections (dollars) on Mineral Production in the

Study Area Counties, Production Year 2007” (p. 571) also shows that gas, oil, coal, and trona

accounted for most of the state severance tax collections in the study area counties in 2007.

Figure 3.42, “Estimated State Severance Taxes, 1998-2007” (p. 571) shows historical trends in

estimated state severance taxes based on production of these commodities in the counties in

the study area (the data on assessed valuation shown in Figure 3.26, “Assessed Valuation of

Oil Production by County in the Study Area, 1998-2007” (p. 543) and Figure 3.27, “Assessed

Valuation of Gas Production by County in the Study Area, 1998-2007” (p. 544)). Severance taxes

on natural gas, coal, trona, and other minerals are distributed according to a legislatively approved

formula. Most of the revenues are transferred to the state general fund, the state budget reserve

account, and the Permanent Wyoming Mineral Trust Fund. In recent years, less than 4 percent of

the total has been distributed to cities, towns, and counties across the state.

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Economic Conditions
572 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Sources: Calculated using data in Wyoming DOR 1999; Wyoming DOR 2000; Wyoming DOR

2001a; Wyoming DOR 2002; Wyoming DOR 2003; Wyoming DOR 2004; Wyoming DOR 2005;

Wyoming DOR 2006; Wyoming DOR 2007; Wyoming DOR 2008

Note: Adjusted for inflation using Wyoming Economic Analysis Division 2009e.

Figure 3.42. Estimated State Severance Taxes, 1998-2007

Local ad valorem production taxes are levied on sales of oil and gas. Ad valorem production tax

rates vary by county and within counties. In 2007, average tax rates on mineral production were

about 6.2 percent in Carbon County, 7.1 percent in Fremont County, 7 percent in Hot Springs

County, 6.6 percent in Natrona County, and 6.6 percent in Sweetwater County (Wyoming DOR

2007). Based on these tax rates and the total taxable value of mineral production, it is possible

to estimate ad valorem production tax assessments in the counties. According to the Wyoming

Department of Revenue, total taxable value of mineral production for Production Year 2007 was

$625 million in Carbon County, $483 million in Fremont County, $146 million in Hot Springs

County, $356 million in Natrona County, and $1,664 million in Sweetwater County (Wyoming

DOR 2008). Thus, applying the 2007 tax rates to 2007 mineral production, the Wyoming

Department of Revenue calculated ad valorem mineral production tax assessments of $39 million

in Carbon County, $34 million in Fremont County, $10 million in Hot Springs County, $23

million in Natrona County, and $110 million in Sweetwater County (Wyoming DOR 2008). The

data in Table 3.74, “Estimated State Severance Tax Collections (dollars) on Mineral Production

in the Study Area Counties, Production Year 2007” (p. 571) illustrates the relative importance

of different minerals in the counties in contributing to these tax assessments. The table shows

taxable valuation for the different minerals in the counties.

Local ad valorem property taxes are levied on the taxable valuation of oil and gas equipment.

Rates are the same as those for ad valorem production, but the taxable valuation of oil and gas

equipment is 11.5 percent of the assessed value (Grenvik 2005; Wyoming DOR 2001b).

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Economic Conditions February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 573

Federal royalties on production of oil, gas, and surface coal are levied at 12.5 percent of the value

of production, after allowable deductions. Federal royalties on underground coal are levied at 8

percent of the value of production; note that the only active production site for underground coal

in the planning area is the Jim Bridger Mine in Sweetwater County. Half the royalties collected

and the net of a 1 percent administrative processing fee are returned to Wyoming; a portion

of the royalties the state receives are disbursed to cities and towns (State of Wyoming 2004).

Federal mineral royalties are also collected on production of other minerals. The rate on trona

production has been 6 percent since 1995, but in the fall of 2006 was reduced to 2 percent, which

will be the effective rate for at least the next 5 years (Hardy 2006). According to the Wyoming

Consensus Revenue Estimating Group, federal mineral royalties for production in the state were

$927 million in Fiscal Year 2007 and $1,186 million in Fiscal Year 2008 (CREG 2009a). This

includes royalties from oil, gas, and gas plant products, and coal, including coal lease bonuses.

The Wyoming Consensus Revenue Estimating Group projects lower royalty revenue for the next

several fiscal years due to lower gas prices and other factors (CREG 2009a).

The state sales tax applies to retail purchases of goods and some services in Wyoming, while the

use tax applies to a retail purchase of goods outside Wyoming by firms in Wyoming (Wyoming

DOR 2006). For example, for the oil and gas industry, a firm with operations in Wyoming that

purchases equipment from outside the state for use in state would remit use taxes to the State of

Wyoming for the purchase.

Property Tax and Sales Tax Base (Tax Revenues)

The fiscal stability of local and state governments, and the economic viability of communities

themselves, depends on the viability and stability of local industry and commerce. Table 3.75,

“Local and State Assessed Property Valuation, 2007” (p. 573) lists local and state assessed

property valuation in 2007 for the planning area counties and Wyoming.

Table 3.75. Local and State Assessed Property Valuation, 2007

County

Total ($

millions)

Agricultural

(Percent)

Residential

(Percent)

Commercial

Percent)

Mineral

(Percent)

Industrial

(Percent)

Local Assessed Valuation

Carbon County 201 4 39 9 45 2

Fremont

County

345 3 59 14 22 2

Hot Springs

County

41 7 61 17 14 1

Natrona

County

662 1 66 24 7 2

Sweetwater

County

562 1 36 12 46 5

State of

Wyoming

7,135 3 60 14 21 2

State Assessed Valuation

Carbon County 695 0 0 0 90 10

Fremont

County

504 0 0 0 96 4

Hot Springs

County

154 0 0 0 95 5

Natrona

County

397 0 0 0 90 10

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Economic Conditions
574 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

County

Total ($

millions)

Agricultural

(Percent)

Residential

(Percent)

Commercial

Percent)

Mineral

(Percent)

Industrial

(Percent)

Sweetwater

County

1,831 0 0 0 91 9

State of

Wyoming

14,763 0 0 0 94 6

Total (State and Local) Assessed Valuation

Carbon County 896 1 9 2 80 8

Fremont

County

848 1 24 6 66 3

Hot Springs

County

848 1 24 6 66 3

Natrona

County

1,059 1 41 15 38 5

Sweetwater

County

2,394 0 9 3 80 8

State of

Wyoming

21,898 1 20 5 70 5

Source: Wyoming DOR 2008

Consistent with other data in this section, the property tax base in the planning area counties is

relatively well diversified (compared to the state average). Mining contributes a relatively large

share to the local property tax base in all counties, while agricultural uses contribute less to local

property valuation. In all the counties, residential and commercial property provide important

contributions to local assessed valuation. Mining contributes the largest amount to state assessed

valuation in all the counties.

Table 3.76, “State and Local Sales Tax Collections by Sector, 2008 (percent)” (p. 574) lists local

and state sales tax revenues by sector for each of the counties. Along with the data on property tax

valuations, the table on sales tax collections by sector provide insight into the economic base of

the counties. Retail trade contributes the largest share of sales tax revenues in all the counties.

Several other sectors, such as wholesale trade, utilities, mining, leisure and hospitality, and public

administration, also contributed substantial shares.

Table 3.76. State and Local Sales Tax Collections by Sector, 2008 (percent)

Sector

Carbon

County

Fremont

County

Hot Springs

County

Natrona

County

Sweetwater

County

State of

Wyoming

Agriculture,

Forestry,

Fishing, and

Hunting

0.1 0.04 0.01 0.001 0.02 0.04

Mining 29 15 20 7 26 17

Utilities 3 2 9 3 3 4

Construction 3 2 2 3 2 3

Manufacturing 2 2 1 4 5 4

Wholesale

Trade

9 8 8 15 12 12

Retail Trade 26 41 27 39 29 33

Transportation

and

Warehousing

0.1 0.1 0.03 0.1 0.3 0.2

Information 2 3 3 1 2 2

Financial

Activities

6 3 2 4 5 4

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Economic Conditions February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 575

Sector

Carbon

County

Fremont

County

Hot Springs

County

Natrona

County

Sweetwater

County

State of

Wyoming

Professional

and Business

Services

0.4 1.0 0.3 1 1 1

Educational

and Health

Services

0.01 0.1 0.02 0.04 0.1 0.1

Leisure and

Hospitality

10 8 13 8 6 10

Other Services 3 4 3 4 4 4

Public

Administration

7 11 11 11 5 7

Total ($

millions)

28.2 37.1 4.8 103.1 106.5 849

Source: Wyoming Economic Analysis Division 2008

Separate data on sales tax revenues from retail trade, accommodation, and food sales (Table 3.77,

“Retail, Accommodation, and Food Sales – State and Local Sales Tax Collections, 2008

(percent)” (p. 575)) provide some additional insight into the contribution from elements that

might be related to travel and tourism specifically (e.g., eating and drinking establishments and

lodging). A sizable portion of tax collections from eating and drinking establishments also accrue

from local residents, and a portion of gasoline station tax collections would also accrue from

tourists and business travelers. These data suggest that travel and tourism provide an important

contribution to sales tax collections in the study area counties. This is particularly true for Hot

Springs County, where eating and drinking establishments and lodging contribute 31 percent of

the sales tax collections attributable to retail, accommodation, and food sales (about $0.6 million

annually), and Carbon County, where these subsectors account for 27 percent of the sales tax

collections attributable to retail, accommodation, and food sales (about $2.7 million annually).

Table 3.77. Retail, Accommodation, and Food Sales – State and Local Sales Tax Collections,

2008 (percent)

Sector

Carbon

County

Fremont

County

Hot Springs

County

Natrona

County

Sweetwater

County

State of

Wyoming

Auto Dealers

and Parts

6 7 3 8 9 8

Building

Material

and Garden

Supplies

20 20 30 14 15 15

Clothing and

Shoe Stores

1 1 1 4 3 3

Department

Stores

4 4 0 6 3 4

Eating and

Drinking

Places

13 12 17 13 12 14

Electronic

and Appliance

Stores

2 3 3 6 2 5

Gasoline

Stations

13 8 6 4 12 8

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Economic Conditions
576 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Sector

Carbon

County

Fremont

County

Hot Springs

County

Natrona

County

Sweetwater

County

State of

Wyoming

General

Merchandise

Stores

7 22 6 20 12 14

Grocery and

Food Stores

5 4 5 2 4 3

Home

Furniture and

Furnishings

1 1 1 3 3 3

Liquor Stores 1 2 1 2 1 2

Lodging

Services

14 3 14 3 6 8

Miscellaneous

Retail

14 13 14 15 17 15

Total ($

millions)

10 18 2 48 38 359

Source: Wyoming Economic Analysis Division 2008

Travel, Tourism, and Recreation

BLM management actions also affect travel and tourism, both directly (through decisions that

affect access to recreation) and indirectly (through decisions that affect wildlife populations). The

State Office of Travel and Tourism estimates that in 2007, travel and tourism accounted for $107

million in tax revenues, including $65 million (rounded figure) in state revenues and $43 million

(rounded figure) in local revenues (2007 dollars), not including property tax collections related to

recreation infrastructure (Dean Runyan Associates 2008). Most trips (an estimated 98 percent)

are due to tourism for pleasure (WTT 2007). Table 3.78, “Local and State Tax Receipts due to

Travel and Tourism in Study Area Counties and Wyoming in 2007 ($ million)” (p. 576) lists

tax receipts for the counties in the study area. This study does not include spending by local

residents on recreation.

The study also does not include tourism that is not measured through tax receipt. The Impact

Analysis for Planning Model (IMPLAN) system does not capture the economic impact of NOLS,

one of the largest outfitters in the United States. In 2010, NOLS paid $7,200,000 in annual payroll

for 125 full time and 50 seasonal staff, and 300 seasonal field instructors in Fremont County. The

school spent $350,000 on food in the State of Wyoming in 2010, $53,000 on fuel for vehicles

in Wyoming, and $50,000 on vehicle maintenance. Further, NOLS paid $110,000 to Wyoming

outfitters in 2010. The IMPLAN approach to measuring tourism is through counting hotel stays.

However, 1,200 students attending NOLS courses (and, thus, at least 2,400 hotel stays) stayed in

the Noble Hotel, the NOLS dormitory. These students shopped locally, including through NOLS,

for provisions, equipment, clothing and other articles, and patronized local restaurants and stores.

Table 3.78. Local and State Tax Receipts due to Travel and Tourism in Study Area Counties

and Wyoming in 2007 ($ million)

County Local Tax Receipts State Tax Receipts Total Tax Receipts

Fremont $1.0 $3.0 $4.0

Carbon $2.4 $4.4 $6.8

Hot Springs $0.4 $0.7 $1.1

Natrona $3.6 $6.4 $10.0

Sweetwater $3.0 $4.7 $7.7

Wyoming $43.2 $64.6 $107.8

Source: Dean Runyan Associates 2008

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Economic Conditions February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 577

Table 3.79, “Local and State Tax Receipts due to Travel and Tourism, 2001-2007 ($

million)” (p. 577) lists trends in local and state tax receipts for counties in the planning area from

2001 through 2007. Note that the data in the table are in current dollars; that is, they are not

adjusted for inflation. The table shows that local and state tax receipts rose slowly but steadily

between 2001 and 2007 for all five counties in the planning area and in the state. Among the five

counties, tax receipts are consistently highest in Natrona County.

Table 3.79. Local and State Tax Receipts due to Travel and Tourism, 2001-2007 ($ million)

County 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Local Tax Receipts

Fremont 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

Carbon 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.9 2.3 2.7

Hot Springs 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4

Natrona 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.5 2.8 3.1 3.6

Sweetwater 1.5 1.8 1.9 2.1 2.4 2.8 3.0

Wyoming 28 30 31 32 36 40 43

State Tax Receipts

Fremont 2.3 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.8 3.0

Carbon 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.1 3.4 3.9 4.2

Hot Springs 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.7

Natrona 4.7 4.7 4.9 5.1 5.5 6.0 6.4

Sweetwater 3.4 3.3 3.5 3.7 4.1 4.5 4.7

Wyoming 50 50 51 52 56 61 65

Sources: Dean Runyan Associates 2007; Dean Runyan Associates 2008

Note: Data are in current dollars (not adjusted for inflation).

Livestock Grazing and Ranching

Livestock grazing and ranching, and agriculture more generally, contribute directly to local and

state tax revenues from local ad valorem property taxes and local and state sales and use taxes.

According to a 2003 report on state and local tax revenues, agriculture, along with forestry,

fishing, and hunting, brought in $9.2 million in state and local tax revenues due to ad valorem

property taxes, and $1.4 million due to sales and use taxes, for a total of more than $10.6 million

(WLSO 2003).

Economic Considerations on the Wind River Indian Reservation

Due to the size of the WRIR and its location within the Lander Field Office, it is important to note

the economic contributions of the reservation. The Northern Arapaho, who constitute about 54

percent of the Native American population on the WRIR (U.S. Census Bureau 2000a), operate

three casinos on the reservation (Wind River Casino, Little Wind Casino, and 789 Smoke Shop

& Casino). The Eastern Shoshone, who constitute about 30 percent of the Native American

population on the reservation, operate one casino (Shoshone Rose Casino). These are the only

casinos in the State of Wyoming. The casinos provide job opportunities for Native Americans

and other people, both directly and indirectly (through a multiplier effect). Although the casinos

in Wyoming do not pay state taxes on their proceeds (NCSL 2004), they do provide revenue

to the state via other sources, such as sales taxes and hotel occupancy taxes. A 2008 report

commissioned by the Northern Arapaho tribe found that the three Northern Arapaho casinos

generated $90 million in economic activity, including multiplier effects, $800,000 in county sales

tax revenue, and $1.6 million in state sales tax revenue (NativeBiz 2009, Over 2009).

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Economic Conditions
578 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

In addition to the casino business, several other initiatives generate economic activity. For

example, the Northern Arapaho Tourism Information Council, a recently established nonprofit

organization, plans to develop several recreational and cultural attractions for visitors to the

WRIR. The Northern Arapaho Tourism Information Council has no projects currently under

construction, but ideas for future projects include a visitor center, a site commemorating the Sand

Creek Massacre Trail, and concessions from which native guides could take visitors to the best

spots for hunting and fishing on the WRIR. These projects would require additional funding and

approvals from several different agencies on the WRIR. Thus, the schedule for implementation is

not known at this time (Barela 2009, Northern Arapaho Public Relations Department 2009).

3.8.3. Health and Safety

The BLM addresses a variety of potential hazards on public surface lands to reduce risks to

visitors and employees. Hazards include hazardous materials; mine shafts and adits; abandoned

equipment and structures; explosives and munitions; natural geologic hazards; and spills from

pipelines, tankers, and storage tanks.

Abandoned Mine Lands

Extreme physical hazards are common at abandoned mine sites, and for visitors, these hazards

are not always apparent. Abandoned mine sites have proven to be a luring and sometimes

life-threatening attraction for both children and adults. Serious injury or death could occur at

these sites. Common hazards include open vertical shafts; unstable overhead rock and decayed

support structures; deadly gases and lack of oxygen; remnant explosives and toxic chemicals;

high walls, open pits, and open drill holes; and becoming lost and disoriented while underground.

Subsidence at abandoned coal mines and coal fires pose additional hazards.

Abandoned mines are a common feature on BLM-administered lands. The BLM has identified

934 known AML sites throughout the State of Wyoming (BLM 2009f). Remediation projects

have begun at several of these sites, including projects within the planning area such as the Gas

Hills Haul Road, for which the BLM completed remediation in 2004; the South Pass mining area,

for which the BLM has partially completed remediation; and the Copper Mountain mines, for

which remediation is pending (BLM 2009g). Several additional AML sites on BLM-administered

lands in the Copper Mountain and South Pass areas were reclaimed in 2009 and 2010, such as the

Carrie Shields Mine near South Pass City. Many additional sites in the planning area, especially

in the South Pass area, await reclamation. Also, the Gas Hills and Crooks Gap areas have had

many AML reclamation projects for old uranium mines.

The Wyoming State Office of the BLM has a prioritized list of AML sites that pose the greatest

risk to people and the environment. AML sites affecting water quality are addressed using the

watershed approach. Using this approach accomplishes the following objectives:

● Allows for mitigation to be risk-based by identifying priority sites first

● Fosters collaborative efforts across federal, state, and private administrative boundaries

● Considers all issues important to water resource protection

● Reduces the cost of mitigation

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Health and Safety February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 579

● Provides the most efficient method of remediating AML sites by utilizing a wide range of

available resources

The most substantial type of mine hazard features in the planning area are open shafts, adits, and

high-walls remaining at AML sites in the South Pass mining district (recreation concerns), and

at the Copper Mountain mining district (high use area). The South Pass mining district and the

Copper Mountain mining district have been prioritized as hazardous areas due to the severity

of hazards (falling, entrapment), proximity to population centers, and likelihood of access

(recreation) (BLM 2009a). Final reclamation of these sites has not been accomplished; therefore,

the BLM created a temporary fencing program to immediately address safety concerns. The

BLM completed fencing at over 10 sites in late fall 2008. Further work is planned to address

other fencing needs and to bring additional hazardous and abandoned sites to closure through a

final reclamation solution.

In 2004 and 2005, the BLM and the Wyoming DEQ, AML Division signed cooperative

agreements that further facilitated the reclamation of AML sites on BLM-administered lands.

The state program, as required by the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977,

focuses on public safety hazards. In addition, the BLM has received some funding within its Soil,

Water, and Air Program to address environmental hazards and watershed concerns associated

with abandoned mines on a site-specific basis. Starting in Fiscal Year 2011, reclamation of safety

hazards will be under a separate BLM AML subactivity; the Soil, Water and Air subactivity will

continue to address hazards affecting water quality. By combining available funding, safety

hazards and environmental impacts to water quality and watershed function can continue to be

addressed in a more comprehensive way at priority AML sites.

The Wyoming DEQ, AML Division works closely with federal land management agencies,

private land owners, and the general public to ensure that the views of all interested parties are

considered in the reclamation process. According to an August 2007 fact sheet, the projected

budget for the Wyoming DEQ, AML Division is $69 to $149 million annually for Calendar Years

2009 through 2015 (Wyoming DEQ No Date-a). These funds will be used to identify and reclaim

AMLs and to construct public works projects in communities adversely affected by mining

activities. According to the Wyoming DEQ AML Division Coordinator, the state AML program

will focus on abandoned coal mines in the foreseeable future (Wyoming DEQ 2008b). However,

the BLM will continue to identify and remediate abandoned mine hazards in concert with the

Wyoming DEQ, AML Division and on its own.

Other Hazards

Other hazards identified in the planning area include unexploded ordinance and other hazards

associated with formerly used defense sites, and hazardous materials and wastes. Hazardous

materials are used and/or stored in connection with a variety of permitted activities on

BLM-administered land, including oil and gas drilling and mining. Air, soil, surface water,

and groundwater contamination can be found at sites associated with hazardous material use

and storage.

Earthquakes, landslides, and rockslides are natural geological hazards that pose a potential threat

to public health and safety in the planning area. There has been seismic and volcanic activity

in the Greater Yellowstone area throughout the past several million years; hazards include

earthquakes, as well as ash falls from volcanic eruptions. While most of the planning area is in a

moderate earthquake zone, the likelihood of seismic activity increases with proximity to the Teton

Range. There are fault lines in the planning area, particularly in the southeastern corner and along

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Health and Safety
580 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

the Wind River fault. Rockslides and landslides also pose a potential threat in the planning area.

Rock type and percent slope are factors that contribute to the potential for rockslides.

Management Challenges for Health and Safety

Successful reclamation of AML sites is a management challenge in the planning area. AML sites

can be difficult to reclaim and remediation must be considered before starting new mining activity

or other development. In addition, the repurposing of AML sites in the planning area poses a

challenge due to the contaminated nature of many of the sites. Reclaimed lands are sometimes

suitable for repurposing for other uses, such as for siting communications towers, transmission

lines or renewable energy development. However, many of the AML sites in the planning area

are radioactive or otherwise contaminated and are not suitable for other uses. Assessment for

repurposing must be performed on a site-specific basis.

3.8.4. Environmental Justice

Environmental justice pertains to the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people,

regardless of race, color, national origin, or income, regarding the development, implementation,

and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. Fair treatment means that no

group of people, including racial, ethnic, or socioeconomic groups, should bear a disproportionate

share of the adverse environmental or human health consequences or be denied benefits from

federal, state, local, and tribal programs and policies (Executive Order 12898 – Federal Actions to

Address Environmental Justice In Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations).

The BLM incorporates both the “fair treatment” and “meaningful involvement” aspects of

environmental justice into its planning process. To address the “meaningful involvement”

aspects of environmental justice, the BLM provides low-income, minority, and Native American

populations the opportunity to be involved in the planning process through public involvement,

scoping, consultation and coordination, and comment periods during the development of this

RMP revision. Refer to the Consultation and Coordination section of Chapter 5 in the RMP

for additional information.

To address “fair treatment” aspects of environmental justice, the environmental analysis in the

EIS includes an analysis of all human health and environmental impacts (including impacts on the

physical or natural environment) that could affect low-income populations, populations of racial

and ethnic minorities, and Native American tribes. This analysis identifies any disproportionately

high and adverse human health or environmental impacts on these populations. The analysis

in the EIS also addresses whether low-income and minority populations have equal access

to the benefits provided by the alternatives. To determine what environmental impacts are

“disproportionately high and adverse,” BLM considers three factors (Council on Environmental

Quality 1997), as follows:

a. whether there is or will be an impact on the natural or physical environment that significantly

and adversely affects a minority population, low-income population, or Native American

tribe. Such effects may include ecological, cultural, human health, economic, or social

impacts on minority communities, low-income communities, or Native American tribes

when those impacts are interrelated to impacts on the natural or physical environment;

b. whether environmental effects are significant (as employed by NEPA) and are or may be

having an adverse impact on minority populations, low-income populations, or Native

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Environmental Justice February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 581

American tribes that appreciably exceeds or is likely to appreciably exceed those on the

general population or other appropriate comparison group; and

c. whether the environmental effects occur or would occur in a minority population,

low-income population, or Native American tribe affected by cumulative or multiple

adverse exposures from environmental hazards (Council on Environmental Quality 1997).

In considering environmental justice, it is important to recognize that both local residents and

transitory low‐income and minority populations can be users of public lands. The BLM does not

have data to identify whether non-area users of the public lands are low-income or minority

populations. Because of the lack of good data concerning low-income and minority populations

from residents outside the planning area, this section focuses on residential demographics.

Minority and Low-Income Populations

IM 2002‐164 defines minority persons as “Black/African American, Hispanic, Asian and Pacific

Islander, American Indian, Eskimo, Aleut, and other nonwhite persons.” Furthermore, IM

2002‐164 indicates that an area should be considered to contain a minority population where

either the minority population of the affected area exceeds 50 percent, or the percentage of

minority population in the affected area is meaningfully greater than the percentage in the

general population.

Table 3.80, “Minority Populations in 2000 and 2008; Low-Income Populations in 2000 and

2007” (p. 582) lists the percent of minority and low‐income populations in the counties in the

planning area compared to the United States and Wyoming. Most of the population in the

planning area resides in Fremont County. Note that the economic data for the WRIR influence

the data for Fremont County as a whole. Unemployment is higher on the reservation, as is

the percentage of people in poverty (Table 3.80, “Minority Populations in 2000 and 2008;

Low-Income Populations in 2000 and 2007” (p. 582)).

The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) guidance for environmental justice analysis under

NEPA notes that agencies may consider as a community “either a group of individuals living in

geographic proximity to one another, or a set of individuals (such as migrant workers or Native

Americans), where either type of group experiences common conditions of environmental

exposure or effect” (Council on Environmental Quality 1997). The CEQ guidance also indicates

that low‐income populations should be identified with the statistical poverty thresholds from

the Census Bureau. These thresholds are defined differently for different household sizes and

numbers of dependents. For example, the threshold for a two-parent family with no children is

different from the threshold for a single parent with five children. Thus, the Census Bureau

poverty thresholds comprise a 48-cell matrix that varies by family size and composition. Because

the Census Bureau collects data on income and family composition for individual households,

the agency can compare family-level income data to the applicable threshold. In 2007, the

Census poverty threshold for a family of two adults and two children was $21,027 (U.S. Census

Bureau 2007).

Although the CEQ guidance does not provide a quantitative threshold (such as a limit on the

percent of persons in poverty) for determining whether a population should be considered

low‐income, typically, the percent of persons in poverty in the study area is compared to that in

a larger geographic comparison area, such as the state or the overall planning area. Neither the

CEQ, EPA, or BLM guidance specifies quantitative criteria for what constitutes a low‐income

population.

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Environmental Justice
582 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Table 3.80. Minority Populations in 2000 and 2008; Low-Income Populations in 2000 and

2007

County

Percent Minority

Population in 2000

Percent Minority

Population in 2008

Percent in Poverty

in 2000

Percent in Poverty

in 2007

Carbon 17 19 13 10

Fremont 25 27 18 13

Hot Springs 5 7 11 11

Natrona 8 10 12 10

Sweetwater 13 17 8 7

Wind River Indian

Reservation1 34 332 21 N/A3

Wyoming 11 13 11 10

United States 31 34 12 13

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau 2000a; U.S. Census Bureau 2008a; U.S. Census Bureau 2008c; U.S. Census Bureau

2009a; U.S. Census Bureau 2009b; U.S. Census Bureau 2009c

1The Census Bureau defines the Wind River Indian Reservation (WRIR) as including the

towns of Riverton, Shoshoni, Pavillion, and Hudson.

2Data for 2008 for the WRIR are not available; the data shown are for a three-yearsample covering 2005 through 2007.

3The most recent poverty data available for the WRIR are for 2000.

Table 3.81, “Racial and Ethnic Groups for Planning Area Counties, WRIR, and Wyoming

(percent)” (p. 583) summarizes the study area population by race and ethnicity for major racial

and ethnic groups. In Carbon, Hot Springs, Sweetwater, and Natrona Counties, the largest ethnic

or racial group other than non-Hispanic whites is Hispanic or Latino (of any race). In Fremont

County, and for the WRIR, Native Americans constitute the largest ethnic or racial group other

than non-Hispanic whites. The percent of racial “minorities” (people other than non-Hispanic

whites) is greater than that for the state in Carbon, Fremont, and Natrona Counties. Note that

Hispanic/Latino denotes an ethnicity, and people of this ethnic background can be of any race.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Environmental Justice February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 583

Table 3.81. Racial and Ethnic Groups for Planning Area Counties, WRIR, and Wyoming

(percent)

Race or

Ethnicity

Carbon

County

Fremont

County

Hot Springs

County

Sweetwater

County

Natrona

County WRIR State of

Wyoming

NonHispanic,

White

81 73 93 90 83 67 87

NonHispanic,

Black

1 1 1 1 1 0 1

NonHispanic,

American

Indian/

Alaska

Native

1 19 2 1 1 25 2

NonHispanic,

Asian,

Native

Hawaiian, or

Other Pacific

Islander

1 1 0 1 1 1 1

NonHispanic,

some other

race, or two

or more races

1 2 1 1 2 2 1

Hispanic or

Latino (of

any race)

15 6 3 6 12 6 8

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau 2009a (counties); U.S. Census Bureau 2009b (state); U.S. Census Bureau 2008a

(WRIR)

Note: County data are for 2008. WRIR data are from a rolling survey collected in from 2005 to 2007.

WRIR Wind River Indian Reservation

The WRIR is downstream of public lands in the northwestern and southern Wind River drainages

and could be affected by BLM management decisions that affect water quality or quantity. A

wide range of activities have the potential to impact the WRIR, such as activities affecting air

quality or activities that could impact the WRIR gaming industry, incipient tourism industry (see

the Economic Conditions section), or livestock grazing operations.

Table 3.82, “Population, Racial and Ethnic Groups, and Poverty for Tribal Census Tracts of the

WRIR, 2000” (p. 584) provides data on minority and low-income populations in Tribal Census

Tracts of the WRIR, and Map 133 shows the locations of the Tribal Census Tracts. The percentage

of Native American residents is greatest in Tribal Census Tract 9401, which constitutes the

western half of the WRIR, and second greatest in Tribal Census Tract 9402, which constitutes

most of the eastern portion. In Tracts 9403, 9404, and 9405, which comprise Riverton and its

immediate surroundings, the percent of Native American people is much lower. Poverty is also

greatest in Tracts 9401 and 9402.

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Environmental Justice
584 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Note that the table shows the most recent data tabulated for the tracts of the WRIR, but these

data are from 2000 and do not correspond exactly to the data provided above for the WRIR from

2005 though 2007. Also, note that the table does not provide data for Tribal Census Tract 9876

because, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, only one person lives in that tract.

Table 3.82. Population, Racial and Ethnic Groups, and Poverty for Tribal Census Tracts

of the WRIR, 2000

Data Item WRIR Tribal Census

Tract 9401

Tribal Census

Tract 9402

Tribal Census

Tract 9403

Tribal Census

Tract 9404

Tribal Census

Tract 9405

Total

Population

23,245 3,483 7,548 5,103 4,751 2,364

Non-Hispanic,

White (percent)

66 15 59 79 88 86

Non-Hispanic,

Black (percent)

0 0 0 0 0 0

Non-Hispanic,

American

Indian/Alaska

Native

(percent)

27 81 35 10 4 5

Non-Hispanic,

Asian, Native

Hawaiian,

or Other

Pacific Islander

(percent)

0 0 0 0 0 0

Non-Hispanic,

some other

race, or two

or more races

(percent)

2 1 2 2 2 2

Hispanic or

Latino (of any

race) (percent)

5 3 3 8 5 7

Percent of

Population

in Poverty

(percent)

21 34 23 19 10 21

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2000a

Note: Data for Tribal Census Tract 9876 are not shown because, according to the U.S. Census

Bureau, only one person resides in this area.

WRIR Wind River Indian Reservation

3.8.5. Tribal Treaty Rights

The WRIR is located within the Lander Field Office planning area. The WRIR is Wyoming’s only

Native American Indian Reservation. The WRIR is home to the Eastern Shoshone and Northern

Arapaho and was established by the 1868 Treaty of Fort Bridger, as amended.

Judicially established lands are defined based on information provided by the Indian Claims

Commission and approximating tribal lands that are determined by the ethnographic and historic

literature. The NPS (NPS 1993) indicates that the judicially established Crow lands are within the

planning area. The Shoshone have judicially established Indian Lands adjacent to the Lander

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Tribal Treaty Rights February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 585

Field Office. Other tribes have judicially established land nearby, but outside the planning area

boundaries.

There are no trust lands or tribal properties outside the WRIR in the planning area. Tribal roles

and responsibilities are not well defined in the existing plan, although BLM land use plans must

address the protection of any treaty rights. The BLM works closely with the WRIR regarding

planning issues. Because of the fiduciary responsibilities the BLM holds for tribal mineral rights,

the agency is particularly cognizant of tribal and treaty obligations.

In compliance with the AIRFA of 1978, the NHPA of 1966, the Archaeological Resources

Protection Act of 1979, the NAGPRA of 1990, and other Executive and Secretarial Orders

(BLM Manual 8120), the BLM consulted with Native American tribes during the RMP revision

process. The intent of tribal consultation is to help the BLM identify and design management

for significant religious or cultural properties (TCPs); to understand tribal concerns; to identify

public land places, resources, uses, and values important to the tribes and/or tribal members; and

to identify land management decisions and procedures that conflict with Native Americans’

religious observations. Tribal consultation during the RMP revision process is in accordance with

BLM guidance, and the BLM has considered information resulting from tribal consultations in

the impacts analysis. The Consultation and Coordination section of Chapter 5 identifies the

tribes involved in consultation efforts for this RMP revision. It is BLM policy to keep in trust

confidential information received through tribal consultations.

Treaty Rights and Trust Responsibilities Policy

A treaty is a formal agreement between the United States government and a Native American tribe

or tribes that cedes land or reserves rights to the tribe(s). Executive Order 13084, Consultation

with Indian Tribal Governments, and Executive Order 13007, Indian Sacred Sites, provide the

framework for involving Native American tribes in the BLM planning process. BLM Manual

8120, Tribal Consultation provides additional guidance.

3.9. Climate Change

A growing body of evidence indicates that the Earth’s atmosphere is warming. Records show that

surface temperatures in the Wyoming region have risen approximately 1.5°F since the 1960 to

1979 baseline years (GCRP 2009a). 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 2009a).

Globally, 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 climate by increasing the amount of heat energy

absorbed by the atmosphere. Although GHG concentrations in the atmosphere and climatic

conditions have varied throughout the Earth’s history, recent industrialization and burning of

fossil fuels has caused global atmospheric CO2 concentration to increase; 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 as a result of human

activities since 1750 and now exceed pre-industrial values (as determined from ice cores spanning

many thousands of years). The global increase in CO2 concentrations is due to fossil fuel use and

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Climate Change
586 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

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 research, the impacts of climate change are expected to vary by

region, season and time of day (National Academy of Sciences 2006, GCRP 2009a). 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 the winter months 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 a given region, increasing temperatures may also affect the amount of soil moisture and

atmospheric water vapor, the timing and amount of precipitation and snow melt, and the intensity

of storm systems. All of these factors may affect the climate, day-to-day weather conditions,

water quality and quantity, soil conditions, vegetation, fire intensity and frequency, air quality, and

other resources in the planning area.

All of North America is likely to experience an increase in average temperature during the next

100 years, and the annual mean warming in most areas is likely to exceed the global mean

warming (IPCC 2007a). Temperatures in the planning area are projected to increase by the end

of the current century (GCRP 2009a). Summer temperatures in the planning area are expected

to increase between approximately 3°F and 10°F by 2080-2099 (GCRP 2009a, GCRP 2009b).

Overall, the temperature in the region that includes the planning area is projected to increase

between 2.5°F to more than 13°F compared with the 1960 to 1979 baseline, depending on

future GHG emissions (GCRP 2009a). This range of temperature increases reflects the current

uncertainty in climate change modeling and represents the likely range of model projections,

though lower or higher outcomes are possible.

The lack of scientific tools (models with sufficient spatial and temporal resolution) to forecast

climate change at even regional scales limits the ability to quantify current and future impacts

of climate change in the planning area. Potential future impacts of climate change that can be

reasonably anticipated for the planning area are described below; however, some of these impacts

may already be occurring in the area.

Increasing temperatures in the planning area are likely to contribute to increased evaporation,

drought frequency, and declining water quantity and quality, which will add additional stress to

water resources in the region. The planning area is also dependent on temperature sensitive

springtime snowpack to meet demand for water from municipal, industrial, agricultural, and

recreational uses as well as BLM-authorized activities. Higher temperatures are causing more

winter precipitation to fall as rain rather than snow, which is reducing snowpack and contributing

to earlier snowmelt. Continuing declines in snowmelt associated with climate change are

projected, which would reduce the amount of water available during summer months (GCRP

2009b). As glaciers in the Wind River Mountains continue to recede, annual spring runoff will

occur sooner and could have smaller discharges. Lower levels of water would likely result in

degradation of water quality including temperature increases, loss of high flows need to mix and

flush pollutants, increased sedimentation, and degradation or loss of habitats.

Shifting precipitation patterns are projected across the Rocky Mountain region as a result of

climate change (NPS 2010). It is estimated that in the region, precipitation could increase 2 to

5 percent in winter, and decrease 0 to 4 percent in summer (NPS 2010). While increases in

winter precipitation could result in heavier snowpack in the mountains, reductions in summer

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Climate Change February 2013
Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS 587

precipitation and warmer temperatures that result in early spring snowmelt would couple to reduce

the water availability during the dry summer season. These predicted changes in precipitation can

affect the distribution of flora and fauna across the landscape and combine with other stressors to

increase the risk of wildfire and insect outbreaks.

Increases in average summer temperatures and earlier spring snowmelt in the planning area

are also expected to increase the risk of wildfire occurrence by increasing summer moisture

deficits (GCRP 2009a). Drought and the resulting stress on vegetation is likely to increase the

frequency and intensity of mountain pine beetle and other insect infestations. Increases in insect

infestations and tree mortality can also result from fluctuations in climatic patterns, such as

warmer and drier summer conditions and warmer winters. Forest communities are resilient

when responding to normal variations in weather to which they are adapted; however, climate

change may alter precipitation patterns and extreme weather events too rapidly for forests and

other vegetation to adapt. The synergistic impacts of drought, insect infestations, fluctuations

in precipitation and climate, fire frequency and occurrence, and other factors would likely

require specialized management in forests and other vegetated areas, especially where stands

are currently overstocked.

Climate change is likely to combine with other human induced stress to further increase the

vulnerability of ecosystems to pests, invasive species, and loss of native species. Breeding

patterns, water and food supply, and habitat availability would all likely be affected by climate

change to some degree. Sensitive species in the planning area such as the greater sage-grouse,

which are already stressed by factors such as declining habitat and increased development, could

experience additional pressures as a result of climate change. If glacial retreat or early snowpack

melt continues, perennial waterbodies may become intermittent and unable to support fish

populations. Increasing temperatures and shifting precipitation patterns may also increase the

prevalence of plants with C4 photosynthetic pathways, such as cheatgrass and other invasive plant

species, in higher elevations, which typically prefer warmer temperatures (Skillman et al. 2010).

A variety of activities in the planning area generate GHGs. Direct GHG emissions result from

the combustion of fuels and industrial processes, as well as from any number of other activities

that occur on public lands. Direct emissions occurring in the planning area include those related

to oil and gas and other minerals development, fire events, motorized vehicle use (e.g., OHVs),

livestock grazing, facilities development, and fugitive emissions. Indirect GHG emissions and

other contributions to climate change in the planning area include the use of electricity generated

outside the area, heat and steam, 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 snow melt).

BLM-administered land and public lands in general also play an important role in combating

further climate change. Vegetation and soil provide carbon sequestration, which is the storage and

removal of CO2 or other forms of carbon from the atmosphere. Management strategies to improve

vegetative and soil health provide opportunities for increased carbon sequestration. For example,

the need to maintain and improve vegetative condition required by the Wyoming Standards for

Healthy Rangelands (Appendix J (p. 1537)) can result in increased carbon sequestration.

Adaptive management is a useful management approach to appropriately anticipate and respond

to the uncertainty of impacts resulting from climate change. Adaptive management is useful for

complex processes and where potential impacts are large and could affect multiple resources.

Adaptive management strategies are iterative processes where monitoring and assessment refine

February 2013

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Climate Change
588 Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

management. This document is based on current scientific knowledge and understanding,

which in the case of climate change, is still emerging. Adaptive management provides for new

information to be evaluated and incorporated into project level management decisions, BMPs,

mitigation and the decision-making process. Adapting management to reflect emerging science,

projections, and impacts of climate change allows the BLM to adjust management to best meet

the challenges of climate change. Additional information on adaptive management can be found

in Chapter 2 of this document.

Additional and up to date information on climate change projections, impacts, and

other related issues 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/).

Chapter 3 Affected Environment February 2013