Bighorn Basin Resource Management Plan 

Revision Project 

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin 

Draft Resource Management Plan and 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

July 2013 

Chapters 1 - 6, 

Appendices, Glossary, and Maps 

BLM 

Wyoming - Cody & Worland Field Offices 
The BLM’s multiple-use mission is to sustain the health and productivity of 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-13/024+1610



This page intentionally left blank.
Bighorn Basin Resource Management Plan

Revision Project

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin

Draft Resource Management Plan and

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapters 1 - 6,

Appendices, Glossary, and Maps

U.S. Department of the Interior

Bureau of Land Management

Cody Field Office, Wyoming

and

U.S. Department of the Interior

Bureau of Land Management

Worland Field Office, Wyoming

July 2013

Abstract

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft Resource Management Plan and

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Lead Agency: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management

Type of Action: Administrative

Jurisdiction: Portions of Big Horn, Hot Springs, Park, and Washakie counties, Wyoming

Abstract: The Bighorn Basin Draft Resource Management Plan (RMP) and Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS) were released for public review and comment in April 2011 (76 Federal Register [FR] 

22721, April 22, 2011). In July 2012, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Rocky Mountain Regional 

Interdisciplinary Team identified the need to prepare a Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and 

Draft EIS (the Supplement) to consider incorporation of proposed management actions in designated 

greater sage-grouse Key and Core Habitat Areas and to thoroughly consider the conservation measures 

identified in the Greater Sage-grouse National Technical Team (NTT) Report on National Greater SageGrouse Conservation Measures (Sage-grouse NTT 2011), as referenced in BLM IM No 2012-044 (BLM 

National Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Planning Strategy). The Supplement describes and analyzes two 

additional alternatives (E and F) to address these issues.

The Supplement and the Draft RMP and Draft EIS are combined efforts to revise RMPs for the BLM Cody 

Field Office and BLM Worland Field Office (the Planning Area). The Planning Area is located in northcentral Wyoming, and comprises approximately 5.6 million acres of land in Big Horn, Hot Springs, Park, 

and Washakie counties. Within the Planning Area, the BLM administers approximately 3.2 million acres 

of surface land and 4.2 million acres of federal mineral estate.

The Draft RMP and Draft EIS analyzed alternatives A through D, representing complete land use plans 

for managing the Planning Area. For the new alternatives analyzed in the Supplement, management 

under Alternative E is the same as under Alternative B, except it designates Key Habitat Areas for 

greater sage-grouse as the Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC (Area of Critical Environmental 

Concern); management under Alternative F is the same as under Alternative D, except it designates Core 

Habitat Areas for greater sage-grouse as the Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC. The BLM is 

analyzing ACEC designations for greater sage-grouse priority habitat because this resource was found to 

meet the relevance and importance criteria that require its consideration as an ACEC.

The Supplement only includes new information and rationale needed to support the incorporation of 

alternatives E and F into the planning process and references the Draft RMP and Draft EIS for context 

needed to understand the management and impacts discussed. The environmental consequences of 

alternatives E and F are described in comparison to those of alternatives A through D in the Draft RMP 

and Draft EIS.

Following receipt and consideration of public comments on the Supplement, the BLM will select the 

Proposed RMP and prepare a Final EIS that integrates content from the Supplement and the Bighorn 

Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS. When completed, the Records of Decision for the RMP will provide 

comprehensive, long-range decisions for (1) managing resources in the BLM Cody and Worland Field 

Offices and (2) identifying allowable uses on the BLM-administered surface land and mineral estate. 

Comments are accepted for 90 days following the date the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

publishes the Notice of Availability for this Supplement to the Draft RMP and Draft EIS in the Federal 

Register. Comments should be submitted via email to BBRMP_WYMail@blm.gov. Alternatively, 

comments can mailed to: Bighorn Basin RMP and EIS, Bureau of Land Management Worland Field 

Office, P.O. Box 119, 101 South 23rd Street, Worland, Wyoming 82401.
Abstract

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

This page intentionally left blank.
Table of Contents

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................ES-1

READER’S GUIDE TO THIS DOCUMENT ..........................................................................................RG-1

CHAPTER 1 – PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION ...............................................................................1-1

1.2.1. Need to Revise Existing Plans....................................................................................1-2

1.3.1. Bureau of Land Management Planning Process........................................................1-3

1.4 Decision Framework...............................................................................................................1-5

1.4.2 Planning Criteria........................................................................................................1-5

CHAPTER 2 – RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES ..................................................................2-1

2.5 Alternatives Summary ............................................................................................................2-2

2.5.5 Alternative E............................................................................................................2-12

2.5.6 Alternative F ............................................................................................................2-13

2.7 Summary of Environmental Consequences by Alternative..................................................2-38

CHAPTER 3 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT...........................................................................................3-1

3.4.9 Special Status Species................................................................................................3-2

3.7.1. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern ..................................................................3-5

3.7.1.3. Proposed ACECs....................................................................................3-7

CHAPTER 4 – ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES .............................................................................4-1

4.1 Physical Resources..................................................................................................................4-4

4.1.1 Air Quality..................................................................................................................4-4

4.1.1.2 Summary of Impacts by Alternatives ...................................................4-4

4.1.1.3 Detailed Analysis of Alternatives..........................................................4-6

4.1.2 Geologic Resources.................................................................................................4-10

4.1.3 Soil ...........................................................................................................................4-10

4.1.3.2 Summary of Impacts by Alternative...................................................4-10

4.1.3.3 Detailed Analysis of Alternatives........................................................4-10

4.1.4 Water.......................................................................................................................4-13

4.1.4.2 Summary of Impacts by Alternative...................................................4-13

4.1.4.3 Detailed Analysis of Alternatives........................................................4-14

4.1.5 Cave and Karst Resources .......................................................................................4-17

4.2 Mineral Resources................................................................................................................4-17

4.2.1 Locatable Minerals..................................................................................................4-17

4.2.1.2 Summary of Impacts by Alternative...................................................4-17

4.2.1.3 Detailed Analysis of Alternatives........................................................4-18

4.2.2 Leasable Minerals – Coal.........................................................................................4-20

4.2.3 Leasable Minerals – Oil Shale..................................................................................4-20

4.2.4 Leasable Minerals – Geothermal.............................................................................4-20

4.2.4.2 Summary of Impacts by Alternative...................................................4-20

4.2.4.3 Detailed Analysis of Alternatives........................................................4-20

4.2.5 Leasable Minerals – Oil and Gas..............................................................................4-21

4.2.5.2 Summary of Impacts by Alternative...................................................4-21

4.2.5.3 Detailed Analysis of Alternatives........................................................4-25

4.2.6 Leasable Minerals – Other Solid Leasable Minerals................................................4-28

4.2.6.1 Analysis of Alternatives......................................................................4-28
Table of Contents

ii Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

4.2.7 Salable Minerals......................................................................................................4-28

4.2.7.2 Summary of Impacts by Alternative...................................................4-28

4.2.7.3 Detailed Analysis of Alternatives........................................................4-28

4.3 Fire and Fuels Management.................................................................................................4-30

4.3.1 Wildfires (Unplanned Ignitions) ..............................................................................4-30

4.3.1.2 Summary of Impacts by Alternative...................................................4-30

4.3.1.3 Detailed Analysis of Alternatives........................................................4-30

4.3.2 Prescribed Fires (Planned Ignitions)........................................................................4-33

4.3.2.2 Summary of Impacts by Alternative...................................................4-33

4.3.2.3 Detailed Analysis of Alternatives........................................................4-33

4.3.3 Stabilization and Rehabilitation ..............................................................................4-36

4.3.3.2 Summary of Impacts by Alternative...................................................4-36

4.3.3.3 Detailed Analysis of Alternatives........................................................4-36

4.4 Biological Resources.............................................................................................................4-37

Vegetation Resources ......................................................................................................................4-37

4.4.1 Vegetation – Forests, Woodlands, and Forest Products.........................................4-40

4.4.1.2 Summary of Impacts by Alternative...................................................4-40

4.4.1.3 Detailed Analysis of Alternatives........................................................4-40

4.4.2 Vegetation – Grassland and Shrubland Communities ............................................4-43

4.4.2.2 Summary of Impacts by Alternative...................................................4-43

4.4.2.3 Detailed Analysis of Alternatives........................................................4-44

4.4.3 Vegetation – Riparian/Wetland Resources.............................................................4-47

4.4.3.2 Summary of Impacts by Alternative...................................................4-47

4.4.3.3 Detailed Analysis of Alternatives........................................................4-48

4.4.4 Invasive Species and Pest Management .................................................................4-51

4.4.4.2 Summary of Impacts by Alternative...................................................4-51

4.4.4.3 Detailed Analysis of Alternatives........................................................4-52

Fish and Wildlife Resources .............................................................................................................4-57

4.4.5 Fish and Wildlife Resources – Fish ..........................................................................4-59

4.4.5.2 Summary of Impacts by Alternative...................................................4-59

4.4.5.3 Detailed Analysis of Alternatives........................................................4-59

4.4.6 Fish and Wildlife Resources – Wildlife ....................................................................4-61

4.4.6.2 Summary of Impacts by Alternative...................................................4-61

4.4.6.3 Detailed Analysis of Alternatives........................................................4-62

Special Status Species ......................................................................................................................4-70

4.4.7 Special Status Species – Plants................................................................................4-70

4.4.7.2 Summary of Impacts by Alternative...................................................4-70

4.4.7.3 Detailed Analysis of Alternatives........................................................4-70

4.4.8 Special Status Species – Fish ...................................................................................4-73

4.4.8.2 Summary of Impacts by Alternative...................................................4-73

4.4.8.3 Detailed Analysis of Alternatives........................................................4-73

4.4.9 Special Status Species – Wildlife .............................................................................4-75

4.4.9.2 Summary of Impacts by Alternative...................................................4-75

4.4.9.3 Detailed Analysis of Alternatives........................................................4-76

4.4.10 Wild Horses .............................................................................................................4-83

4.4.10.2 Summary of Impacts by Alternative...................................................4-85

4.4.10.3 Detailed Analysis of Alternatives........................................................4-85
Table of Contents

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS iii

4.5 Heritage and Visual Resources.............................................................................................4-88

4.5.1 Cultural Resources...................................................................................................4-88

4.5.1.2 Summary of Impacts by Alternative...................................................4-88

4.5.1.3 Detailed Analysis of Alternatives........................................................4-88

4.5.2 Paleontological Resources.......................................................................................4-91

4.5.2.2 Summary of Impacts by Alternative...................................................4-91

4.5.2.3 Detailed Analysis of Alternatives........................................................4-92

4.5.3 Visual Resources......................................................................................................4-94

4.5.3.2 Summary of Impacts by Alternative...................................................4-94

4.5.3.3 Detailed Analysis of Alternatives........................................................4-94

4.6 Land Resources.....................................................................................................................4-97

4.6.1 Lands and Realty .....................................................................................................4-97

4.6.1.2 Summary of Impacts by Alternative...................................................4-97

4.6.1.3 Detailed Analysis of Alternatives........................................................4-97

4.6.2 Renewable Energy.................................................................................................4-102

4.6.2.2 Summary of Impacts by Alternative.................................................4-102

4.6.2.3 Detailed Analysis of Alternatives......................................................4-102

4.6.3 Rights-of-Way and Corridors.................................................................................4-103

4.6.3.2 Summary of Impacts by Alternative.................................................4-103

4.6.3.3 Detailed Analysis of Alternatives......................................................4-104

4.6.4 Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management....................................4-106

4.6.4.2 Summary of Impacts by Alternative.................................................4-106

4.6.4.3 Detailed Analysis of Alternatives......................................................4-107

4.6.5 Recreation .............................................................................................................4-109

4.6.5.2 Summary of Impacts by Alternative.................................................4-109

4.6.5.3 Detailed Analysis of Alternatives......................................................4-110

4.6.6 Lands with Wilderness Characteristics..................................................................4-114

4.6.6.2 Summary of Impacts by Alternative.................................................4-114

4.6.6.3 Detailed Analysis of Alternatives......................................................4-114

4.6.7 Livestock Grazing Management............................................................................4-118

4.6.7.2 Summary of Impacts by Alternative.................................................4-118

4.6.7.3 Detailed Analysis of Alternatives......................................................4-118

4.7 Special Designations and Other Management Areas.........................................................4-122

4.7.1 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern ..............................................................4-122

4.7.1.37 Summary of Impacts by Alternative.................................................4-123

4.7.1.38 Detailed Analysis of Alternatives......................................................4-123

4.7.2 National Back Country Byways..............................................................................4-128

4.7.3 National Historic Landmarks.................................................................................4-128

4.7.4 National Historic Trails and Other Historic Trails..................................................4-128

4.7.4.2 Summary of Impacts by Alternative.................................................4-128

4.7.4.3 Detailed Analysis of Alternatives......................................................4-128

4.7.5 Wild and Scenic Rivers...........................................................................................4-131

4.7.6 Wilderness Study Areas.........................................................................................4-131

4.8 Socioeconomic Resources..................................................................................................4-131

4.8.1 Social Conditions...................................................................................................4-131

4.8.1.2 Summary of Impacts by Alternative.................................................4-131

4.8.1.3 Detailed Analysis of Alternatives......................................................4-134
Table of Contents

iv Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

4.8.2 Economic Conditions.............................................................................................4-137

4.8.2.2 Summary of Impacts by Alternative.................................................4-137

4.8.2.3 Detailed Analysis of Alternatives......................................................4-139

4.8.3 Health and Safety ..................................................................................................4-144

4.8.4 Environmental Justice ...........................................................................................4-144

4.8.5 Tribal Treaty Rights................................................................................................4-144

4.9 Cumulative Impacts............................................................................................................4-145

4.9.1.3 Cumulative Impacts..........................................................................4-145

4.10 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources..................................................4-160

4.11 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts............................................................................................4-160

CHAPTER 5 – PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND LIST OF PREPARERS..........................................................5-1

5.1 Public Involvement.................................................................................................................5-2

5.2.1 Cooperating Agencies................................................................................................5-2

5.2.3 Native American Interests.........................................................................................5-3

5.3 Distribution List ......................................................................................................................5-5

5.4 List of Preparers....................................................................................................................5-11

CHAPTER 6 – REFERENCES ...............................................................................................................6-1

APPENDICES

NOTE: The Bighorn Basin Draft Resource Management Plan (RMP) and Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS) were released for public review and comment on April 22, 2011 (76 FR 22721). Volume 3 

of the Draft RMP and Draft EIS, contained appendices and maps that supported the analysis in the main 

body of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) document. The following appendices and maps 

from the Draft RMP and Draft EIS are modified by this Supplement through the addition of alternatives E 

and F.

For all other appendices and maps presented in the Draft RMP and Draft EIS, no change or no 

substantive change has occurred; the reader is referenced to Volume 3 of the original NEPA document 

for these unchanged materials.

Appendix B Federal Laws, Regulations, Policies, and Guidance............................................................ B-1

Appendix C Monitoring and Evaluation ................................................................................................. C-1

Appendix E Consultation Letters and Cooperating Agency Position Statements.................................E-1

Appendix F Special Designations: Wild and Scenic Rivers and Areas of Critical Environmental 

Concern.................................................................................................................................F-1

Appendix G Exception, Modification, and Waiver Criteria....................................................................G-1

Appendix L Best Management Practices and Required Design Features..............................................L-1

Appendix P Livestock Grazing................................................................................................................. P-1

Appendix R Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management ................................................ R-1

Appendix T Surface Disturbance and Reasonable Foreseeable Actions................................................T-1

Appendix U Technical Support Document for Air Quality .....................................................................U-1

Appendix V Water Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP) Technical Support Document......................... V-1
Table of Contents

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS v

Appendix X Economic Impact Analysis Methodology ........................................................................... X-1

Appendix Y Leasing Reform and Master Leasing Plans..........................................................................Y-1

LIST OF TABLES

NOTE: Table names that begin with “SEIS Table” are original to this Supplement; all other tables in this 

document are numbered and named as they appear in the Draft RMP and Draft EIS and are augmented 

to include new Alternative E and Alternative F.

Table 2-2. Comparative Summary of Proposed Land Use Decisions in the Bighorn Basin 

Planning Area .................................................................................................................2-3

Table 2-3. Comparative Summary of Proposed Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

and other Management Areas by Alternative .............................................................2-11

Table 2-5. Detailed Alternatives....................................................................................................2-16

Table 2-6. Summary of Environmental Consequences by Alternative .........................................2-38

Table 3-50. Existing and Proposed Areas of Critical Environmental Concern in the Planning 

Area................................................................................................................................3-6

Table 4-1. Total Projected Surface Disturbance from BLM Reasonable Foreseeable Actions 

in the Bighorn Basin Planning Area................................................................................4-3

Table 4-2. Total Annual Emissions Summary for BLM Activities in the Bighorn Basin 

Planning Area .................................................................................................................4-5

Table 4-3. Carbon Dioxide Equivalent Emissions in Metric Tons by Alternative for 2018..............4-7

Table 4-4. Carbon Dioxide Equivalent Emissions in Metric Tons by Alternative for 2028..............4-7

Table 4-5. Bighorn Basin Planning Area Projected New-Well Counts by Alternative...................4-22

Table 4-6. Acres of Federal Mineral Estate Closed or Administratively Unavailable for Oil 

and Gas Leasing due to Special Designations and Other Management Areas1

...........4-23

Table 4-7. Acres of Oil and Gas Development Potential and Constraints by Alternative.............4-24

Table 4-8. Comparison of Acres of Protective Management by Alternative Encompassing 

Different Plant Communities .......................................................................................4-38

Table 4-9. Summary of Protective Management by Alternative for Selected Fish, Wildlife, 

and Special Status Species...........................................................................................4-57

Table 4-10. Land Use Allocations (acres) within Herd Management Areas by Alternative............4-83

Table 4-13. Withdrawals, Classifications, and Other Segregations in the Planning Area...............4-97

Table 4-14. Land Tenure Adjustment Zones by Alternative .........................................................4-100

Table 4-16. Acres of Management in Lands with Wilderness Characteristics by Alternative ......4-115

Table 4-17. Change in Active Animal Unit Months (AUMs) per Year by Alternative....................4-118

SEIS Table-1. Summary of Management by Alternative in the Greater Sage-Grouse Key and 

Core Habitat Areas ACECs..........................................................................................4-124

Table 4-20. Overall Impacts on Social Conditions by Alternative.................................................4-133

Table 4-21. Comparison of Projected Earnings and Employment to 2008 Levels........................4-134

Table 4-22. Average Annual Impacts on Earnings and Output, by Sector and Alternative for 

the Planning Area.......................................................................................................4-139

Table 4-23. Average Annual Impacts on Employment, by Sector and Alternative for the 

Planning Area .............................................................................................................4-140
Table of Contents

vi Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Table 4‐24. Average Annual Impacts on Employment, by Subsector and Alternative for the

Planning Area ............................................................................................................. 4‐141

Table 4‐25. Estimated Oil and Gas Tax Revenues by Alternative for the Planning Area

(millions of 2008 $) .................................................................................................... 4‐142

Table 4‐26. Cumulative Surface Disturbance in Acres from BLM and Non‐BLM Reasonably

Foreseeable Actions................................................................................................... 4‐145

Table 4‐28. Cumulative (including state and private) Impacts of Oil and Gas Development

over the Life of the Plan in the Planning Area for Economic Conditions...................4‐148

Table 4‐29. Reasonable Foreseeable Development Well Number Projections............................4‐149

SEIS Table‐2a. Pending BLM Resource Management Plans Addressing Cumulative Effects to

Greater Sage‐Grouse in WAFWA Management Zones I and II ..................................4‐152

SEIS Table‐2b. Potential for Cumulative Impacts on Greater Sage‐Grouse Habitat and

Populations in Comparison to Existing Management Direction (Alternative A)........4‐155

SEIS Table‐3. Cumulative Annual Emissions Associated with Alternative E ‐ Project Year 2015 ....4‐156

SEIS Table‐4. Cumulative Annual Emissions Associated with Alternative E ‐ Project Year 2024 ....4‐157

SEIS Table‐5. Cumulative Annual Emissions Associated with Alternative F ‐ Project Year 2015 ....4‐158

SEIS Table‐6. Cumulative Annual Emissions Associated with Alternative F ‐ Project Year 2024 ....4‐159

Table 5‐1. Public Involvement, Coordination, and Consultation Events ........................................5‐2

Table 5‐2. List of Preparers........................................................................................................... 5‐11

LIST OF FIGURES

NOTE:  Figures names that begin with “SEIS Figure” are original to this Supplement; all other figures in

this document are numbered and named as they appear in the Draft RMP and Draft EIS and are

augmented to include new Alternative E and Alternative F.

SEIS Figure‐1. BLM and USFS Greater Sage‐Grouse Planning Strategy Area........................................1‐3

Figure 1‐2. BLM Planning Process.................................................................................................... 1‐4

SEIS Figure‐2. Alternatives E and F Formation Process ........................................................................ 2‐2

Figure 4‐1. Emissions Estimates for BLM Activities in the Bighorn Basin Planning Area:  2015.........4‐8

Figure 4‐2. Emissions Estimates for BLM Activities in the Bighorn Basin Planning Area:  2024.........4‐8

Figure 4‐3. Oil and Gas Constraints by Alternative ........................................................................4‐22

GLOSSARY

The glossary is included at the end of Appendix Y.
Table of Contents

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS vii

MAPS

Map SEIS - 1 Surface Ownership and Key Habitat Areas within the Bighorn Basin Planning Area

Map SEIS - 2 Surface Ownership and Core Habitat Areas within the Bighorn Basin Planning Area

Map SEIS - 3 Mineral Resources Locatable Alternative E

Map SEIS - 4 Mineral Resources Locatable Alternatives D and F

Map SEIS - 5 Mineral Resources Leasable – Geothermal Alternatives B and E

Map SEIS - 6 Mineral Resources Leasable – Geothermal Alternatives D and F

Map SEIS - 7 Mineral Resources Leasable – Oil and Gas Alternative E

Map SEIS - 8 Mineral Resources Leasable – Oil and Gas Alternative F

Map SEIS - 9 Mineral Resources Leasable – Oil and Gas – Existing Leases Alternative E

Map SEIS - 10 Mineral Resources Leasable – Oil and Gas – Existing Leases Alternative F

Map SEIS - 11 Mineral Resources Leasable – Oil and Gas Management Areas Alternatives D and F

Map SEIS - 12 Mineral Resources Salable Alternative E

Map SEIS - 13 Mineral Resources Salable Alternatives D and F

Map SEIS - 14 Biological Resources Special Status Species – Wildlife Alternatives B and E

Map SEIS - 15 Biological Resources Special Status Species – Wildlife Alternative F

Map SEIS - 16 Heritage and Visual Resources – Visual Resource Management Alternatives B and E

Map SEIS - 17 Heritage and Visual Resources – Visual Resource Management Alternatives D and F

Map SEIS - 18 Land Resources Lands and Realty – Retention, Disposal, and Acquisition Zones 

Alternative E

Map SEIS - 19 Land Resources Lands and Realty – Retention, Disposal, and Acquisition Zones 

Alternatives D and F

Map SEIS - 20 Land Resources Renewable Energy Alternative E

Map SEIS - 21 Land Resources Renewable Energy Alternative F

Map SEIS - 22 Land Resources Rights-of-Way and Corridors Alternative E

Map SEIS - 23 Land Resources Rights-of-Way and Corridors Alternative F

Map SEIS - 24 Land Resources Travel Management Designations Alternative E

Map SEIS - 25 Land Resources Travel Management Designations Alternative F

Map SEIS - 26 Land Resources Recreation Alternatives B and E

Map SEIS - 27 Land Resources Recreation Alternatives D and F

Map SEIS - 28 Land Resources Livestock Grazing – Closures Alternatives A, C, D, and F

Map SEIS - 29 Land Resources Livestock Grazing – Closures Alternative E
Table of Contents

viii Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

MAPS (continued)

Map SEIS - 30 Special Designations Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) and other 

Management Areas Alternative E

Map SEIS - 31 Special Designations Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) and other 

Management Areas Alternative F

Map SEIS - 32 Special Designations Wild and Scenic Rivers Alternatives A, B, and E
Acronyms and Abbreviations

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS ix

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

< Less than

ACEC Area of Critical Environmental 

Concern

AML Abandoned mine lands

AMP Allotment Management Plan

APD Application for Permit to Drill

ATV All-Terrain Vehicle

AUM Animal unit month

BEA United States Bureau of Economic 

Analysis

BLM Bureau of Land Management

BMP Best management practice

BOR Bureau of Reclamation

C Custodial

CBC case-by-case

CBNG Coalbed natural gas

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CH4 Methane

CIAA Cumulative Impact Assessment Area

CO Carbon monoxide

CO2 Carbon dioxide

COA Conditions of Approval

COT Conservation Objective Team

CSU Controlled surface use

CTTM Comprehensive Travel and

Transportation Management

CYFO Bureau of Land Management Cody 

Field Office

dBA Decibel with A-weighted scale

DDCT Density and Disturbance Calculation 

Tool

DFC Desired future condition

DLE Desert Land Entry

DOI United States Department of the 

Interior

DPC Desired plant community

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

EO Executive Order

EPA United States Environmental 

Protection Agency

ERMA Extensive Recreation Management 

Area

ESA Endangered Species Act

ESD Ecological Site Description

FERC Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission

FLPMA Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act

FMP Fire Management Plan

FR Federal Register

GHG Greenhouse gas

GIS Geographic Information System

HAP Hazardous Air Pollutant

HMA Herd Management Area

I Improve

IM Instruction Memorandum

IMPLAN Impact Analysis for Planning model

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change

LWC Lands with Wilderness 

Characteristics

M Maintain

MA Management Action

MZ Management Zone

N/A Not Applicable

N2O Nitrous oxide

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

NHT National Historic Trail

NOA Notice of Availability

NOI Notice of Intent

NOx Nitrogen oxides

NRHP National Register of Historic Places

NSO No surface occupancy

NTT National Technical Team

NWSRS National Wild and Scenic River 

System

OHV Off-highway vehicle
Acronyms and Abbreviations

x Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

PEIS Programmatic Environmental Impact 

Statement

PETM Paleocene-Eocene Thermal 

Maximum

PFC Proper Functioning Condition

PM2.5 Particulate matter less than 2.5 

microns in diameter

PM10 Particulate matter less than 10

microns in diameter

PRPA Paleontological Resources 

Preservation Act

RFD Reasonable Foreseeable 

Development

RMP Resource Management Plan

RMZ Recreation Management Zone

ROD Record of Decision

ROW Rights-of-Way

RSCC Recreational setting character 

condition

SD Special Designation

SEIS Supplemental Environmental Impact 

Statement

SMA Special Management Area

SO2 Sulfur dioxide

SRMA Special Recreation Management 

Area

SRP Special recreation permit

TLS Timing limitations

U.S. United States

USFS United States Forest Service

USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife 

Service

USGS United States Geological Survey

VOC Volatile Organic Compound

VRM Visual Resource Management

WAAQS Wyoming Ambient Air Quality 

Standards

WAFWA Western Association of Fish and 

Wildlife Agencies

WFO Bureau of Land Management 

Worland Field Office

WGFD Wyoming Game and Fish 

Department

WNv West Nile Virus

WO Bureau of Land Management 

Washington Office

WSA Wilderness Study Area

WSO Wyoming State Office

WSR Wild and Scenic River
Executive Summary

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS ES-1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION AND READER’S GUIDE TO THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Bighorn Basin Draft Resource Management Plan (RMP) and Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS) were released for public review and comment in April 2011 (76 Federal Register [FR] 22721, April 

22, 2011). The Draft RMP and Draft EIS analysis considered a range of reasonable alternatives that 

provide for various levels of resource protection and opportunities for motorized and nonmotorized 

recreational activities, leasing and development of mineral resources, livestock grazing, and other land 

use activities. The April 2011 Draft RMP and Draft EIS described and analyzed four alternatives (A [the 

No Action Alternative], B, C, and D [the Agency’s Preferred Alternative]) for the future management of 

public lands and resources the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administers in the Bighorn Basin in 

northwestern Wyoming. The Bighorn Basin RMP Revision Project is a combined effort to revise RMPs 

for the BLM Cody Field Office (CYFO) and BLM Worland Field Office (WFO). This document refers to the 

combined CYFO and WFO planning areas as the Planning Area. The Planning Area covers approximately 

5.6 million acres of federal, state, and private lands in four Wyoming counties (Big Horn, Park, Washakie, 

and Hot Springs). Of the total area, approximately 3.2 million acres are BLM-administered surface lands 

and 4.2 million acres are federal mineral estate.

In July 2012, the BLM Rocky Mountain Regional Interdisciplinary Team identified the need to prepare a 

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS (hereinafter referred to as the “Supplement”) 

to consider incorporation of proposed management actions in designated greater sage-grouse Key and 

Core Habitat Areas and to thoroughly consider the conservation measures identified in the Greater 

Sage-grouse National Technical Team (NTT) Report on National Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation 

Measures (Sage-grouse NTT 2011), as referenced in BLM IM No 2012-044 (BLM National Greater SageGrouse Land Use Planning Strategy). These issues were subsequently addressed in two additional 

alternatives (E and F) that comprise this Supplement. The April 2011 Draft RMP and Draft EIS included 

analysis of potential management within greater sage-grouse Key Habitat Areas for alternatives A, B, C,

and D.

Alternatives E and F were developed specifically to allow the analysis of potential management in 

designated greater sage-grouse Key Habitat Areas and Core Habitat Areas based on the 

recommendations from new data sources, such as the Greater Sage-grouse NTT Report on National 

Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Measures. The BLM chose to analyze this additional management 

through the consideration of two new Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs): the Greater 

Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC (Alternative E) and the Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas

ACEC (Alternative F). The boundaries of the greater sage-grouse Key Habitat Areas under Alternative E 

are based on Version 2 of the State of Wyoming Executive Order (EO) Greater Sage-grouse Core Area of

Protection (WY EO 2008-2) (Wyoming Office of the Governor 2008). Greater sage-grouse Core Habitat 

Areas under Alternative F are based on Version 3 of WY EO Greater Sage-grouse Core Area of Protection 

(WY EO 2010-4) (Wyoming Office of the Governor 2010), which was made available at the time of the 

ACEC nomination.

The April 2011 Draft RMP and Draft EIS provides the context needed to understand the management 

and impacts discussed in this Supplement. Supplementing an EIS is meant to meet the purposes of the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) as efficiently as possible by avoiding redundancy of 

information that was adequately addressed in the original NEPA analysis. Therefore, this Supplement 

only includes new information and rationale needed to support the incorporation of alternatives E and F 

into the planning process. Gray shaded notes are provided throughout the Supplement to help the 

reader understand how to incorporate information in the Draft RMP and Draft EIS. For all sections from 
Executive Summary

ES-2 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

the April 2011 Draft RMP and Draft EIS not included in this Supplement, no change (or no substantive 

change) has occurred, and the reader is referred to the Executive Summary in the April 2011 Draft RMP 

and Draft EIS.

PURPOSE AND NEED

NOTE: Add the following information to the Purpose and Need section (pages ES-1 to ES-2) of the Draft 

RMP and Draft EIS to reflect new data and emerging issues associated with alternatives E and F.

After release of the Draft RMP and Draft EIS in April 2011, new data, changing circumstances, and 

emerging issues lead the BLM Rocky Mountain Regional Interdisciplinary Team to conclude a 

Supplement was needed, as listed below.

• Based on the identified threats to the greater sage-grouse and the USFWS timeline for making a 

listing decision on this species, the BLM announced (August 2011) the National Greater Sagegrouse Planning Strategy Charter. The charter requires the development of new or revised 

regulatory mechanisms, through RMPs, to conserve and restore the greater sage-grouse and 

habitat on BLM-administered lands on a range-wide basis over the long-term.

• Three new sources of important data became available: The Greater Sage-Grouse NTT Report 

on National Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Measures (Sage-grouse NTT 2011); the Greater 

Sage-Grouse Baseline Environmental Report (Manier et al. 2013); and, the Greater Sage-Grouse 

Conservation Objectives Team (COT) Final Report (USFWS 2013).

• In December 2011, a Notice of Availability (NOA) was published in the Federal Register to 

initiate preparation of EISs and Supplemental EISs to Incorporate Greater Sage-grouse 

Conservation Measures into Land Use Plans and Land Management Plans in accordance with the 

BLM National Greater Sage-grouse Planning Strategy Charter.

• In late December 2011, the BLM Washington Office released Instruction Memorandum No. 

2012-044, which directed all of the planning efforts across the greater sage-grouse range to 

consider all applicable conservation measures when revising or amending its RMPs in greater 

sage-grouse habitat, including the measures developed by the National Technical Team that 

were presented in their December 2011 document – A Report on National Greater Sage-Grouse 

Conservation Measures.

The BLM will consider public comments received, select the Proposed RMP, and prepare a Final EIS that 

integrates content from the Draft RMP and Draft EIS and this Supplement. After the BLM selects the 

RMP and each field office issues a Record of Decision (ROD), the BLM will implement the decisions in the 

RMP and monitor and evaluate RMP decisions, how they have been implemented, and whether they 

accomplish the desired outcomes identified in the RMP.

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

NOTE: Insert the following after the 2nd paragraph (page ES-4) to augment description of public 

involvement.

The NOA for the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS was published in the Federal Register on April 

22, 2011, initiating the 90-day public comment period for that document. The BLM held seven public 

meetings in Thermopolis, Worland, Greybull, Cody, Powell, Lovell, and Meeteetse, Wyoming. Written 

public comments were reviewed and considered by the BLM.
Executive Summary

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS ES‐3

The BLM published the NOA for a Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS for public

review and comment in the Federal Register on July 12, 2013.  Publication of the NOA initiated the 90‐

day public comment period.  During the comment period, the BLM will hold six public meetings to

discuss the content of the Supplement.

COOPERATING AGENCIES AND TRIBAL CONSULTATION

NOTE:  Insert the following text after the 2nd paragraph (page ES‐4) to augment description of

cooperating agency coordination and tribal consultation.

The BLM held a cooperating agency workshop on January 31, 2013 and sent tribal consultation letters to

update cooperators and tribes on the status of the RMP revision process and the need to prepare a

Supplement to the Draft RMP and Draft EIS.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN DETAIL

NOTE:  Add the following new text after the first paragraph in the Alternatives Considered in Detail

section (pages ES‐5) to the Draft RMP and Draft EIS describing the addition of alternatives E and F to the

range of RMP alternatives.  The management of the greater sage‐grouse priority habitat in alternatives

E and F represent potential approaches to managing these areas that were not considered in the Draft

RMP and Draft EIS.

Following the decision to prepare a Supplement to the Draft RMP and Draft EIS, the BLM developed

alternatives E and F.  Alternatives E and F incorporate the management actions from alternatives B

and D (respectively), except they designate ACECs for the protection of greater sage‐grouse priority

habitat.  Alternative E designates Key Habitat Areas for greater sage‐grouse as the Greater Sage‐Grouse

Key Habitat Areas ACEC, while Alternative F designates Core Habitat Areas for greater sage‐grouse as

the Greater Sage‐Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC.  Management approaches applied to the new

Greater Sage‐Grouse Key and Core Habitat Areas ACECs were derived from recommendations from the

Sage‐Grouse NTT (Sage‐grouse NTT 2011) and public comments.

NOTE:  Add new summary descriptions of alternatives E and F after Alternative D (Agency Preferred

Alternative) (pages ES‐6 and ES‐7) from the Draft RMP and Draft EIS.  The summary descriptions below

provide a general overview of alternatives E and F, the management emphasis associated with each

alternative, and key management actions for each alternative.

Alternative E

Management under Alternative E is the same as under Alternative B, except that Alternative E

designates greater sage‐grouse Key Habitat Areas as an ACEC (1,436,941 acres) for the conservation of

greater sage‐grouse priority habitat.  Alternative E conserves the largest land area for physical,

biological, and heritage and visual resources of any alternative.  Alternative E designates the largest

number of ACECs (18), and includes the most restrictions on minerals, rights‐of‐way (ROW), and

renewable energy development.  Alternative E manages Lands with Wilderness Characteristics (LWCs)

and livestock grazing the same as Alternative B.  Management of back country byways, National Historic

Landmarks, National Historic Trails (NHTs), Wild and Scenic Rivers (WSRs), and Wilderness Study Areas

(WSAs) under Alternative E is the same as Alternative B.  Alternative E manages disturbances (e.g.,

roads, oil and gas wells, pipelines, etc.) in the Greater Sage‐Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC to not

exceed one disturbance per 640 acres and cover less than 3 percent of the total sage‐grouse habitat,

and requires beneficial reclamation and rehabilitation activities that prioritize reestablishment of native

vegetation communities in sagebrush steppe communities.
Executive Summary

ES-4 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Alternative F

Management under Alternative F is the same as under Alternative D, except that Alternative F 

designates greater sage-grouse Core Habitat Areas as an ACEC (1,436,941 acres) for the conservation of 

greater sage-grouse priority habitat. Alternative F generally emphasizes conservation of physical, 

biological, and heritage and visual resources, while placing moderate constraints on resource uses and 

reclamation and mitigation requirements to reduce impacts to resource values. Under Alternative F, the 

BLM applies a no surface occupancy (NSO) stipulation around greater sage-grouse leks in the Greater 

Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC. Alternative F delineates the same Oil and Gas Management 

Areas as Alternative D, but applies additional restrictions for the protection of greater sage-grouse 

where these areas overlap the Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC. Management for 

livestock grazing under Alternative F would be the same as Alternative D, except within the Greater 

Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC where additional restrictions on livestock grazing would 

incorporate greater sage-grouse habitat management objectives. Management of LWCs, back country 

byways, National Historic Landmarks, NHTs, WSRs, and WSAs, under Alternative F is the same as under 

Alternative D. In the Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC, the BLM manages the density of 

disturbance to not exceed an average of one disruptive activity location per 640 acres and cover less 

than 3 percent of the total greater sage-grouse Core Habitat Areas.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

NOTE: Replace the Environmental Consequences section (pages ES-7 through ES-16) of the Draft RMP 

and Draft EIS with the following summary of impacts to resources and resource uses by alternative, 

augmented to include alternatives E and F.

This section summarizes the environmental consequences that would result from implementing each of 

the six alternatives. The purpose of the environmental consequences analysis is to determine the 

potential impacts of the federal action under each of the six 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 organized according to resource area, and includes: 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, and cave and karst resources. Air quality impacts 

would primarily result from minerals development and production, and oil and gas activities; emissions 

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

Alternative E would result in the lowest levels of emissions in 2015 and 2024 and, therefore, it is unlikely 

that emissions under this alternative would contribute to an exceedance of National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS) or Wyoming Ambient Air Quality Standards (WAAQS). Alternatives A and C would 

result in increases for some pollutants (PM [particulate matter]10, carbon monoxide) and decreases for 

all others compared to the 2005 base year. Alternative C would have the greatest potential to 

contribute to exceedances of the NAAQS or WAAQS of any alternative. Alternatives D and F would 

result in comparable impacts to the base level (year 2005), except that volatile organic compound 

emissions are expected to decrease slightly in 2015 and further by 2024; projected emissions are, 

therefore, unlikely to contribute to an exceedance of a NAAQS or WAAQS. Alternative C is projected to 

result in the most new oil and gas wells and locatable mineral development (the activities anticipated to 

result in the greatest carbon dioxide (CO2) contributions during the planning cycle), resulting in the most 

CO2 emissions, followed by alternatives D, A, F, B, and E, respectively.
Executive Summary

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS ES-5

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

programs including minerals development, motorized vehicle use, road construction, and recreation. 

Actions that restrict surface disturbance or restore vegetation on disturbed areas occur under all 

alternatives and are generally considered to have a beneficial impact on soil and water resources by 

limiting erosion. The greatest impacts to soil and water resources are anticipated under Alternative C, 

which would result in the greatest amount of surface disturbance and includes the fewest measures to 

control erosion among the alternatives. Conversely, Alternative E would disturb the least surface area, 

followed by alternatives B, A, F, and D. Alternatives B and E develop watershed improvement practices 

and reclamation plans, among other measures, to control erosion, and improve watershed health. 

Alternatives D and F would result in more surface disturbance than alternatives B and E, but include

comparable measures to control erosion and improve watershed health.

NOTE: The Draft RMP and Draft EIS impact analysis for Cave and Karst Resources under alternatives B 

and D are representative of the impacts anticipated under alternatives E and F, respectively. Please refer 

to the Draft RMP and Draft EIS for a discussion of impacts to these resources.

Mineral Resources

Mineral resources include locatable, leasable, and salable minerals. Implementation of the alternatives 

would result in public lands being opened (a beneficial impact), or withdrawn or segregated (an adverse 

impact) from locatable mineral entry under the mining laws. Alternative E, primarily due to withdrawals 

for ACECs and WSR suitable waterways, would result in the largest acreage restrictions to locatable 

mineral development (1,764,621 acres), followed by Alternative B (325,102 acres), Alternative A 

(174,354 acres), alternatives D and F (72,031 acres), and Alternative C (47,846 acres). Alternative E 

includes the greatest acreage of withdrawals in known or moderate potential areas for occurrence of 

common locatable minerals, followed by alternatives B, A, D and F, and C.

Lands in the Planning Area have been classified as having low to negligible potential for geothermal 

development, with the exception of lands surrounding the known hydrothermal spring areas near 

Thermopolis and Cody. These geothermal resources are not capable of generating electricity and, 

therefore, adverse or beneficial impacts from management under any alternative would be minimal. 

However, alternatives B and E have the greatest potential for adverse impacts to geothermal 

exploration and development as they contain the largest areas administratively unavailable to 

geothermal leasing (2,493,630 acres each), followed by alternatives D and F (324,737 acres), Alternative 

A (154,861 acres), and Alternative C (147,760 acres). Alternatives B, D, E, and F place additional 

restrictions on geothermal development around the Hot Springs State Park in Thermopolis, which is the 

only area of moderately low geothermal resource potential in the Planning Area. Although these 

restrictions would prevent commercial development, alternatives B, D, E, and F would provide the 

greatest protection to the current public uses of thermal springs around Hot Springs State Park.

The development potential for leasable oil and gas in the Planning Area ranges from moderate to no 

potential, depending on location. Management actions that restrict or constrain the potential for oil 

and gas leasing, development, and exploration would result in adverse impacts while management 

actions that ease restrictions or maintain areas as open for oil and gas exploration and development 

would result in beneficial impacts. All of the alternatives include management that restricts oil and gas 

leasing and development to varying levels, with Alternative C generally allowing the most development 

and alternatives B and E the least. Alternative C contains the smallest acreage managed as 

administratively unavailable for oil and gas leasing (147,760 acres), followed by Alternative A (154,861 

acres), alternatives D and F (291,294 acres), and alternatives B and E (2,296,279 acres). Impacts to oil 

and gas exploration and development from the restriction of geophysical exploration would be the 
Executive Summary

ES-6 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

greatest under Alternative E due to closure of the proposed Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas 

ACEC to geophysical exploration. Additionally, LWCs managed to maintain their wilderness 

characteristics would be administratively unavailable for oil and gas leasing on 565,868 acres of federal 

mineral estate under alternatives B and E, and on 47,469 acres of federal mineral estate under 

alternatives D and F. Alternatives C, D, and F establish Oil and Gas Management Areas (568,164 acres 

for Alternative C and 134,214 acres for alternatives D and F) allowing full development of known oil and 

gas resources in existing fields and, unless otherwise noted, exempting these areas from seasonal 

development and other restrictions, resulting in beneficial impacts to oil and gas exploration and 

development. Alternatives B, E, D, and F all contain areas managed as administratively unavailable to oil 

and gas leasing including some areas with moderate development potential (219,821 acres for 

alternatives B and E and 2,834 acres for alternatives F and D).

Primary impacts to the development of mineral materials (e.g., sand and gravel) result from 

management that prohibits or limits (adverse impacts), or opens (beneficial impacts) areas to mineral 

materials disposal. Such management commonly includes restrictions on surface-disturbing activities or 

closures to mineral materials disposal. Alternative E would result in the greatest adverse impacts to 

mineral materials by closing 3,153,255 acres to mineral materials disposal, including areas within 0.25 

mile of riparian/wetland areas, LWCs managed to maintain their wilderness characteristics (565,868 

acres), and within certain ACECs (1,386,566 acres). Closures under alternatives B (2,599,082), C 

(348,215 acres), A (231,854 acres), D (184,193 acres), and F (184,193 acres), would result in decreasing 

adverse impacts to mineral materials disposal.

The BLM anticipates only limited development for coal, oil shale, and other solid leasable minerals 

during the life of the plan. Therefore, effects to the development of these resources from the 

alternatives are expected to be minimal.

Fire and Fuels Management

Fire is an integral part of natural ecosystem function; however, wildfires have been largely suppressed in 

the Planning Area, thereby causing a change in the fire regime condition class. The suppression of 

wildfires is considered an adverse impact to fire ecology, while actions contributing to an increase in the 

incidence of wildland fires or limiting the ability to effectively fight wildland fires are considered adverse 

impacts to fire management. Management under the alternatives would affect three aspects of fire and 

fuels management: wildfires (unplanned ignitions), stabilization and rehabilitation following fire, and 

prescribed fires (planned ignitions).

All alternatives utilize wildland fire to restore fire-adapted ecosystems and reduce hazardous fuels. 

Alternative C would result in the greatest potential for adverse impacts from human caused, unplanned 

ignitions due to increased access and additional travel routes under this alternative. Conversely, 

Alternative C would also result in the greatest beneficial impacts from active fuels management (i.e., this 

alternative allows the widest use of fuels treatments) and the greatest ability to employ fire suppression 

tactics, followed by alternatives A, D, F, B, and E, respectively. Alternative C includes the greatest 

amount of mechanical fuels treatments by acreage (60,000 acres), followed by alternatives A, D, and F 

(30,000 acres each), and alternatives B and E (5,000 acres each), resulting in beneficial impacts to fire 

and fuels management by reducing fuels and thereby the potential for fire spread and severity. Fire 

suppression restrictions (e.g., prohibiting the use of heavy equipment on fragile soils) increase the 

potential for wildfire spread in the short term and may increase the need for stabilization and 

rehabilitation as more wildfires occur. However, intensive fire suppression that reduces the natural role 

of fire in the ecosystem may result in large catastrophic wildfires in the long term that require moreintensive stabilization and rehabilitation activities. Under all of the alternatives, implementing the BLM 
Executive Summary

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS ES-7

Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation standards in the U.S. Department of the Interior Interagency 

Burned Area Emergency Response Guidebook (DOI 2006b) and BLM Burned Area Emergency Stabilization

and Rehabilitation Handbook (BLM 2007b) would prescribe activities that would allow rehabilitation of 

areas following a wildfire and reduce the potential for future fires in burned areas.

Prescribed fires can be used to meet resource objectives, such as for wildlife habitat enhancement, 

forage production, and fuel reduction. Therefore, restricting the use of prescribed fire would result in 

primarily adverse impacts to fire and fuels management. Alternative E would restrict the use of 

prescribed fire the most, followed by alternatives B, A, D, and F, and C, respectively. Alternative C would 

impose the fewest restrictions on the use of prescribed fire, resulting in prescribed burns on 

approximately 80,000 acres, over the life of the plan, followed by alternatives A, D, and F (40,000 acres 

each), Alternative B (20,000 acres), and Alternative E (18,000 acres). Alternatives D and F also 

emphasize the use of prescribed fire to meet resource management objectives, but apply greater 

restrictions on its use compared to Alternative C.

Biological Resources

Biological resources include vegetation, fish, wildlife, special status species, and wild horses. Vegetation 

resources analyzed in this RMP revision include forests and woodlands, grassland and shrubland 

communities, and riparian/wetland resources; these plant communities incorporate the major 

vegetation types in the Planning Area.

Long-term surface disturbance contributes to the decline in abundance, distribution, or health of 

vegetation communities in the Planning Area. Conversely, short-term surface disturbance from 

vegetation treatments would improve vegetation health and diversity, and may reduce the severity of 

wildland fires that destroy or permanently alter vegetation communities. Active management, such as 

timber harvesting and silviculture treatments, would reduce the potential for catastrophic fires (the 

greatest threat to forests and woodlands), reduce the number of diseased trees, enhance age and 

species diversity, and reduce the spread of invasive species.

Alternative C would result in the most long-term surface disturbance and allows the most activities that 

would adversely affect forests and woodlands, such as retaining timber harvest roads post-harvest for 

recreational activities. Conversely, silviculture treatments under Alternative C would result in the 

greatest beneficial impact to forests and woodlands by employing a greater degree and extent of 

treatments to improve stand health and density, followed by alternatives D and F, A, and B and E,

respectively. Alternatives that allow the greatest use of silviculture treatments would result in the 

greatest beneficial impacts to the harvest of forest products.

Management actions that advance active vegetation management, such as mechanical fuels treatments 

and invasive species control measures, would result in beneficial impacts to grassland and shrubland 

communities. Conversely, management that would result in the potential for increased long-term 

surface disturbance, especially from minerals development, would result in adverse impacts to the 

abundance or distribution of these communities. Grasslands and shrublands are the largest habitat type 

in the Planning Area and, assuming a proportional distribution of the projected surface disturbance 

would occur in these communities, Alternative E would result in fewest adverse impacts from long-term 

surface disturbance (4,926 acres), followed by alternatives B (9,538 acres), A (13,771 acres), D (16,166 

acres), and F (15,657 acres), and Alternative C (36,417 acres). Although it would allow more long-term 

disturbance than alternatives A and D, Alternative F reduces the potential for habitat fragmentation by 

maintaining large, contiguous blocks of native plant communities.
Executive Summary

ES-8 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Impacts to riparian/wetland areas occur as a result of either direct surface disturbance or actions in a 

watershed that cause a change in riparian/wetland functionality, such as changes in sediment loading 

rates or hydrology. Alternative E would result in the greatest beneficial impacts to riparian/wetland 

resources through restrictions on surface-disturbing activities in proximity to riparian/wetland resources 

and through proactive management actions, such as watershed improvement projects. Alternatives B, 

F, D, A, and C, respectively, would result in less protection for riparian/wetland areas. Alternatives B and 

E prohibit livestock forage supplements within 0.5 mile of riparian/wetland resources to prevent 

vegetation degradation and soil compaction while alternatives A, D, and F prohibit livestock forage 

supplements within 0.25 mile of these areas. Alternative C contains no such actions.

The presence of invasive species 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. Reclamation requirements, including the development of reclamation plans prior to 

onset of surface-disturbing activities, would decrease the likelihood of invasive species establishment. 

Based on projected surface disturbance, Alternative C would result in the greatest potential for the 

spread of invasive species, followed by alternatives A, D, F, B, and E. Alternatives D and F are projected 

to result in greater surface disturbances than Alternative A, but they contain additional reclamation 

requirements that would result in a reduced potential for the spread of invasive species.

The health of riparian/wetland areas, and water quality and quantity would affect fish populations in the 

Planning Area. Increased sediment in fish habitat (streams, rivers, and reservoirs) decreases the 

potential for fish to naturally reproduce, fills in pools, leads to channel degradation, decreases light 

penetration and productivity, alters fish community composition, and increases stream temperature. 

Alternative C places the fewest restrictions on surface-disturbing activities and has the greatest 

potential to adversely affect fish habitat, followed by alternatives A, D, F, B, and E. Alternatives D and F 

are projected to result in greater surface disturbance than Alternative A, but contain additional 

reclamation requirements that may limit erosion to a greater degree and, therefore, mitigate adverse 

impacts to fish habitat. Based on overall surface disturbance, reclamation practices, and fish habitat 

management including erosion control and reservoir design, alternatives B and E would result in the 

greatest direct beneficial impacts to fisheries (including special status species fish) through proactive 

management, followed by alternatives D and F, A, and C, respectively.

The primary adverse impacts to wildlife result from surface disturbance related habitat loss and 

fragmentation while 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) that can cause the abandonment of nest sites or home ranges. 

Alternatives B and E include the most protective management to minimize wildlife habitat loss and 

fragmentation, such as making areas administratively unavailable to oil and gas leasing, followed by 

alternatives F, D, A, and C. Alternative E designates the most ACECs, and similar to Alternative B, 

manages all LWCs (571,288 acres) to maintain their wilderness characteristics, resulting in beneficial 

impacts to wildlife over a large area. Alternatives D and F specifically manage 52,485 acres of LWCs to 

maintain their wilderness characteristics. Alternative C does not restrict surface-disturbing activities in 

most sensitive areas and has few actions to improve habitat quality. Under alternatives B and E, 

restricting motorized vehicle use and surface-disturbing activities in the Absaroka Front Management 

Area provides the greatest beneficial impacts to wildlife species, especially big game and predators. Less 

restrictive management is applied to the Absaroka Front Management Area under alternatives C, D,

and F. Under Alternative C, the area is managed consistent with other resource objectives, with the 
Executive Summary

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS ES-9

exception of limiting motorized vehicle use to designated roads and trails with seasonal closures. 

Alternatives E and F limit motor vehicle use to designated roads and trails within the proposed greater 

sage-grouse Key and Core Habitat Areas. Alternative E designates the largest acreage as ACECs designed 

to preserve wildlife habitat, followed by alternatives F, B, D, A, and C, respectively.

Impacts to special status plants, fish, and wildlife species are generally the same as 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 E, followed by alternatives B, F, D, A, and C respectively. Allowable uses and 

management actions with potential to degrade water quality in the Bighorn River, Shoshone River, and 

Clarks Fork of the Yellowstone River, and their tributaries would affect special status fish species. 

Alternative C is projected to result in the highest number of new federal wells, which may result in the 

greatest water depletion and, therefore, the greatest adverse impact to water quantity in these rivers, 

followed by alternatives A, D, F, B, and E. Alternatives D and F would result in greater surface 

disturbance than Alternative A, but contain additional reclamation requirements that may limit erosion 

to a greater degree and, therefore, mitigate adverse impacts to fish habitat. Alternatives B and E would 

result in the greatest beneficial impacts to special status fish species habitat from more definitive 

proactive management actions and more stringent reclamation requirements relative to the other 

alternatives. Alternatives B and E include the most proactive actions to restore and enhance habitats for 

special status wildlife species. Alternative C would have the greatest adverse and fewest beneficial 

impacts to special status wildlife species, with the exception of the Absaroka Front Management Area. 

Alternatives A, D, and F would be similar in terms of surface disturbance, though the mitigation and 

reclamation requirements under alternatives D and F may lead to fewer impacts than Alternative A. 

Alternatives B and E, and to a lesser extent alternatives D and F, benefit special status wildlife species by 

protecting large areas of contiguous native habitats in the Absaroka Front Management Area, ACECs, 

and manages LWCs to maintain their wilderness characteristics. Alternatives A and C would protect 

fewer large blocks of contiguous habitat in comparison.

Alternative E protects the largest area of greater sage-grouse leks, nesting, and early brood-rearing 

habitats, and winter concentration areas, followed by alternatives B, F, D, A, and C. Alternative E, and to 

a lesser extent alternatives B and D, places comparatively greater restrictions on resource uses and 

activities in greater sage-grouse Key Habitat Areas. Alternative F also applies protective management 

for greater sage-grouse in Core Habitat Areas, although to an overall lesser extent than Alternative E. 

Livestock grazing management under alternatives B and E would result in the greatest benefits to 

greater sage-grouse habitat, followed by alternatives F, D, C, and A.

Wild horses are managed to maintain healthy, free-roaming animals in balance with other uses and the 

productive capacity of their habitat within Herd Management Areas (HMAs). 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 HMAs. Expansion of the McCullough Peaks HMA under alternatives B, E, D, and F 

would result in beneficial impacts to wild horses by adjusting the HMA boundary to more accurately 

correspond to the range the resident herd uses, rather than continued attempts to recapture and move 

horses.

Heritage and Visual Resources

Heritage and visual resources include cultural resources, paleontological resources, and visual resources 

management. Because cultural resources are fragile, often unique, nonrenewable resources that 

occupy relatively small areas, almost any management action has the potential to affect them. Primary 
Executive Summary

ES-10 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

impacts to cultural resources result from surface disturbance, visual intrusions, and theft and vandalism. 

Overall, Alternative C is projected to result in the most surface disturbance and, therefore would result 

in the greatest adverse impacts to cultural resources. However, despite the most use and the most 

potential impact, Alternative C incorporates a contemporary understanding of cultural resources 

management, in contrast to current management (Alternative A). Alternatives B and E provide the 

greatest restrictions on all resource uses, and would result in the fewest adverse impacts to cultural 

resources. Alternative D and F reflect a balanced approach overall, providing less specific cultural 

resource protection than alternatives B and E, but acknowledging and specifying situations in which 

more protective measures would be needed than under alternatives A or C.

The widespread presence of paleontological resources throughout the Planning Area and their close 

spatial association with extractive (i.e., mineral) resources present a number of management challenges. 

Any surface-disturbing activities in an area that physically alter, damage, or destroy fossils or their 

context may result in adverse impacts to important paleontological resources. Alternatives B and E, by 

designating the largest acreage of ACECs (116,116 acres) for the protection of paleontological values and 

subjecting the least acreage to surface-disturbing activities, would result in the least adverse impacts 

and most resource protection compared to the other alternatives. Alternative C provides the least 

protection and the greatest exposure to direct impacts from surface-disturbing activities, but may result 

in more identification of paleontological localities due to increased resource use. In terms of potential 

impacts, management under alternatives D and F fall between management under alternatives A and 

alternatives B and E, in that alternatives D and F employ a less proactive management approach than 

alternatives B and E, but a similar approach to casual use and education.

Adverse impacts result from projects that create visual contrast with the natural form, line, color, or 

texture of the landscape to the extent that it degrades the visual values of an area, which are 

documented in the visual resource inventory. Under all alternatives, traditional resource uses and 

development would continue, allowing varying degrees of development and resulting in new contrast on 

the landscape. Alternatives B and E are the most protective of visual values, as they manage almost the 

entire Planning Area consistent with or more restrictive than the classification determined from the 

visual inventory. Alternatives B and E would therefore be the most effective at maintaining the existing, 

primarily undeveloped, character of the landscape; managing areas of lower visual value under more 

restrictive management may also lead to an enhancement of these areas, primarily over the long term. 

Under alternatives D and F, visual resource management (VRM) closely matches the corresponding 

visual inventory classes (i.e., most visual inventory Class II areas are managed as VRM Class II); this 

management would thereby be aimed at retaining the visual values identified during the visual 

inventory. Alternatives A and C, would be the least protective of visual values as both alternatives 

manage substantial portions of the Planning Area below their visual inventory class, including 

substantial areas of visual inventory Class II managed as VRM Classes III and IV.

Land Resources

Land Resources include lands and realty, renewable energy, ROWs, comprehensive travel and 

transportation management, recreation, LWCs, and livestock grazing management. Impacts to the lands 

and realty program from implementing the alternatives include land disposal, acquisition, and 

withdrawal, and management that makes realty actions more difficult to complete. Alternative E

includes the most area for standard acquisition (1,391,865 acres), followed by Alternative B (228,164 

acres), alternatives D and F (228,148 acres), and Alternative C (87,068). Alternative C includes the 

largest area available for disposal (117,961 acres), followed by Alternative A (116,800 acres), 

alternatives D and F (66,022 acres), Alternative B (24,267 acres), and Alternative E (22,133 acres). In the 

past, there has been an overall net decrease of BLM-administered land in the Planning Area and this 
Executive Summary

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS ES-11

trend is expected to continue under all the alternatives. Long-term impacts associated with the 

withdrawal and segregation of lands would be the greatest under alternatives E and B, because the BLM 

would withdraw the largest area, followed by alternatives A, D, and F, and C, respectively.

ROWs are for infrastructure and facilities, including renewable energy facilities for wind, solar, and 

biomass that are in the public interest and require authorization for location over, under, on, or through 

BLM-administered land. Adverse impacts to ROWs result from restrictions, in the form of 

avoidance/mitigation and exclusion areas, on the location of ROWs. ROW avoidance/mitigation and 

exclusion areas are the greatest under alternatives E (2,943,655 acres) and B (2,943,367 acres), followed 

by Alternative D (2,551,205 acres), Alternative F (2,437,486 acres), Alternative C (1,182,097 acres), and 

Alternative A (1,003,194 acres). Under all alternatives, WSAs are renewable energy exclusion areas.

Adverse impacts to travel and transportation management result from restrictions on or closures of 

travel routes to motorized or mechanized vehicles, while beneficial impacts would result from 

management that increases access to public lands. Alternative C manages the largest area as open to 

cross-country travel, followed by alternatives D and F, B, A, and E. Alternatives B and E close the 

greatest acreage to motorized vehicle use (136,474 acres), followed by alternatives D and F (60,681

acres), A (59,192 acres), and C (10,636 acres). Alternatives B and E also limit the most acreage to 

designated roads and trails in the Planning Area (2,054,228 acres), followed by alternatives F (1,746,579 

acres), D (1,055,257 acres), C (951,992 acres), and A (787,626 acres). ROW exclusion areas would 

prohibit all ROW actions including construction of new roads and trails under Alternative E, unless they 

can be co-located with existing ROWs only to access valid existing rights. Alternatives B and E contain 

the largest area of ROW exclusion areas followed by alternatives A, D and F, and C, respectively. Overall, 

Alternative C would cause the fewest adverse impacts (and the most benefits) to travel and 

transportation management, followed by alternatives A, D, F, and B and E.

Management that affects settings, experiences, and the ability of recreationists to achieve desired 

beneficial outcomes from uses on public lands (e.g., hunting or camping) are impacts to recreation. 

Alternatives B and E would be the most effective at enhancing the recreational experience of users who 

want a primitive recreational experience and opportunities for solitude the most, followed by 

alternatives F, D, A, and C respectively. Conversely, Alternative C results in the greatest beneficial 

impacts to motorized recreation opportunities, followed by alternatives A, D, F, and B and E. Special 

designations and management for resource protection in ACECs and WSR-eligible waterways 

(recommended as WSR suitable under alternatives B and E) that maintain their recreation settings for 

scenery and wildlife viewing would result in the greatest benefit to recreationists under Alternative E, 

followed by alternatives B, F, A, D, and C. Alternatives B and E would result in the fewest conflicting 

resource uses that could displace recreation and degrade the recreation setting (e.g., mineral 

development and ROW authorizations), followed by alternatives F, D, A, and C, respectively.

Approximately 18 percent of BLM-administered lands in the Planning Area are identified as LWCs; 

adverse impacts result from activities that degrade wilderness characteristics in these areas. 

Alternatives B and E manage all LWCs (571,288 acres) to maintain their wilderness characteristics. 

However, this management would adversely affect resource uses and other activities (e.g., motorized 

vehicle use) that could degrade the naturalness, opportunities for solitude, and primitive and

unconfined recreation in these areas. Both alternatives D and F manage nine LWCs (52,485 acres) to 

maintain their wilderness characteristics; the remaining LWCs under these alternatives are not 

specifically managed to maintain their wilderness characteristics based upon identified resource 

conflicts. LWCs do not have any special management prescriptions under alternatives A and C, and the 

preservation of wilderness characteristics in these areas under these alternatives would be least 
Executive Summary

ES-12 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

effective. Alternative C would result in the greatest adverse impacts, due to the greater intensity of 

resource uses in LWCs.

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, or changes the number of 

animal unit months (AUMs) available to operators. Overall, alternatives B and E would have the greatest 

adverse impacts on livestock grazing due to livestock grazing closures on 1,988,927 acres. Livestock 

grazing closures under alternatives A, D, C, and F would occur on 5,172 acres. Over the long term, 

surface disturbance and closing areas to livestock grazing would result in the greatest loss of AUMs 

under alternatives B and E (163,927 AUMs and 163,917 AUMs, respectively), followed by Alternative C 

(4,130 AUMs), Alternative D (1,930 AUMs), Alternative F (1,875 AUMs), and Alternative A (1,670 AUMs). 

Alternative C would result in the greatest beneficial impacts to livestock grazing as it contains the fewest 

restrictions on livestock grazing management and livestock forage production and utilization.

Special Designations

Special Designations include ACECs, National Back Country Byways, National Historic Landmarks, NHTs 

and Other Historic Trails, WSRs, and WSAs. ACECs are designated to protect resources, natural systems, 

and natural hazards (i.e., ACEC values of concern). Values of concern in ACECs proposed in the Planning 

Area include paleontological, vegetation, wildlife, special status species, cultural, recreational, and 

scenic values. To protect values of concern, ACECs commonly include restrictions on mineral 

development and other surface-disturbing activities (e.g., mechanical fuels treatments and range 

improvements) or motorized vehicle use. Alternative E designates the greater sage-grouse Key Habitat 

Areas as an ACEC and Alternative F designates the greater sage-grouse Core Habitat Areas as an ACEC; 

the other alternatives do not. Alternative E would designate the most acreage as ACECs (1,231,383 

acres), followed by Alternative F (1,116,124 acres), Alternative B (299,954 acres), Alternative D (103,128

acres), Alternative A (71,297 acres), and Alternative C (12,144 acres). Alternatives B and E would be the 

most effective at protecting the values of concern within ACECs by restricting resource uses and 

activities within these areas, followed by alternatives F, D, A, and C, respectively. ACECs under 

alternatives E and F would provide the most special designation protections for the greater sage-grouse 

values of concern through the designations of large ACECs (1,231,383 acres and 1,116,234 acres, 

respectively) specifically managed to protect this species.

The purpose of a NHT is the identification and protection of the historic route and the historic remnants 

and artifacts for public use and enjoyment. A NHT is managed to recognize the nationally significant 

resources, qualities, values, and associated settings of the areas through which such trails may pass, 

including the primary use or uses of the trail. For the cultural resources program, the principle impacts 

to the Nez Perce (Neeme-poo or Nimi’ipuu) NHT, the only NHT in the Planning Area, and Other Historic 

Trails arise directly from development activities and intrusions into the viewshed that alter the 

environment that contributes to the trail’s significance. These development activities and intrusions 

may impact other resources, qualities, values, and associated settings, and the primary use or uses of 

the NHT, including loss of trail-related recreation opportunities, as well as a decline in the visual,

recreation, and natural trail settings. Alternatives B and E provide the greatest protection for these trails 

through the application of a larger management corridor for surface-disturbing activity (both NSO and

controlled surface use [CSU] stipulations) and restrictions on motorized vehicle use. The larger acreage 

of special designations and limited resource use under alternatives E and B also reduces the potential for 

direct and indirect adverse impacts. Alternative C allows the greatest resource use, and provides the 

least protection through special designations, but does not provide more effective proactive 

management, including NSO and CSU restrictions, than Alternative A. Alternative A, the existing 

management, includes the least effective proactive management, in part because of the change in 
Executive Summary

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS ES-13

understanding of the adverse impact of viewshed intrusions that has evolved since this management 

was developed. However, management under Alternative A would result in less resource use than 

Alternative C, and adverse impacts would likewise be less under this alternative. Alternatives D and F 

provide similar protection for the trails, but emphasize viewshed protection that would result in a 

reduced potential for adverse impacts than alternatives A and C, but more than alternatives B and E.

NOTE: The Draft RMP and Draft EIS impact analysis for National Back Country Byways, National Historic 

Landmarks, Wild and Scenic Rivers, and Wilderness Study Areas under alternatives B and D are 

representative of the impacts anticipated under alternatives E and F, respectively. Please refer to the 

Draft RMP and Draft EIS for a discussion of impacts to these designations.

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 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. Based on modeling as well as qualitative analysis of economic activity from other sectors, 

earnings, output, employment, and tax revenues due to activities on BLM-administered lands and 

mineral estate would be highest under Alternative C, less under alternatives A, D, and F, and least under 

alternatives B and E. 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 alternatives B and E. Alternative E imposes additional 

constraints on disturbance in greater sage-grouse Key Habitat Areas when compared to Alternative B; 

however, these additional constraints are expected to have little additional adverse impacts on 

employment and earnings. Conversely, under Alternative C, increased openness of areas 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 higher population.

Alternatives D and F balance management emphasis between resource conservation and use and are 

generally closer in line with resource use and development. Alternative F imposes additional constraints 

on disturbance in greater sage-grouse Core Habitat Areas that may restrict economic activity, when 

compared to Alternative D. Impacts of Alternative F on population and public services associated with 

impacts on economic activity would be slightly more restrictive than those of Alternative D.
Executive Summary

ES-14 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

NOTE: The Draft RMP and Draft EIS impact analysis for environmental justice and health and safety 

under alternatives B and D are representative of the impacts anticipated under alternatives E and F, 

respectively. Please refer to the Draft RMP and Draft EIS for a discussion of impacts to the health and 

safety program and Environmental Justice.

THE NEXT STEPS

NOTE: Replace this section (pages ES-16) of the Draft RMP and Draft EIS with the following description 

of the public review and comment period on the Supplement and process for selection of the Proposed 

RMP and Final EIS.

This Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS, now issued, provides 90 days for public 

comment. A series of six public meetings are scheduled during the 90-day comment period.

After addressing public comments received during the comment period on the Supplement, the BLM will 

select the Proposed RMP and prepare a Final EIS that integrates the content of the Supplement to the 

Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS. The Proposed RMP and Final EIS is scheduled for release in 

February 2014 with a ROD scheduled for July 2014.
Reader’s Guide

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS RG‐1

READER’S GUIDE TO THIS DOCUMENT

The Bighorn Basin Draft Resource Management Plan (RMP) and Draft Environmental Impact Statement

(EIS) were released for public review and comment in April 2011 (76 Federal Register [FR] 22721, April

22, 2011).  In July 2012, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Rocky Mountain Regional

Interdisciplinary Team identified the need to prepare a Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and

Draft EIS (the Supplement) to consider incorporation of proposed management actions in designated

greater sage‐grouse Key and Core Habitat Areas and to thoroughly consider the conservation measures

identified in the Greater Sage‐grouse National Technical Team (NTT) Report on National Greater Sage‐

Grouse Conservation Measures (Sage‐grouse NTT 2011), as referenced in BLM Instruction Memorandum

(IM) 2012‐044 (BLM National Greater Sage‐Grouse Land Use Planning Strategy).  These issues were

subsequently addressed in two additional alternatives (E and F) that

comprise the Supplement.

The Draft RMP and Draft EIS provides context needed to understand

the management and impacts discussed in this Supplement.  

Supplementing an EIS is meant to meet the purposes of the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) as efficiently as possible, avoiding

redundancy of information that was adequately addressed in the

original NEPA analysis.  Therefore, the Supplement only includes new

information and rationale needed to support the incorporation of alternatives E and F into the planning

process.  For all other sections from the Draft RMP and Draft EIS not included in this Supplement, no

change or no substantive change has occurred, and the reader is referenced to the original NEPA.

Gray shaded notes are provided throughout the document to assist the reader in understanding how to

incorporate information from this Supplement in the Draft RMP and Draft EIS.

Gray shaded notes in the

sections that follow

instruct the reader on

how this Supplement text

is integrated into the

Draft RMP and Draft EIS.
Reader’s Guide

RG-2 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

This page intentionally left blank.
Purpose and Need for Action

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS 1-1

Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need for Action

CHAPTER 1 – PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION

Reader’s Guide to Chapter 1

The Bighorn Basin Draft Resource Management Plan (RMP) and Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS) were released for public review and comment in April 2011 (76 Federal Register [FR] 22721, April 

22, 2011). Chapter 1 of the Draft RMP and Draft EIS, entitled “Purpose and Need for Action,” outlines 

the groundwork and background of the land use planning process. It includes the purpose and need for 

the Bighorn Basin RMP Revision Project, which represents a combined effort to revise RMPs for the 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Cody Field Office (CYFO) and BLM Worland Field Office (WFO); a 

summary of the BLM planning process and RMP implementation strategy; and a description of planning 

issues and criteria, including major statutes, limitations, guidelines, and plans, that inform the decision 

framework.

The Draft RMP and Draft EIS provides the context for Chapter 1 of this Supplement. Chapter 1 of the 

Draft RMP and Draft EIS is supplemented to provide additional context and rationale for the 

incorporation of alternatives E and F into the planning process. Only the following sections of the Draft 

RMP and Draft EIS Chapter 1 are modified by this Supplement:

• Section 1.2.1 ‒ Need to Revise Existing Plans

• Section 1.3.1 ‒ Bureau of Land Management Planning Process

• Section 1.4 ‒ Decision Framework

For all other sections of the Draft RMP and Draft EIS Chapter 1, no change or no substantive change has 

occurred; the reader is referenced to Chapter 1 of the original National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

document for these sections. 1.2.
Purpose and Need for Action

1‐2 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need for Action

1.2.1. Need to Revise Existing Plans

NOTE:  Add the following information to Section 1.2.1 “Need to Revise Existing Plans” (pages 1‐4 to 1‐5)

of the Draft RMP and Draft EIS to reflect new data and emerging issues associated with alternatives E

and F.

New Data

 A Report on National Greater Sage‐Grouse Conservation Measures (Sage‐grouse NTT 2011)

 Sage‐Grouse Baseline Environmental Report (Manier et al. 2013)

 Greater Sage‐Grouse Conservation Objectives Team (COT) Final Report (USFWS 2013)

Emerging Issues and Changing Circumstances

In March 2010 the United States (U.S.) Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) published its listing decision for

the greater sage‐grouse as “Warranted but Precluded” (USFWS 2010).  The listing decision identified the

inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms as a significant threat to greater sage‐grouse now and for

the foreseeable future.  Further, the USFWS identified conservation measures in RMPs as the principal

regulatory mechanism for the BLM.  Based on the identified threats to the greater sage‐grouse and the

USFWS timeline for making a listing decision on this species, the BLM announced a National Greater

Sage‐grouse Planning Strategy Charter in August 2011 requiring the development of new or revised

regulatory mechanisms, through RMPs, to conserve and restore the greater sage‐grouse and habitat on

BLM‐administered lands on a range‐wide basis over the long‐term (BLM 2011).1.3.

National Greater Sage‐Grouse Planning Strategy

On December 9, 2011, the BLM published a Notice of Intent (NOI) in the Federal Register to initiate the

BLM and U.S. Forest Service (USFS) greater sage‐grouse Planning Strategy across 10 western states,

including California, Oregon, Nevada, Idaho, Utah, and Southwest Montana in the Great Basin Region

and Northwest Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, South Dakota, and North Dakota in the Rocky Mountain

Region (see SEIS Figure 1).  This Draft RMP and Draft EIS is one of 15 separate EISs that are currently

being prepared to analyze and incorporate specific conservation measures across the range of the

greater sage‐grouse, consistent with National BLM and USFS policy.

On December 27, 2011, the BLM Washington Office released Instruction Memorandum (IM) No. 2012‐

044, which directed all of the planning efforts across the greater sage‐grouse range to consider all

applicable conservation measures when revising or amending its RMPs in greater sage‐grouse habitat,

including the measures developed by the National Technical Team that were presented in their

December 2011 document – A Report on National Greater Sage‐Grouse Conservation Measures.  IM‐

2012‐044 directs all planning efforts associated with the national strategy to consider and analyze (as

appropriate) the conservation measures presented in the report.

Along with the applicable measures that were outlined in the National Technical Team Report, planning

efforts associated with this National Greater Sage‐Grouse Planning Strategy will also analyze applicable

conservation measures that were submitted to the BLM and USFS from various state governments and

from citizens during the public scoping process.  It is the goal of the BLM and USFS to make final

decisions on these planning efforts by the end of 2014, so that the USFWS can consider those decisions

when it makes a listing decision in 2015.
Purpose and Need for Action

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS 1-3

Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need for Action

SEIS Figure-1. BLM and USFS Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy Area

1.3.1. Bureau of Land Management Planning Process

NOTE: Replace Section 1.3.1 “Bureau of Land Management Planning Process” (pages 1-7 to 1-11) of the 

Draft RMP and Draft EIS with the following text to reflect addition steps in the BLM planning process 

associated with the development of alternatives E and F.

Figure 1-2 illustrates the planning process BLM uses to develop and revise RMPs, as required by Code of 

Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 43, Part 1600 and planning program guidance in BLM Handbook H-1601-

1, Land Use Planning Handbook (BLM 2005). The planning process is designed to help the BLM identify 

the uses of BLM-administered lands the public desires and to consider these uses to the extent they 

would be consistent with Congressional laws and Executive Branch policies.

As shown in Figure 1-2, the planning process is issue driven. The BLM utilized the public scoping process 

(Identification of Issues) to identify planning issues to drive the revision of the existing plans (BLM 2005). 

The BLM also used the scoping process to introduce the public to preliminary planning criteria 

(Development of Planning Criteria), which set limits to the scope of the Bighorn Basin RMP Revision 

Project.
Purpose and Need for Action

1-4 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need for Action

Formulation of Alternatives

Estimation of Impact of Alternatives

Selection of Preferred Alternative

Monitoring and Evaluation

Identification of Issues

Development of Planning Criteria

Inventory Data and Information Collection

Analysis of the Management Situation

Selection of Resource Management Plan

As appropriate, the BLM collected data to address 

planning issues and to fill data gaps identified 

during public scoping (Inventory Data and 

Information Collection). Using these data, the 

planning issues, and the planning criteria, the BLM 

prepared a summary of the Analysis of the 

Management Situation to describe current 

management and identify management 

opportunities to address the planning issues. 

Current management reflects management under 

existing plans and management that would 

continue if the BLM selected the No Action 

Alternative.

Results of the first steps of the planning process 

clarified the purpose and need and identified key 

planning issues the Bighorn Basin RMP Revision 

Project needs to address. Key planning issues 

reflect the focus of the Bighorn Basin RMP Revision 

Project; the Planning Issues section of this chapter 

describes key planning issues in more detail.

During alternatives formulation, the BLM 

collaborated with cooperating agencies to identify 

goals and objectives (desired outcomes) for 

resources and resource uses in the Planning Area 

(Formulation of Alternatives). Constrained by the 

planning criteria, these desired outcomes addressed the key planning issues and incorporated the 

management opportunities the BLM identified.

The BLM filled in the details of alternatives through the development of management actions and 

allowable uses anticipated to achieve the desired outcomes. The alternatives represent a reasonable 

range for managing resources and resource uses in the Planning Area. Chapter 2 of the Draft RMP and 

Draft EIS describes and summarizes the four (A, B, C, and D) alternatives.

Chapter 4 (Estimation of Impacts of Alternatives) of this Draft RMP and Draft EIS includes an analysis of 

the impacts of each alternative. With input from cooperating agencies and BLM specialists, and 

considering planning issues, planning criteria, public input, and the impacts of alternatives A through C, 

the BLM selected Alternative D as the Agency Preferred Alternative (Selection of Preferred Alternative).

A Notice of Availability (NOA) for the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS was published in the Federal 

Register on April 22, 2011 (76 FR 22721, April 22, 2011). Public comments were solicited for 

consideration by the BLM review team. Following the closure of the comment period, the BLM 

published a NOI to begin preparation of EISs and Supplemental EISs to Incorporate Greater Sage-grouse 

Conservation Measures into Land Use Plans and Land Management Plans (76 FR 77008, December 9, 

2011) in accordance with the BLM National Greater Sage-grouse Planning Strategy Charter released in 

August 2011 (BLM 2011). Nominations for greater sage-grouse-related Areas of Critical Environmental 

Concern (ACEC) were submitted by members of the public in response to the NOI. The BLM reviewed 

these nominations and found importance and relevance criteria to be met, warranting consideration in 

the Bighorn Basin RMP Revision Project.

Figure 1-2. BLM Planning Process

Source: 43 Code of Federal Regulations 1610.4
Purpose and Need for Action

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS 1-5

Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need for Action

In July 2012, the BLM Rocky Mountain Regional Interdisciplinary Team identified the need to prepare a 

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS to consider incorporation of proposed 

management actions in designated greater sage-grouse Key and Core Habitat Areas and to thoroughly 

consider the conservation measures identified in the Greater Sage-grouse National Technical Team 

(NTT) Report on National Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Measures (Sage-grouse NTT 2011), as 

referenced in BLM IM 2012-044. These issues were subsequently addressed in two additional 

alternatives (E and F) that comprise this Supplement.

The BLM will select the Proposed RMP and prepare a Final EIS that integrates the content of the 

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS following receipt and consideration of public 

comments on the Supplement. Monitoring and evaluation will occur when the selected RMP is being 

implemented (Monitoring and Evaluation). After the BLM selects the RMP and each affected field office 

issues a Record of Decision (ROD), the BLM will implement the decisions in the RMP and monitor and 

evaluate RMP decisions, how they have been implemented, and whether they accomplish the desired 

outcomes identified in the RMP. On a 5-year cycle, the BLM will report the results of monitoring and 

evaluation to the public. These cyclical evaluations will ensure accountability for implementing RMP 

decisions and will enable the BLM to propose amendments or revisions to RMP decisions that might be 

necessary or desirable. Appendix C of the Draft RMP and Draft EIS provides an overview of the Bighorn 

Basin monitoring and evaluation protocol.

1.4 Decision Framework

1.4.2 Planning Criteria

NOTE: Add a new Planning Criteria #33 to Section 1.4.2 “Planning Criteria” (pages 1-11 to 1-13) of the 

Draft RMP and Draft EIS.

The BLM will utilize the COT Report (USFWS 2013), the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife 

Agencies (WAFWA) Conservation Assessment of Greater Sage-grouse and Sagebrush Habitats (Connelly 

et al. 2004), and any other appropriate resources, to identify greater sage-grouse habitat requirements 

and best management practices.
Purpose and Need for Action

1-6 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need for Action

This page intentionally left blank.
Resource Management Alternatives

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS 2‐1

Chapter 2 – Resource Management Alternatives

CHAPTER 2 – RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES

Reader’s Guide to Chapter 2

The Bighorn Basin Draft Resource Management Plan (RMP) and Draft Environmental Impact Statement

(EIS) were released for public review and comment in April 2011 (76 Federal Register [FR] 22721, April

22, 2011).  Chapter 2 of the Draft RMP and Draft EIS presents four alternative RMPs (A, B, C, and D) for

management of the Bighorn Basin Planning Area (Planning Area).  Draft RMP and Draft EIS Table 2‐5

details a potential management approach for resources, resource uses, special designations, and

support needs under each of the four alternatives.

Chapter 2 of the Draft RMP and Draft EIS is supplemented to include

two new alternatives (alternatives E and F).  Like Draft RMP and Draft

EIS alternatives A through D, Alternative E and Alternative F represent

complete land use plans for managing the Planning Area.  The new

alternatives in this Supplement are the same as alternatives B and D

from the Draft RMP and Draft EIS, except they designate Areas of

Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) for the protection of greater

sage‐grouse priority habitat in sagebrush steppe (SEIS Figure‐2).  

Priority habitat for greater sage‐grouse was found to meet the

relevance and importance criteria.  Alternative E in this Supplement is

the same as Alternative B in the Draft RMP and Draft EIS, except it

designates Key Habitat Areas for greater sage‐grouse as the Greater

Sage‐Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC (see Map SEIS‐1).  Alternative F in this Supplement is the same as

Alternative D in the Draft RMP and Draft EIS, except it designates Core Habitat Areas for greater sage‐

grouse as the Greater Sage‐Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC (see Map SEIS‐2).

The Governor of Wyoming issued Executive Order (EO) 2008‐2 (WY EO 2008‐2:  Greater Sage‐grouse

Core Area of Protection), which was superseded by WY EO 2010‐4 and subsequently replaced by WY EO

2011‐5, for increased protection of greater sage‐grouse.  EO 2011‐5 was supplemented with WY EO

2013‐3.  WY EO 2013‐3 outlines a process should greater sage‐grouse conservation objectives not be

achieved and improper livestock grazing is suspected.

The boundaries of the greater sage‐grouse Key Habitat Areas under Alternative E (also analyzed in the

April 2011 Draft RMP and Draft EIS) are based on Version 2 of the State of Wyoming EO Greater Sage‐

grouse Core Area of Protection (WY EO 2008‐2) (Wyoming Office of the Governor 2008), but were

modified by the Wyoming BLM to remove large portions of private lands and developed oil fields.  

Greater sage‐grouse Core Habitat Areas under Alternative F are based on Version 3 of WY EO Greater

Sage‐grouse Core Area of Protection (WY EO 2010‐4) (Wyoming Office of the Governor 2010), which was

made available at the time of the ACEC nomination.  Therefore, both geographic boundaries are

analyzed in this Supplement.

Management approaches applied to the new greater sage‐grouse priority habitat ACECs were derived

from recommendations on the management of greater sage‐grouse by the Sage‐Grouse National

Technical Team (Sage‐grouse NTT 2011) and public comments.  The management of the greater sage‐

grouse priority habitat ACECs in alternatives E and F represent potential approaches to managing these

areas that were not considered in the Draft RMP and Draft EIS.  The Draft RMP and Draft EIS provides

context needed to understand Chapter 2 of this Supplement.

Greater Sage‐Grouse

Priority Habitat

Designated important

sagebrush steppe habitat.  

In this Supplement, “Priority

Habitat” includes Key

Habitat Areas, delineated by

the Wyoming BLM, and Core

Habitat Areas, delineated by

the State of Wyoming.
Resource Management Alternatives

2-2 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Chapter 2 – Resource Management Alternatives

Only the following sections of the Draft RMP and Draft EIS Chapter 2 are modified by this Supplement:

• Section 2.5 – Alternatives Summary

• Table 2.5 – Detailed Alternatives

• Section 2.6 – Summary of Environmental Consequences by Alternative

For all other sections of the Draft RMP and Draft EIS Chapter 2, no change or no substantive change has 

occurred; the reader is referenced to Chapter 2 of the original National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

document for these sections.

SEIS Figure-2. Alternatives E and F Formation Process

2.5 Alternatives Summary

NOTE: Replace Table 2-2 “Comparative Summary of Proposed Land Use Decisions in the Bighorn Basin 

Planning Area” of the Draft RMP and Draft EIS (page 2-16 through 2-20) with the revised Table 2-2 

below. Table 2-2 (which lists acreage allocations for resources and resource uses by alternative) is 

augmented to include alternatives E and F. Table 2-2 summarizes the six alternatives (A through F) 

considered in detail in the Draft RMP and Draft EIS and this Supplement. Draft RMP and Draft EIS 

alternatives A, B, C, and D are retained to provide points of comparison for the reader.
Resource Management Alternatives

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS 2-3

Chapter 2 – Resource Management Alternatives

Table 2-2. Comparative Summary of Proposed Land Use Decisions in the

Bighorn Basin Planning Area

Topic Acreage

Type Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Alternative F

Physical, Mineral, Biological, and Heritage and Visual Resources

Acres Available for Locatable Mineral 

Entry

BLMAdministered 

Mineral Estate

4,033,195 3,882,447 4,159,703 4,135,518 2,442,928 4,135,518

Acres Maintained/Recommended for 

Withdrawal Under the Mining Laws

BLMAdministered 

Mineral Estate

174,354 325,102 47,846 72,031 1,764,621 72,031

Acres Open to Geothermal Leasing

BLMAdministered

Mineral Estate

4,052,688 1,713,919 4,059,789 3,882,812 1,713,919 3,882,812

Acres Administratively Unavailable for 

Geothermal Leasing

BLMAdministered 

Mineral Estate

154,861 2,493,630 147,760 324,737 2,493,630 324,737

Acres of Oil and Gas Management Areas 

where some discretionary seasonal 

restrictions would be relaxed.

BLMAdministered 

Mineral Estate

0 0

568,164

(for big game 

and sagegrouse)

134,214

(for big game) 0 134,214

(for big game)

Acres Administratively Unavailable for Oil 

and Gas Leasing

BLMAdministered 

Mineral Estate

154,861 2,296,279 147,760 291,294 2,296,279 291,294

Acres Open to Oil and Gas Leasing with 

Major Constraints

BLMAdministered 

Mineral Estate

1,399,490 1,320,277 221,536 117,968 1,320,277 261,282

Acres Open to Oil and Gas Leasing with 

Moderate Constraints

BLMAdministered 

Mineral Estate

1,789,634 451,948 2,175,814 3,540,775 451,948 3,399,708
Resource Management Alternatives

2-4 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Chapter 2 – Resource Management Alternatives

Table 2-2. Comparative Summary of Proposed Land Use Decisions in the

Bighorn Basin Planning Area (Continued)

Topic Acreage

Type Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Alternative F

Acres Open to Oil and Gas Leasing Subject 

to the Standard Lease Form

BLMAdministered 

Mineral Estate

863,564 139,045 1,662,439 257,512 139,045 255,265

Acres Open to Disposal of Mineral 

Materials

BLMAdministered 

Mineral Estate

3,975,695 1,608,467 3,859,334 4,023,356 1,054,294 4,023,356

Acres Closed to Disposal of Mineral 

Materials

BLMAdministered 

Mineral Estate

231,854 2,599,082 348,215 184,193 3,153,255 184,193

Greater Sage-grouse Priority Habitat 

Areas: Key Habitat Areas (Alternatives A, 

B, C, D, E) and Core Habitat Areas 

(Alternative F)

Planning Area 1,857,485 1,857,485 1,857,485 1,857,485 1,857,485 1,744,547

BLMAdministered 

Surface

1,231,383 1,231,383 1,231,383 1,231,383 1,231,383 1,161,234

BLMAdministered 

Mineral Estate

1,519,859 1,519,859 1,519,859 1,519,859 1,519,859 1,426,137

Greater Sage-grouse Winter 

Concentration Areas

Planning Area 210,229 210,229 210,229 210,229 210,229 210,229

BLMAdministered 

Surface

172,779 172,779 172,779 172,779 172,779 172,779

BLMAdministered 

Mineral Estate

196,255 196,255 196,255 196,255 196,255 196,255
Resource Management Alternatives

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS 2-5

Chapter 2 – Resource Management Alternatives

Table 2-2. Comparative Summary of Proposed Land Use Decisions in the

Bighorn Basin Planning Area (Continued)

Topic Acreage

Type Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Alternative F

Greater Sage-grouse Occupied Lek 

Protective Buffer (Surface-disturbing 

Activities Prohibited)

Planning Area 44,433 (CSU) 228,095 (NSO) N/A1

172,174 (CSU: 

Inside Key 

Habitat Areas)

10,426 (CSU: 

Outside Key

Habitat Areas)

228,095 (NSO)

178,999 (NSO: 

Inside Core 

Habitat Areas)

9,127 (CSU: 

Outside Core 

Habitat Areas)

BLMAdministered 

Surface

30,886 (CSU) 157,008 (NSO) N/A1

125,843 (CSU: 

Inside Key 

Habitat Areas)

5,801 (CSU: 

Outside Key 

Habitat Areas)

157,008 (NSO)

126,144 (NSO: 

Inside Core 

Habitat Areas)

5,625 (CSU: 

Outside Core 

Habitat Areas)

BLMAdministered 

Mineral Estate

37,742 (CSU) 192,222 (NSO) N/A1

148,161 (CSU: 

Inside Key 

Habitat Areas)

8,142 (CSU: 

Outside Key 

Habitat Areas)

192,222 (NSO)

153,744 (NSO: 

Inside Core 

Habitat Areas)

6,962 (CSU: 

Outside Core 

Habitat Areas)

Greater Sage-grouse Occupied Lek 

Protective Buffer (Surface-disturbing 

Activities Mitigated)

Planning Area 1,565,300 (TLS) 2,488,559 (TLS) 1,565,300 (TLS) N/A1 2,488,559 (TLS) N/A1

BLMAdministered 

Surface

1,009,963 (TLS) 1,571,115 (TLS) 1,009,963 (TLS) N/A1 1,571,115 (TLS) N/A1

BLMAdministered 

Mineral Estate

1,295,256 (TLS) 2,024,287 (TLS) 1,295,256 (TLS) N/A1 2,024,287 (TLS) N/A1
Resource Management Alternatives

2-6 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Chapter 2 – Resource Management Alternatives

Table 2-2. Comparative Summary of Proposed Land Use Decisions in the

Bighorn Basin Planning Area (Continued)

Topic Acreage

Type Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Alternative F

Raptor Active Nest Protective Buffer 

(Surface-disturbing Activities Prohibited) Planning Area 592,529 (TLS) 1,002,657 (TLS)

82,294 (CSU) 82,294 (TLS)2 145,308 (TLS)

82,294 (CSU)

1,002,657 (TLS)

82,294 (CSU)

145,308 (TLS)

82,294 (CSU)

BLMAdministered 

Surface

338,731 (TLS) 570,506 (TLS)

53,336 (CSU) 53,336 (TLS)2 110,367 (TLS)53,336 (CSU)

570,506 (TLS)

53,336 (CSU)

110,367 (TLS)

53,336 (CSU)

BLMAdministered 

Mineral Estate

429,224 (TLS) 731,888 (TLS)

58,777 (CSU) 58,777 (TLS)2 86,550 (TLS)58,777 (CSU)

731,888 (TLS)

58,777 (CSU)

86,550 (TLS)

58,777 (CSU)

Acreage of Aspen Restored

BLMAdministered 

Surface

25-200 per year 

until 2,000-

4,000 are 

restored

1,000 per year N/A1 CBC 1,000 per year CBC

Riparian/Wetland Areas Managed

BLMAdministered 

Surface

24,036

Towards PFC

24,0363

Towards DPC

24,036

Towards PFC

24,0363

Towards DFC

24,0363

Towards DPC

24,0363

Towards DFC

Fisheries Habitat Restored or Improved 

BLMAdministered 

Surface

CBC

10 lotic4 miles;

80 lentic5 acres CBC on a priority 

basis

10 lotic4 miles;

80 lentic5 acres

on a priority 

basis

Restrictions on Surface Development on 

or near Important Cultural Sites

BLMAdministered 

Surface

CBC

NSO within

3 miles and 

CSU in view 

within

5 miles

NSO within

1⁄4 mile and CSU 

in view within

1 mile

CSU up to

3 miles where 

setting is an 

important 

aspect of the 

integrity for the 

site

NSO within

3 miles and 

CSU in view 

within

5 miles

CSU up to

3 miles where 

setting is an 

important 

aspect of the 

integrity for the 

site
Resource Management Alternatives

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS 2-7

Chapter 2 – Resource Management Alternatives

Table 2-2. Comparative Summary of Proposed Land Use Decisions in the

Bighorn Basin Planning Area (Continued)

Topic Acreage

Type Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Alternative F

Visual Resource Management – Class I

BLMAdministered 

Surface

141,110 154,343 140,958 140,954 154,343 140,954

BLMAdministered 

Mineral Estate

139,149 152,229 138,998 138,994 152,229 138,994

Visual Resource Management – Class II

BLMAdministered 

Surface

339,205 1,782,843 330,020 638,929 1,782,843 638,929

BLMAdministered 

Mineral Estate

549,062 2,499,522 505,790 1,075,062 2,499,522 1,075,062

Visual Resource Management – Class III

BLMAdministered 

Surface

890,353 393,887 511,801 836,361 393,887 836,361

BLMAdministered 

Mineral Estate

1,173,265 469,461 792,104 1,085,968 469,461 1,085,968

Visual Resource Management – Class IV

BLMAdministered 

Surface

1,814,373 858,162 2,202,239 1,573,357 858,162 1,573,357

BLMAdministered 

Mineral Estate

2,321,639 1,066,715 2,746,288 1,888,341 1,066,715 1,888,341
Resource Management Alternatives

2-8 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Chapter 2 – Resource Management Alternatives

Table 2-2. Comparative Summary of Proposed Land Use Decisions in the

Bighorn Basin Planning Area (Continued)

Topic Acreage

Type Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Alternative F

Visual Resource Management –

Unclassified

BLMAdministered 

Surface

4,361 4,362 4,362 4,373 4,362 4,373

BLMAdministered 

Mineral Estate

23,720 23,720 23,720 23,647 23,720 23,647

Resource Uses and Support

Acres Open to Renewable Energy 

Development

BLMAdministered 

Surface

CBC 246,448 1,425,762 393,593 245,403 380,097

Renewable Energy Avoidance/Mitigation 

Areas

BLMAdministered 

Surface

CBC 1,691,497 1,612,547 2,501,876 991,023 2,515,372

Renewable Energy Exclusion Areas BLMAdministered 

Surface

CBC 1,251,869 151,506 294,345 1,953,388 294,345

Acres Closed to Livestock Grazing BLMAdministered 

Surface

5,171 1,988,927 5,171 5,171 1,988,927 5,171

Number of Special Recreation 

Management Areas

BLMAdministered 

Surface

7 12 1 12 12 12

Number of Extensive Recreation 

Management Areas

BLMAdministered 

Surface

2 2 3 6 2 6

Acres Closed to Motorized Vehicle Use BLMAdministered 

Surface

59,192 136,474 10,636 60,681 136,474 60,681
Resource Management Alternatives

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS 2-9

Chapter 2 – Resource Management Alternatives

Table 2-2. Comparative Summary of Proposed Land Use Decisions in the

Bighorn Basin Planning Area (Continued)

Topic Acreage

Type Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Alternative F

Acres Open to Motorized

Cross-country Travel

BLMAdministered 

Surface

1,320 3,169 14,873 5,941 3,169 5,941

Acres Limited to Existing Roads and Trails 

for Motorized Vehicle Use

BLMAdministered 

Surface

2,332,355 931,803 2,144,623 2,028,620 593,448 1,341,784

Acres Limited to Designated Roads and 

Trails for Motorized Vehicle Use

BLMAdministered 

Surface

787,626 2,054,228 951,992 1,055,257 2,392,584 1,746,579

Acres Closed to Over-snow Vehicle Use BLMAdministered 

Surface

N/A1 1,862,337 CBC CBC 1,862,337 CBC

Land Available for Standard Disposal BLMAdministered 

Surface

116,800 24,2676 117,9616 66,0226 22,1336 66,0226

Surface Ownership Retained BLMAdministered 

Surface

3,073,014 3,166,981 3,071,850 3,123,878 3,168,634 3,123,878

Open for Entry Under the Desert Land Act BLMAdministered 

Surface

1,409 0 1,409 1,409 0 1,409

Rights-of-Way Avoidance/Mitigation 

Areas

BLMAdministered 

Surface

941,778 2,717,617 1,174,335 2,512,202 1,618,771 2,398,483

Rights-of-Way Exclusion Areas BLMAdministered 

Surface

61,416 225,750 7,762 39,003 1,324,884 39,003
Resource Management Alternatives

2-10 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Chapter 2 – Resource Management Alternatives

Table 2-2. Comparative Summary of Proposed Land Use Decisions in the

Bighorn Basin Planning Area (Continued)

Topic Acreage

Type Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Alternative F

Lands Managed to Maintain Wilderness 

Characteristics

BLMAdministered 

Surface

0 571,288 0 52,485 571,288 52,485

Special Designations

Nez Perce National Historic Trail 

Management Corridor

BLMAdministered 

Surface

1,6383 24,443 (NSO)

38,3192 (CSU)

1,638 (NSO) 

7,7122 (CSU) up to 24,4432 24,443 (NSO)

38,3192 (CSU) up to 24,4432

Wild and Scenic Rivers (acreage managed 

to preserve eligibility for inclusion in the 

NWSRS)

BLMAdministered 

Surface

22,315 22,315 0 0 22,315 0

Wilderness Study Areas BLMAdministered 

Surface

143,9747 145,2648 143,974 143,9748 145,2648 143,9748

Note: The Planning Area is the area of analysis for this document; it encompasses the area addressed in the previous RMPs, regardless of ownership. However, decisions in this RMP apply only to 

BLM-administered surface lands and mineral estate.

1 No similar action.

2 Surface-disturbing activities are avoided. 3 Management toward DFC and DPC is assumed to exceed the requirements of managing toward PFC. 4 Running water riparian/wetland areas such as rivers, streams, and springs.

5 Standing water riparian/wetland areas such as lakes, ponds, seeps, bogs, and meadows.

6 Includes Zones 2, 2A, 2B, and W. Does not include zones available for Special Disposals, as disposals in these areas would only occur in special situations. 7 Includes 1,290 acres of acquired state land in Bobcat Draw.

8 In-holdings acquired with willing landowners on a case-by-case basis.

BLM Bureau of Land Management

CBC case-by-case

COA conditions of approval

CSU controlled surface use

DFC desired future condition

DPC desired plant community

N/A not applicable

NSO no surface occupancy

NWSRS National Wild and Scenic River System

PFC proper functioning condition

RMP Resource Management Plan

TLS timing limitations
Resource Management Alternatives

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS 2-11

Chapter 2 – Resource Management Alternatives

NOTE: Add the following row to the end of Table 2-3 from the Draft RMP and Draft EIS (page 2-24). This additional information augments Table 

2-3 (which is a comparative summary of the acreage allocations and management emphasis for existing and proposed ACECs) to reflect the 

additional greater sage-grouse priority habitat ACECs proposed under alternatives E and F. For all other ACEC listed in Table 2-3 of the Draft 

RMP and Draft EIS, new Alternative E is the same as existing Alternative B, and new Alternative F is the same as existing Alternative D.

Table 2-3. Comparative Summary of Proposed Areas of Critical Environmental Concern and other

Management Areas by Alternative

Name Value(s) of Concern Acreage Type

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Alternative F

Existing 

Designation

Acreage

Proposed 

Designation

Acreage

Proposed 

Designation

Acreage

Proposed 

Designation

Acreage

Proposed 

Designation

Acreage

Proposed 

Designation

Acreage

Greater SageGrouse Key 

Habitat Areas

(Alternative E) and 

Core Habitat 

Areas (Alternative 

F) ACECs

Special Status 

Species, Vegetation

Total Surface

None

0

None

0

None

0

None

0

ACEC

1,857,485

ACEC

1,786,244

BLM-Administered 

Surface 0 0 0 0 1,231,383 1,161,124

BLM-Administered 

Mineral Estate 0 0 0 0 1,519,859 1,457,924
Resource Management Alternatives

2-12 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Chapter 2 – Resource Management Alternatives

NOTE: Add new Sections 2.5.5 and 2.5.6 (which summarize new alternatives E and F) to the Draft RMP 

and Draft EIS. The summary descriptions below provide a general overview of alternatives E and F the 

management emphasis associated with each alternative, and key management actions for each 

alternative. Table 2-5 in this Supplement provides additional detailed descriptions of these alternatives’ 

management of the Greater Sage-Grouse Key and Core Habitat Area ACECs, and Table 2-5 from the 

Draft RMP and Draft EIS (page 2-41) provides the context for the management of other resources, 

resource uses, and special designations under each alternative.

2.5.5 Alternative E

Overview of the Alternative

Alternative E is the same as Alternative B outside of greater sage-grouse Key Habitat Areas. Within 

greater sage-grouse Key Habitat Areas, Alternative E includes additional management actions and 

designates the area as an ACEC. Alternative E emphasizes conservation of physical, biological, heritage 

and visual resources, and Lands with Wilderness Characteristics (LWCs) with constraints on resource 

uses.

Resource Uses and Support

Management of activities associated with mineral resource exploration, development, and extraction 

are the same as described under Alternative B, except within greater sage-grouse Key Habitat Areas 

(1,231,383 acres) where locatable withdrawals and closure to mineral materials disposal would reduce 

the area available for mineral exploitation more than under any other alternative (see Table 2-2 for 

comparative land use acreages by alternative). Under Alternative E, 2,442,928 acres are available and 

1,764,621 acres are recommended for withdrawal or extension of an existing withdrawal from locatable 

mineral entry. Alternative E does not delineate Oil and Gas Management Areas and manages leasable 

minerals the same as Alternative B. Alternative E makes 1,054,294 acres available for mineral materials 

disposal, while 3,153,255 acres are closed to mineral materials disposal.

Land resource program actions under Alternative E identify 22,133 acres of BLM-administered land in the 

Planning Area as available for disposal through land tenure adjustments. The BLM manages 1,618,771 

acres as rights-of-way (ROW) avoidance/mitigation areas and 1,324,884 acres as ROW exclusion areas. 

Under Alternative E, 245,403 acres are open and 1,953,388 acres are closed to renewable energy 

development.

Under Alternative E, travel management designations, including areas open to motorized vehicle use and 

over-snow travel, are the same as Alternative B; however, Alternative E prohibits new road construction 

within 4 miles of active greater sage-grouse leks and requires the development of travel management 

plans that minimize impacts to greater sage-grouse habitat. In addition, routes within greater sage-grouse 

Key Habitat Areas would be managed under a seasonal closure restricting motorized use from February 1 

through July 31.

Recreation management is the same as under Alternative B, except within greater sage-grouse Key Habitat 

Areas where the BLM requires that Special Recreation Permits have neutral or beneficial effects to sagegrouse habitat. Alternative E manages livestock grazing the same as Alternative B, including the closure of 

greater sage-grouse Key Habitat Areas.
Resource Management Alternatives

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS 2-13

Chapter 2 – Resource Management Alternatives

Special Designations

Special designations under Alternative E include those identified under Alternative B with the addition of 

the Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC, which consists of BLM-administered land within the 

greater sage-grouse Key Habitat Areas. Under Alternative E, the BLM applies various constraints to 

resource uses within the Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC to conserve greater sage-grouse 

and its habitat, including limiting anthropogenic disturbance to one disturbance per 640 acres and 3 

percent or less of total sage-grouse habitat; recommending withdrawal from mineral entry and closure to 

livestock grazing; prohibiting mineral material disposals; and managing the ACEC as ROW and renewable 

energy exclusion areas.

Alternative E includes 18 ACECs − the nine existing areas (five of which the BLM proposes for expansion) 

and nine new ACECs. The five existing ACECs the BLM proposes to expand are Brown/Howe Dinosaur 

Area, Carter Mountain, Five Springs Falls, Little Mountain, and Upper Owl Creek. The nine proposed ACECs 

are Chapman Bench, Clarks Fork Basin/Polecat Bench West Paleontological Area, Clarks Fork Canyon, 

Foster Gulch Paleontological Area, McCullough Peaks South Paleontological Area, Rainbow Canyon, 

Rattlesnake Mountain, Sheep Mountain, and Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas. Table 2-3

summarizes acreages and management emphasis in each of these ACECs.

Physical, Biological, Heritage and Visual Resources, and Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Alternative E implements the same resource protection measures as Alternative B, but with additional 

management to emphasize the conservation of greater sage-grouse priority habitat areas through the 

Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC. The scale of the this additional ACEC and the limitations on 

surface disturbances and road development, as well as closure to locatable mineral entry, mineral 

materials disposal, ROW development, and renewable energy development it includes, result in greater 

overall resource protection under Alternative E than under the other alternatives.

Fire and fuels management, habitat restoration/vegetation management, and invasive species 

management actions under Alternative E are the same as Alternative B, but with additional emphasis on 

greater sage-grouse habitat objectives within the Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC. For 

example, fuels management activities under this alternative must maintain at least 15 percent of 

sagebrush canopy cover and evaluate the benefits of fuel breaks against the additional loss of sagebrush 

cover.

The management of physical resources, heritage and visual resources, and LWCs is consistent with 

Alternative B.

2.5.6 Alternative F

Overview of the Alternative

Alternative F is the same as Alternative D outside of greater sage-grouse Core Habitat Areas. Within 

greater sage-grouse Core Habitat Areas, Alternative F includes additional management actions and 

designates these areas as an ACEC. Alternative F generally emphasizes conservation of physical, biological, 

and heritage and visual resources compared to current management, while placing moderate constraints 

on resource uses and reclamation and mitigation requirements to reduce impacts to resource values.
Resource Management Alternatives

2-14 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Chapter 2 – Resource Management Alternatives

Resource Uses and Support

Management of activities associated with mineral resource exploration, development, and extraction 

are the same as described under Alternative D, except in the Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas 

ACEC, where the BLM applies a no surface occupancy (NSO) stipulation around sage-grouse leks. Under 

Alternative F, 291,294 acres of federal mineral estate are administratively unavailable to oil and gas leasing 

in the Planning Area. The remaining federal mineral estate in the Planning Area is open to oil and gas 

leasing subject to the following constraints: 255,265 acres are subject to the standard lease form, 

3,399,708 acres are subject to moderate constraints, and 261,282 acres are subject to major constraints. 

Alternative F designates 134,214 acres as Oil and Gas Management areas. These areas are managed 

primarily for oil and gas exploration and development except where these areas are overlapped by the 

Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC, in which case the BLM would apply protective 

management actions consistent with the ACEC designation. The management of locatable and salable 

mineral resources is the same as Alternative D.

Land resource program actions under Alternative F identify 66,022 acres of BLM-administered land in the 

Planning Area as available for disposal through land tenure adjustments. The BLM manages 2,398,483 

acres as ROW avoidance/mitigation areas and 39,003 acres as ROW exclusion areas. Under Alternative F, 

380,097 acres are open to renewable energy development and 294,345 acres are renewable energy 

development exclusion areas.

Travel management designations under Alternative F include 60,681 acres closed to motorized vehicle use, 

1,341,784 acres limited to existing roads and trails, 1,746,579 acres limited to designated roads and trails, 

and 5,941 acres open to motorized vehicle use. Motorized vehicle use in the Greater Sage-Grouse Core 

Habitat Areas ACEC is limited to designated roads and trails and the construction of new primary roads 

would be prohibited within 1.9 miles of greater sage-grouse leks. Similar to alternatives A and D, the BLM 

considers areas open to over-snow vehicles on a case-by-case basis.

Recreation management is the same as under Alternative D, except within greater sage-grouse Core 

Habitat Areas where the BLM requires that Special Recreation Permits have neutral or beneficial effects to 

greater sage-grouse habitat. The BLM closes the same acreage in the Planning Area to livestock grazing as 

alternatives A and D (5,171 acres). Alternative F manages grazing lands consistent with Alternative D, 

except in the Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC where the BLM prioritizes the consideration of 

sage-grouse habitat objectives and management considerations over livestock grazing objectives through 

the imposition of restrictions on livestock grazing location and timing, and range improvement projects.

Special Designations

Special designations under Alternative F include those identified under Alternative D with the addition of a 

Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC, which consists of public lands within greater sage-grouse 

Core Habitat Areas. Alternative F implements various resource protection measures within greater sagegrouse Core Habitat Areas; however, constraints on resource uses in priority sage-grouse habitats under 

Alternative F are generally more moderate than those under alternatives E and B. For example, greater 

sage-grouse priority habitat in Core Habitat Areas are available for fluid mineral leasing under Alternative F 

subject to NSO and timing limitations (TLS) restrictions, whereas alternatives E and B close sage-grouse 

priority habitat in Key Habitat Areas to fluid mineral leasing. Similarly, whereas Alternative E prohibits the 

construction of above ground transmission lines in greater sage-grouse priority habitat areas, Alternative F 

allows the construction of above ground transmission lines subject to seasonal restrictions.

Alternative F includes 13 ACECs − the nine existing areas and four new ACECs. The four proposed ACECs 

are Clarks Fork Canyon, Paleocene, Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), Sheep Mountain, and Greater 
Resource Management Alternatives

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS 2-15

Chapter 2 – Resource Management Alternatives

Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas. Table 2-3 summarizes acreages and management emphasis in each of 

these ACECs and other management areas.

Physical, Biological, Heritage and Visual Resources, and Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Alternative F places similar constraints on resource uses that affect biological resources as Alternative D, 

but proposes additional management to emphasize the conservation of greater sage-grouse habitat 

through the designation of the Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC. As discussed above, 

Alternative F applies additional limitations on surface disturbance and disruptive activities within the 

Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC. Fire and fuels management, habitat restoration and/or 

vegetation management, and invasive species management actions under Alternative F are the same as 

Alternative D, but with additional emphasis on sage-grouse habitat objectives within the Greater SageGrouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC.

The management of physical resources, heritage and visual resources, and LWCs are the same as 

Alternative D.
Resource Management Alternatives

2-16 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Chapter 2 – Resource Management Alternatives

NOTE: Table 2-5 from the Draft RMP and Draft EIS is augmented to include alternatives E and F. Because these new alternatives only differ from 

alternatives B and D from the Draft RMP and Draft EIS by the addition of the Greater Sage-Grouse Key and Core Habitat Areas ACECs, only the 

management actions related those ACECs are included below. These new ACEC management actions are inserted to Table 2-5 of Draft RMP and 

Draft EIS directly following the “Proposed Sheep Mountain ACEC” management actions on page 2-197.

The new rows for Table 2-5 below only include management direction for alternatives E and F because the Greater Sage-Grouse Key and Core 

Habitat Area ACECs are not proposed under alternatives A, B, C, or D.

Table 2-5 designates management actions that apply to the CYFO with an X in the column labeled C, and designates management actions that 

apply to the WFO with an X in the column labeled W.

Table 2-5. Detailed Alternatives

7000 SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS (SD) – ACECs – Proposed Greater Sage-Grouse Priority Habitat Area ACECs

Record

# C

1 W2 Goal/

Obj. Alternative E Alternative F

1 X X SD:1.1

SD:1.2

Implement mitigation and minimization guidelines and required 

design features, including specific measures for greater sage-grouse 

(refer to Appendix L of this Supplement and the Draft RMP and Draft 

EIS). Incorporate greater sage-grouse specific measures into project 

proposals as required design features.

Same as Alternative E.

2 X X SD:1.1

SD:1.2

Incorporate BLM required design features or mitigation for any 

authorized mineral activity for federal mineral estate, regardless of 

surface ownership.

Require the development of a wildlife resource monitoring and 

mitigation plan to address potential impacts from mineral 

development on wildlife populations and/or habitat on a case-by-case 

basis.

Same as Alternative E.

3 X X SD:1.1

SD:1.2

Examine the applicability of categorical exclusions in priority habitat1. Same as Alternative E.

Conduct extraordinary circumstances review if applicable.

 

NOTE: “Priority habitat” when used in management actions common to alternatives E and F refers to either Key Habitat Areas (for Alternative E) or Core 

Habitat Areas (for Alternative F).

NOTE: The management actions presented in Table 2-5 may appear in different sections of the Proposed RMP and Final EIS Detailed Alternatives Table.
Resource Management Alternatives

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS 2-17

Chapter 2 – Resource Management Alternatives

Table 2-5. Detailed Alternatives

7000 SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS (SD) – ACECs – Proposed Greater Sage-Grouse Priority Habitat Area ACECs

Record

# C1 W2 Goal/Obj. Alternative E Alternative F

4 X X SD:1.1

SD:1.2

Where suitable conservation actions cannot be achieved in priority 

habitat, seek to acquire state and private lands with intact subsurface 

mineral estate by donation, purchase, or exchange in order to best 

conserve, enhance, or restore sage -grouse habitat.

Same as Alternative E.

5 X X SD:1.1

SD:1.2

Identify areas where acquisitions (including subsurface mineral rights) 

or conservation easements would benefit sage -grouse habitat.

Same as Alternative E.

6 X X SD:1.1

SD:1.2

Designate greater sage-grouse priority habitat within Key Habitat 

Areas as the Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC (Map SEIS30 and Appendix F of the Draft RMP and Draft EIS; 1,231,383 acres).

Designate greater sage-grouse priority habitat within Core Habitat Area as the Greater SageGrouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC (Map SEIS-31 and Appendix F of the Draft RMP and Draft EIS; 

1,161,234 acres).

Density and Disturbance

7 X X SD:1.1

SD:1.2

Manage the Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC so that 

anthropogenic disturbances do not exceed one disturbance per 640 

acres and cover less than 3 percent of total sage -grouse habitat 

regardless of ownership. Anthropogenic features include but are not 

limited to paved highways, graded gravel roads, transmission lines, 

substations, wind turbines, oil and gas wells, geothermal wells and 

associated facilities, pipelines, landfills, homes, and mines.

Prohibit further disturbance in the Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat 

Areas ACEC where the 3 percent disturbance threshold is already 

exceeded until enough habitat has been restored to maintain the area 

under this threshold (subject to valid existing rights).

Require any development to be placed at the most distal part of the 

lease from the lek, or, depending on topography and other habitat 

aspects, in an area that is less demonstrably harmful to sage-grouse.

In the Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC, the density goal includes either:

• Maintain or reduce the existing level of density of energy production and/or 

transmission structures on the landscape in sagebrush communities, or

• Manage the existing level of density of disturbance on the landscape so that 

anthropogenic disturbances do not exceed one disturbance per 640 acres within the 

Density and Disturbance Calculation Tool (DDCT) analysis (or best available tool) and 

cover less than 3 percent of sagebrush habitat.

Consolidate anthropogenic features from development and transmission on the landscape, 

regardless of land ownership patterns or whether proposed actions occur in the Greater SageGrouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC. Allow high profile structures (higher than 12 feet) within 

greater sage-grouse nesting habitat on a case-by-case basis.

Lands & Realty

8 X X SD:1.1

SD:1.2

Evaluate and remove, bury, or modify existing power lines within 

priority sage-grouse habitat areas on a case-by-case basis.

Same as Alternative E.
Resource Management Alternatives

2-18 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Chapter 2 – Resource Management Alternatives

Table 2-5. Detailed Alternatives

7000 SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS (SD) – ACECs – Proposed Greater Sage-Grouse Priority Habitat Area ACECs

Record

# C1 W2 Goal/Obj. Alternative E Alternative F

9 X X SD:1.1

SD:1.2

Allow only below ground ROWs within designated ROW corridors.

Co-locate new ROWs only if the entire footprint of the proposed 

project (including construction and staging) can be completed within 

the existing disturbance associated with the authorized ROWs.

Allow only below ground ROWs within designated ROW corridors. Do not limit the width of 

below ground ROW corridors as long as new linear facilities are constructed adjacent to 

existing linear facilities accounting for adequate separation for operating system integrity; 

safety (construction and operations); appropriate federal, state, and local statutes, 

regulations, and policies; and land use constraints. If a linear facility is moved away from an 

adjacent utility to avoid a resource conflict, the new linear facility will still be considered to be 

within the ROW corridor.

Construct new transmission lines between July 1 and March 14 (or between July 1 and 

November 30 in winter concentration areas) and within 0.5 miles on either side of existing 115 

kV or larger transmission lines (Map SEIS-23).

10 X X SD:1.1

SD:1.2

Manage the ACEC as a ROW exclusion area.

Co-locate new ROWs within existing ROWs or where it best minimizes 

sage-grouse impacts where new ROWs associated with valid existing 

rights are required.

Use existing roads or realignments, as described above, to access valid 

existing rights that are not yet developed. If valid existing rights 

cannot be accessed via existing roads, build any new road to the 

absolute minimum standard necessary, and add the surface 

disturbance to the total disturbance in the Greater Sage-Grouse Key 

Habitat Areas ACEC. If that disturbance exceeds 3 percent for that 

area, implement additional effective mitigation on a case-by-case 

basis to offset the resulting loss of sage-grouse habitat.

Manage the ACEC as a ROW avoidance/mitigation area.

Allow ROWs where it best minimizes sage-grouse impacts, build new roads to the minimum 

standard necessary, and add the surface disturbance to the total disturbance in the Greater 

Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC if valid existing rights cannot be accessed via existing 

roads. If disturbance exceeds 3 percent for that area, implement additional effective 

mitigation on a case-by-case basis to offset the resulting loss of sage-grouse habitat.

Use existing roads to access valid existing rights that are not yet developed to the extent 

practicable. Allow new ROWs to access valid, existing rights and private and state inholdings 

where needed.

11 X X SD:1.1

SD:1.2

Where existing leases or ROWs have had some level of development 

(road, fence, well, etc.) and are no longer in use, reclaim the site by 

removing these features and restoring the habitat.

Same as Alternative E.

12 X X SD:1.1

SD:1.2

Relocate existing designated ROW corridors crossing priority sagegrouse habitat void of any authorized ROWs, outside of the priority 

habitat area. If relocation is not possible, undesignate that entire 

corridor during the planning process.

Same as Alternative E.
Resource Management Alternatives

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS 2-19

Chapter 2 – Resource Management Alternatives

Table 2-5. Detailed Alternatives

7000 SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS (SD) – ACECs – Proposed Greater Sage-Grouse Priority Habitat Area ACECs

Record

# C1 W2 Goal/Obj. Alternative E Alternative F

13 SD:1.1

SD:1.2

Retain lands in the ACEC. Consider exceptions where there is mixed 

ownership, and land exchanges would allow for additional or more 

contiguous federal ownership patterns within the ACEC.

Under portions of the Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC 

with minority federal ownership, include an additional, effective 

mitigation agreement for any disposal of federal land. As a final 

preservation measure consideration should be given to pursuing a 

permanent conservation easement.

No similar action.

14 X X SD:1.1

SD:1.2

Pursue a withdrawal from appropriation under the mining laws for the 

Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC.

No similar action.

15 X X SD:1.1

SD:1.2

Do not recommend withdrawals not associated with mineral activity 

in the Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC unless the land 

management is consistent with sage-grouse conservation measures.

No similar action.

16 X X SD:1.1

SD:1.2

ROWs will be amended to require features that enhance sage-grouse 

habitat security. Allow access to existing designated corridors for 

maintenance.

Maintenance of existing structures would be allowed, and upgrades would be considered 

where need is demonstrated through the appropriate regulatory process, and would include 

anti‐perching devices and retrofitting existing towers to discourage use by raptors.

17 X X SD:1.1

SD:1.2

Any existing towers must undergo review for adverse effects. Review 

will include minimizing wires and other collision hazards for sagegrouse and migratory birds, as well as adverse impacts of night lights.

Same as Alternative E.

Renewable Energy—Wind Energy Development

18 X X SD:1.1

SD:1.2

Manage the Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC as a 

renewable energy exclusion area.

Manage the Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC as a renewable energy 

avoidance/mitigation area.

Do not authorize new applications and proposals for wind power development inside greater 

sage-grouse Core Habitat Areas unless it can be sufficiently demonstrated that the 

development activity would not result in declines of sage-grouse populations. Sufficient 

demonstration of “no declines” should be coordinated with the WGFD and U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service.

19 X X SD:1.1

SD:1.2

Prohibit the location of new meteorological towers. No similar action.
Resource Management Alternatives

2-20 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Chapter 2 – Resource Management Alternatives

Table 2-5. Detailed Alternatives

7000 SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS (SD) – ACECs – Proposed Greater Sage-Grouse Priority Habitat Area ACECs

Record

# C1 W2 Goal/Obj. Alternative E Alternative F

Habitat Restoration/Vegetation Management

20 X X SD:1.1

SD:1.2

Prioritize implementation of restoration projects based on 

environmental variables that improve chances for project success in 

areas most likely to benefit sage-grouse.

Prioritize restoration in seasonal habitats that are thought to be 

limiting sage-grouse distribution and/or abundance.

Same as Alternative E. 

21 X X SD:1.1

SD:1.2

Include sage-grouse habitat parameters as defined by Connelly et al. 

(2000), Hagen et al. (2007), or if available, State Sage-Grouse 

Conservation Plans and appropriate local information in habitat 

restoration objectives. Make meeting these objectives within priority 

sage-grouse habitat areas the highest restoration priority.

Same as Alternative E.

22 X X SD:1.1

SD:1.2

Composition, function, and structure of native desired plant

communities will be consistent with the reference state of the 

appropriate ecological site description (ESD), and maximize these 

properties to provide for healthy, resilient, and recovering sagegrouse habitat components.

Manage to achieve or make progress towards achieving 65 percent or more of Historical 

Climax Plant Community.

23 X X SD:1.1

SD:1.2

Require use of native seeds for restoration based on availability, 

adaptation (ecological site potential), and probability of success. 

Where probability of success or adapted seed availability is low, 

nonnative seeds may be used as long as they support sage-grouse 

habitat objectives.

Same as Alternative E.

24 X X SD:1.1

SD:1.2

Design post-restoration management to ensure long-term 

persistence. This could include changes in livestock grazing 

management, wild horse and burro management, travel 

management, or other activities to achieve and maintain the desired 

condition of the restoration effort that benefits sage-grouse.

Same as Alternative E.

25 X X SD:1.1

SD:1.2

Consider potential changes in climate when proposing restoration 

seedings using native plants. Consider collection from the warmer 

component of the species’ current range when selecting native 

species.

Same as Alternative E.

26 X X SD:1.1

SD:1.2

Restore native (or desirable) plants and create landscape patterns 

which most benefit sage-grouse.

Same as Alternative E.
Resource Management Alternatives

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS 2-21

Chapter 2 – Resource Management Alternatives

Table 2-5. Detailed Alternatives

7000 SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS (SD) – ACECs – Proposed Greater Sage-Grouse Priority Habitat Area ACECs

Record

# C1 W2 Goal/Obj. Alternative E Alternative F

27 X X SD:1.1

SD:1.2

Make re-establishment of sagebrush cover and desirable understory 

plants (relative to ecological site potential) the highest priority for 

restoration efforts.

Same as Alternative E.

28 X X SD:1.1

SD:1.2

In fire prone areas where sagebrush seed is required for sage-grouse 

habitat restoration, consider establishing seed harvest areas that are 

managed for seed production and are a priority for protection from 

outside disturbances.

Same as Alternative E.

29 X X SD:1.1

SD:1.2

Avoid sagebrush reduction/treatments to increase livestock or big 

game forage in occupied habitat and include plans to restore highquality habitat in areas with invasive species.

Same as Alternative E.

30 X X SD:1.1

SD:1.2

For vegetation treatments, fuels management, and habitat 

restoration, base sage-grouse habitat objectives on, in priority order, 

potential natural community within the applicable ESD, (Connelly et 

al. 2000: 977, Table 3), or other objectives that have been 

demonstrated to be associated with increasing sage-grouse 

populations.

Same as Alternative E.

31 X X SD:1.1

SD:1.2

If there ever is any legitimate need to reduce “thatch” in meadows, 

grass mowers will be used. Thus, livestock manure, trampling damage 

to soils, weed spread will be minimized.

No similar action.

Integrated Invasive Species Management

33 X X SD:1.1

SD:1.2

Restrict activities in sage-grouse habitat that facilitate the spread of 

invasive plants.

No similar action.

34 X X SD:1.1

SD:1.2

In sage-grouse habitat, ensure that soil cover and native herbaceous 

plants are at their ESD potential to help protect against invasive 

plants. In areas without ESDs, reference sites would be utilized to 

identify appropriate desired plant communities and soil cover.

Manage to achieve or make progress towards achieving 65 percent or more of Historical 

Climax Plant Community.

35 X X SD:1.1

SD:1.2

Develop and implement methods for prioritizing and restoring 

sagebrush steppe invaded by nonnative plants.

Same as Alternative E.
Resource Management Alternatives

2-22 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Chapter 2 – Resource Management Alternatives

Table 2-5. Detailed Alternatives

7000 SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS (SD) – ACECs – Proposed Greater Sage-Grouse Priority Habitat Area ACECs

Record

# C1 W2 Goal/Obj. Alternative E Alternative F

36 X X SD:1.1

SD:1.2

Use of herbicides will be minimized, and used only as a last resort to 

achieve clearly defined goals and objectives. Flash burners, mowing of 

weeds and selected hand cutting will be prioritized. Only if no other 

alternative exists will selected ground-based application of a limited 

range of herbicides be used.

Same as Alternative E.

38 X X SD:1.1

SD:1.2

Any project vehicles will be washed, and will not drive through 

infestations during access to site.

Same as Alternative E.

Fire and Fuels Management

39 X X SD:1.1

SD:1.2

Design and implement fuels treatments in the Greater Sage-Grouse 

Key Habitat Areas ACEC with an emphasis on protecting existing 

sagebrush ecosystems.

Do not reduce sagebrush canopy cover to less than 15 percent unless 

a fuels management objective requires additional reduction in 

sagebrush cover to meet strategic protection of sage-grouse habitat 

and conserve habitat quality for the species. Closely evaluate the 

benefits of the fuel break against the additional loss of sagebrush 

cover in future NEPA documents.

Apply appropriate seasonal restrictions for implementing fuels 

management treatments according to the type of seasonal habitats 

present.

Allow no fuels treatments in known winter range unless the 

treatments are designed to strategically reduce wildfire risk around or 

in the winter range and will maintain winter range habitat quality.

Do not use fire to treat sagebrush in less than 12-inch precipitation 

zones (e.g., Wyoming big sagebrush or other xeric sagebrush species. 

However, if as a last resort and after all other treatment opportunities 

have been explored and site specific variables allow, the use of 

prescribed fire for fuel breaks that would disrupt the fuel continuity 

across the landscape could be considered in stands where cheatgrass 

is a very minor component in the understory.

Monitor and control invasive vegetation post-treatment.

Require use of native seeds for fuels management treatment based on 

availability, adaptation (site potential), and probability of success. 

Design and implement fuels treatments in the Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC 

with an emphasis on protecting existing sagebrush ecosystems.

Sagebrush Treatment: Sagebrush eradication is considered disturbance and will contribute to 

the 3 percent disturbance factor.

In stands with less than 15percent cover, treatment should be designed to maintain or 

improve sagebrush habitat percent. Sagebrush treatments that maintain sagebrush canopy 

cover at or above 15 percent total canopy cover within the treated acres will not be 

considered disturbance. Treatments that reduce sagebrush canopy cover below 15 percent 

will be allowed if all such treated areas make up less than 20 percent of the suitable sagebrush 

habitat within the DDCT analysis, and any point within the treated area is within 60 meters of 

sagebrush habitat with 10 percent or greater canopy cover. Treatments to enhance 

sagebrush/grassland will be evaluated based upon the existing habitat quality and the 

functional level post-treatment.

Although seasonal restrictions on activities may apply, vegetation treatments that do not 

make the habitat unsuitable for greater sage-grouse (e.g., fence lines, two-tracks, water 

pipelines, or stock tanks) are not considered in the density calculation.

In the Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC, design and implement fuels treatments 

with an emphasis on protecting existing sagebrush ecosystems.

Do not reduce sagebrush canopy cover to less than 15 percent unless a fuels management 

objective requires additional reduction in sagebrush cover to meet strategic protection of 

priority sage-grouse habitat and conserve habitat quality for the species. Closely evaluate the

benefits of the fuel break against the additional loss of sagebrush cover in future NEPA 

documents.

Apply appropriate seasonal restrictions for implementing fuels management treatments 

according to the type of seasonal habitats present in the Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat 
Resource Management Alternatives

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS 2-23

Chapter 2 – Resource Management Alternatives

Table 2-5. Detailed Alternatives

7000 SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS (SD) – ACECs – Proposed Greater Sage-Grouse Priority Habitat Area ACECs

Record

# C1 W2 Goal/Obj. Alternative E Alternative F

Where probability of success or native seed availability is low, 

nonnative seeds may be used as long as they meet sage-grouse 

habitat objectives.

Design post-fuels management projects to ensure long-term 

persistence of seeded or pre-treatment native plants. This may 

require temporary or long-term changes in livestock grazing 

management, wild horse and burro management, travel 

management, or other activities to achieve and maintain the desired 

condition of the fuels management project to ensure long term 

persistence of seeded or pre-treatment native plants. 

Areas ACEC.

Allow no fuels treatments in known winter range unless the treatments are designed to 

strategically reduce wildfire risk around or in the winter range and will maintain winter range 

habitat quality.

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.

Monitor and control invasive vegetation post-treatment.

Rest treated areas from grazing for three full growing seasons unless vegetation recovery 

dictates otherwise.

Require use of native seeds for fuels management treatment based on availability, adaptation 

(site potential), and probability of success. Where probability of success or native seed 

availability is low, nonnative seeds may be used as long as they meet sage-grouse habitat 

objectives.

Design post-fuels management projects to ensure long-term persistence of seeded or pretreatment native plants. This may require temporary or long-term changes in livestock grazing 

management, wild horse and burro management, travel management, or other activities to 

achieve and maintain the desired condition of the fuels management projects to ensure long 

term persistence of seeded or pre-treatment native plants. 

40 X X SD:1.1

SD:1.2

Lands will be managed to be in good or better ecological condition to 

help minimize adverse impacts of fire.

Manage to achieve or make progress towards achieving 65 percent or more of Historical 

Climax Plant Community.

41 X X SD:1.1

SD:1.2

Any fuels treatments will focus on interfaces with human habitation or 

significant existing disturbances.

No similar action.

42 X X SD:1.1

SD:1.2

Design fuels management projects in priority sage-grouse habitat to 

strategically and effectively reduce wildfire threats in the greatest 

area. This may require fuels treatments implemented in a more linear 

versus block design.

Same as Alternative E.

43 X X SD:1.1

SD:1.2

During fuels management project design, consider the utility of using 

livestock to strategically reduce fine fuels, and implement grazing 

management that will accomplish this objective. Consult with 

ecologists to minimize impacts to native perennial grasses.

Same as Alternative E.
Resource Management Alternatives

2-24 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Chapter 2 – Resource Management Alternatives

Table 2-5. Detailed Alternatives

7000 SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS (SD) – ACECs – Proposed Greater Sage-Grouse Priority Habitat Area ACECs

Record

# C1 W2 Goal/Obj. Alternative E Alternative F

44 X X SD:1.1

SD:1.2

Prioritize native seed allocation for use in sage-grouse habitat in years 

when preferred native seed is in short supply. This may require 

reallocation of native seed from emergency stabilization and 

rehabilitation projects outside the Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat 

Areas ACEC to those inside it. Use of native plant seeds for emergency 

stabilization and rehabilitation seedings is required based on 

availability, adaptation (site potential), and probability of success. 

Where probability of success or native seed availability is low, 

nonnative seeds may be used as long as they meet sage-grouse 

habitat conservation objectives. Re-establishment of appropriate 

sagebrush species/subspecies and important understory plants, 

relative to site potential, will be the highest priority for rehabilitation 

efforts.

In disturbed areas, reestablish healthy native or desired plant communities based on 

predisturbance/desired plant species composition.

45 X X SD:1.1

SD:1.2

Design post emergency stabilization and rehabilitation management 

to ensure long-term persistence of seeded or pre-burn native plants. 

This may require temporary or long-term changes in livestock grazing, 

wild horse and burro management, travel management or other 

activities to achieve and maintain the desired condition of emergency 

stabilization and rehabilitation projects to benefit sage-grouse.

No similar action.

46 X X SD:1.1

SD:1.2

Consider potential changes in climate when proposing post-fire 

seedings using native plants. Consider seed collections from the 

warmer component of a species’ current range for selection of native 

seed. 

Same as Alternative E.

47 X X SD:1.1

SD:1.2

Establish and strengthen networks with seed growers to ensure 

availability of native seed for emergency stabilization and 

rehabilitation projects.

Same as Alternative E.

48 X X SD:1.1

SD:1.2

Close the Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC to livestock 

grazing (see MA #6276 Alternative B from the Draft Bighorn Basin 

RMP and Draft EIS).

Post fire recovery must include establishing adequately sized exclosures (free of livestock 

grazing) that can be used to assess recovery.

49 X X SD:1.1

SD:1.2

Close the Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC to livestock 

grazing (see MA #6276 Alternative B from the Draft Bighorn Basin 

RMP and Draft EIS).

Livestock grazing should be excluded from burned areas until woody and herbaceous plants 

achieve sage-grouse habitat objectives.
Resource Management Alternatives

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS 2-25

Chapter 2 – Resource Management Alternatives

Table 2-5. Detailed Alternatives

7000 SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS (SD) – ACECs – Proposed Greater Sage-Grouse Priority Habitat Area ACECs

Record

# C1 W2 Goal/Obj. Alternative E Alternative F

50 X X SD:1.1

SD:1.2

Close the Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC this to 

livestock grazing (see MA #6276 Alternative B from the Draft Bighorn 

Basin RMP and Draft EIS).

Where burned sage-grouse habitat cannot be fenced from other unburned habitat, the entire 

area (e.g., allotment/pasture) should be closed to grazing until recovered.

51 X X SD:1.1

SD:1.2

Mowing of grass will be used in any fuelbreak fuels reduction project 

(roadsides or other areas).

No similar action.

Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management

52 X X SD:1.1

SD:1.2

In the Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC, travel 

management should evaluate the need for permanent or seasonal 

road or area closures.

Limit motorized vehicle use to designated roads and trails, with a 

seasonal closure from March 15 to June 30.

Limit motorized vehicle use to designated roads and trails.

53 X X SD:1.1

SD:1.2

Limit motorized travel to existing roads, primitive roads, and trails for 

the interim until travel management planning is complete and routes 

are either designated or closed.

Same as Alternative E.

54 X X SD:1.1

SD:1.2

Prohibit new road construction within 4 miles of active sage-grouse 

leks, and avoid new road construction in occupied sage-grouse 

habitat.

Locate new primary and secondary roads greater than 1.9 miles from the perimeter of 

occupied sage-grouse leks inside core areas. Additionally, for new proposals, consider and 

evaluate an alternative that would locate new tertiary roads greater than 0.6 mile from the 

perimeter of occupied leks.
Resource Management Alternatives

2-26 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Chapter 2 – Resource Management Alternatives

Table 2-5. Detailed Alternatives

7000 SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS (SD) – ACECs – Proposed Greater Sage-Grouse Priority Habitat Area ACECs

Record

# C1 W2 Goal/Obj. Alternative E Alternative F

56 X X SD:1.1

SD:1.2

Complete activity level travel plans within 5 years of the record of 

decision. During activity level planning, where appropriate, designate 

routes in the Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC with 

current administrative/agency purpose or need to administrative 

access only. Route by route analysis (referred also as minimization or 

designation criteria as stated in 43 CFR 8342.1) in sage-grouse Key 

Habitat Areas will recognize sage-grouse habitat as a predominant 

management objective, as well as the priority resource to manage. 

The route by route analysis will determine future travel management 

plans within sage-grouse Key Habitat Areas, which would be designed 

to minimize impacts to sage-grouse habitat.

Travel management planning will evaluate the need for closures of 

routes not desired for public purposes, including seasonal closures, 

and designate routes with current administrative/agency purpose or 

need to administrative access only as well as seasonal closures.

Routes designated as closed will be restored when necessary using 

appropriate seed mixtures for sage-grouse ecological conditions.

Same as Alternative E, except applies to the Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC.

57 X X SD:1.1

SD:1.2

Limit route construction to realignments of existing designated routes 

in priority habitat if that realignment has a minimal impact on 

sage‐grouse habitat, eliminates the need to construct a new road, or is 

necessary for motorist safety.

Same as Alternative E.

58 X X SD:1.1

SD:1.2

Use existing roads or realignments in greater sage-grouse priority 

habitat to access valid existing rights that are not yet developed. If 

valid existing rights cannot be accessed via existing roads, then build 

any new road constructed to the absolute minimum standard 

necessary, and add the surface disturbance to the total disturbance in 

the priority area. If that disturbance exceeds 3 percent for that area, 

then evaluate and implement additional, effective mitigation 

necessary to offset the resulting loss of sage‐grouse habitat.

Same as Alternative E.

59 X X SD:1.1

SD:1.2

Allow no upgrading of existing routes that would change route 

category (road, primitive road, or trail) or capacity unless upgrading 

would have minimal impact on sage‐grouse habitat, is necessary for 

motorist safety, or eliminates the need to construct a new road.

Construct new roads to a minimum design standard needed for proposed activity.
Resource Management Alternatives

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS 2-27

Chapter 2 – Resource Management Alternatives

Table 2-5. Detailed Alternatives

7000 SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS (SD) – ACECs – Proposed Greater Sage-Grouse Priority Habitat Area ACECs

Record

# C1 W2 Goal/Obj. Alternative E Alternative F

60 X X SD:1.1

SD:1.2

Conduct restoration of roads, primitive roads, and trails not 

designated in travel management plans in priority habitat. This also 

includes primitive routes/roads that were not designated in 

Wilderness Study Areas and within lands with wilderness 

characteristics that have been selected for protection in previous 

RMPs.

Same as Alternative E.

61 X X SD:1.1

SD:1.2

When reseeding roads, primitive roads and trails in priority habitat, 

use appropriate seed mixes and consider the use of transplanted 

sagebrush.

Same as Alternative E.

62 X X SD:1.1

SD:1.2

Consider closing designated roads in sage-grouse priority habitat. Same as Alternative E.

Recreation and Visitor Services

63 X X SD:1.1

SD:1.2

Only allow BLM SRPs in priority habitat that have neutral or beneficial 

effects to priority habitat areas (e.g., big game outfitting, which occurs 

during a non-critical time for sage grouse).

Same as Alternative E.

Non-Energy Leasables

65 X X SD:1.1

SD:1.2

The Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC is administratively 

unavailable to non-energy mineral leasing. This includes not 

permitting any new leases to expand an existing mine.

No similar action.

66 X X SD:1.1

SD:1.2

For existing non-energy leasable mineral leases in priority habitat, in 

addition to the solid minerals required design features, follow the 

same required design features applied to Fluid Minerals, when wells 

are used for solution mining.

No similar action.

Locatable Minerals

67 X X SD:1.1

SD:1.2

Pursue a withdrawal from appropriation under the mining laws for the 

Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC.

No similar action.
Resource Management Alternatives

2-28 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Chapter 2 – Resource Management Alternatives

Table 2-5. Detailed Alternatives

7000 SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS (SD) – ACECs – Proposed Greater Sage-Grouse Priority Habitat Area ACECs

Record

# C1 W2 Goal/Obj. Alternative E Alternative F

68 X X SD:1.1

SD:1.2

Make any existing claims within the withdrawal area subject to validity 

exams or buy out. Include claims that have been subsequently 

determined to be null and void in the proposed withdrawal.

In plans of operations required prior to any proposed surface 

disturbing activities, include the following:

Additional, effective mitigation in perpetuity for conservation (In 

accordance with existing policy, WO IM 2008-204 [BLM 2008a]). 

Example: purchase private land and mineral rights or severed 

subsurface mineral rights within the ACEC area and deed to US 

Government.

Consider seasonal restrictions if deemed effective.

Consider seasonal restrictions if deemed necessary to prevent unnecessary or undue 

degradation as defined in 43 CFR 3809.

Salable Minerals

69 X X SD:1.1

SD:1.2

In the Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC, restore salable 

mineral pits no longer in use to meet sage-grouse habitat 

conservation objectives.

Same as Alternative E.

70 X X SD:1.1

SD:1.2

Close the Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC to mineral 

material disposals.

No similar action.

Unleased Federal Fluid Mineral Estate

71 X X SD:1.1

SD:1.2

The Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC is administratively 

unavailable for mineral leasing (See MA 4021 Alternative B).

Apply an NSO stipulation within 0.6 mile of occupied or undetermined sage-grouse leks (Map 

SEIS-15).

Apply a minimum lease size of 640 contiguous acres of federal mineral estate within sagegrouse Core Habitat Areas.

Lease smaller parcels only when 640 contiguous acres of federal mineral estate is not available 

and leasing is necessary to remain in compliance with laws, regulations, and policy; for 

example, to protect the federal mineral estate from drainage or to commit the federal mineral 

estate to unit or communitization agreements.

Apply a TLS to restrict disruptive activity within 0.6 mile of occupied or undetermined sagegrouse leks from March 15 to June 30.
Resource Management Alternatives

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS 2-29

Chapter 2 – Resource Management Alternatives

Table 2-5. Detailed Alternatives

7000 SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS (SD) – ACECs – Proposed Greater Sage-Grouse Priority Habitat Area ACECs

Record

# C1 W2 Goal/Obj. Alternative E Alternative F

Leased Federal Fluid Mineral Estate

72 X X SD:1.1

SD:1.2

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, according to the Federal Lease Form, 3100-11, 

Sections 4 and 6.

Same as Alternative E.

73 X X SD:1.1

SD:1.2

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 that would result in full restoration of the 

lands to the condition it was found prior to disturbance. Base the 

reclamation costs on the assumption that contractors for the BLM or 

USFS will perform the work.

Same as Alternative E.

74 X X SD:1.1

SD:1.2

Upon expiration or termination of existing leases, do not accept 

nominations or expressions of interest for parcels within the Greater 

Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC.

No similar action.

75 X X SD:1.1

SD:1.2

Implement management actions regarding unitization and 

requirements for full reclamation bonds through implementation 

decisions (e.g., approval of an APD, Sundry Notice, etc.) and upon 

completion of the environmental record of review (43 CFR 3162.5), 

including appropriate documentation of compliance with NEPA. 

Evaluate, among other things:

• Whether the conservation measure is “reasonable” (43 CFR 

3101.1-2) with the valid existing rights; and

• Whether the action is in conformance with the approved RMP.

Same as Alternative E.
Resource Management Alternatives

2-30 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Chapter 2 – Resource Management Alternatives

Table 2-5. Detailed Alternatives

7000 SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS (SD) – ACECs – Proposed Greater Sage-Grouse Priority Habitat Area ACECs

Record

# C1 W2 Goal/Obj. Alternative E Alternative F

76 X X SD:1.1

SD:1.2

Apply an NSO condition of approval in the Greater Sage-Grouse Key 

Habitat Areas ACEC.

In the ACEC, provide the following conservation measures identified 

by Conservation Measure in this section, as terms and conditions of 

the approved RMP:

• Do not allow new surface occupancy on federal leases within the 

Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC during any time of 

the year. Consider an exception:

• If the lease is entirely within the ACEC; apply a 4-mile NSO 

around the lek, and limit permitted disturbances to one 

per section with no more than 3 percent surface 

disturbance in that section.

• If the entire lease is within the 4-mile lek perimeter, limit 

permitted disturbances to one per section with no more 

than 3 percent surface disturbance in that section.

Require any development to be placed at the most distal 

part of the lease from the lek, or, depending on 

topography and other habitat aspects, in an area that is 

less demonstrably harmful to sage-grouse.

Apply an NSO condition of approval within 0.6 mile of occupied or undetermined sage-grouse 

leks. Apply TLS condition of approval to restrict disruptive activity within 0.6 mile of occupied 

or undetermined sage-grouse leks from March 15 to June 30.

77 X X SD:1.1

SD:1.2

Apply a TLS condition of approval to prohibit surface-disturbing 

exploratory drilling activities during the nesting and early broodrearing season in priority sage-grouse habitat.

Same as Alternative E.

78 X X SD:1.1

SD:1.2

Complete Master Development Plans in lieu of APD-by-APD 

processing for all but wildcat wells.

Same as Alternative E.

79 X X SD:1.1

SD:1.2

Limit proposed surface disturbance to 3 percent for an area when 

permitting APDs on existing leases that are not yet developed. 

Consider an exception if additional mitigation is demonstrated to 

offset the resulting loss of sage-grouse habitat.

Implement additional mitigation when necessary in priority sagegrouse habitat. Implement additional mitigation first within the same 

population area where the impact is realized, and if not possible, then 

conduct mitigation within the same Management Zone as the impact, 

per 2006 WAFWA Strategy (page 2-17).

Same as Alternative E.
Resource Management Alternatives

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS 2-31

Chapter 2 – Resource Management Alternatives

Table 2-5. Detailed Alternatives

7000 SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS (SD) – ACECs – Proposed Greater Sage-Grouse Priority Habitat Area ACECs

Record

# C1 W2 Goal/Obj. Alternative E Alternative F

80 X X SD:1.1

SD:1.2

Explore options to amend, cancel, or buy out leases. Consider offers to amend, cancel, or buy out leases.

81 X X SD:1.1

SD:1.2

Include conditions that require relinquishment of 

leases/authorizations if doing so will mitigate the impact of a 

proposed development or mitigate the unanticipated impacts of an 

approved development.

Same as Alternative E.

82 X X SD:1.1

SD:1.2

Consider exceptions, modifications, and waivers as outlined in 

Appendix G.

Same as Alternative E.

83 X X SD:1.1

SD:1.2

Any oil, gas, geothermal activity will be conducted to maximize 

avoidance of impacts, based on evolving scientific knowledge of 

impacts.

Any oil, gas, geothermal activity will be reviewed based on evolving scientific knowledge of 

impacts.

Mineral Split Estate

84 X X SD:1.1

SD:1.2

Where the federal government owns the mineral estate and the 

surface is in non-federal ownership, apply the conservation measures 

applied on public lands.

Same as Alternative E.

85 X X SD:1.1

SD:1.2

Where the federal government owns the surface, and the mineral 

estate is in non-federal ownership in priority habitat, apply 

appropriate Fluid Mineral BMPs to surface development.

Same as Alternative E.

Geophysical Exploration

86 X X SD:1.1

SD:1.2

Close the Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC to geophysical 

exploration.

Allow geophysical exploration in the Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC to obtain 

exploratory information for areas outside of and adjacent to priority sage-grouse habitat 

areas.

Allow geophysical operations only by helicopter-portable drilling methods and in accordance 

with seasonal timing restrictions and/or other restrictions that may apply.
Resource Management Alternatives

2-32 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Chapter 2 – Resource Management Alternatives

Table 2-5. Detailed Alternatives

7000 SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS (SD) – ACECs – Proposed Greater Sage-Grouse Priority Habitat Area ACECs

Record

# C1 W2 Goal/Obj. Alternative E Alternative F

Livestock Grazing

87 X X SD:1.1

SD:1.2

Close the Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC to livestock 

grazing2

Allow livestock grazing in the Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC.

88 X X SD:1.1

SD:1.2

No similar action. Incorporate sage-grouse habitat objectives and management considerations into all BLM 

grazing allotments through AMPs or permit renewals.

89 X X SD:1.1

SD:1.2

No similar action. Work cooperatively on integrated ranch planning so operations with deeded/State/BLM 

and/or USFS allotments can be planned as single units.

90 X X SD:1.1

SD:1.2

No similar action. Prioritize completion of land health assessments and processing grazing permits in the Greater 

Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC. Focus this process on allotments that have the best 

opportunities for conserving, enhancing, or restoring habitat for sage-grouse. Utilize ESDs to 

conduct land health assessments to determine ifstandards of range-land health are being 

met.

91 X X SD:1.1

SD:1.2

No similar action. Conduct land health assessments that include (at a minimum) indicators and measurements 

of structure/condition/composition of vegetation specific to achieving sage-grouse habitat 

objectives. If local/state seasonal habitat objectives are not available, use sage-grouse habitat 

recommendations from Connelly et al. 2000 and Hagen et al. 2007.

92 X X SD:1.1

SD:1.2

No similar action. Develop specific objectives to conserve, enhance, or restore greater sage-grouse Core Habitat 

Areas based on BLM ESDs and assessments (including within wetlands and riparian areas). If 

an effective grazing system that meets sage-grouse habitat requirements is not already in 

place, analyze at least one alternative that conserves, restores, or enhances sage-grouse 

habitat in the NEPA document prepared for the permit renewal.

93 X X SD:1.1

SD:1.2

No similar action. Manage the Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC for vegetation composition and 

structure consistent with ecological site potential and within the reference state to achieve 

sage-grouse seasonal habitat objectives.

94 X X SD:1.1

SD:1.2

No similar action. During drought periods, prioritize evaluating effects of the drought in greater sage-grouse 

Core Habitat Areas relative to their needs for food and cover. Since there is a lag in vegetation 

recovery following drought, ensure that post-drought management allows for vegetation 

recovery that meets sage-grouse needs.

 

2 See management action 6276, Alternative B, from the Draft Bighorn Basin RMP and EIS; management for livestock grazing closures in greater sage-grouse 

Core Habitat Areas under Alternative E is consistent with that management action.
Resource Management Alternatives

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS 2-33

Chapter 2 – Resource Management Alternatives

Table 2-5. Detailed Alternatives

7000 SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS (SD) – ACECs – Proposed Greater Sage-Grouse Priority Habitat Area ACECs

Record

# C1 W2 Goal/Obj. Alternative E Alternative F

95 X X SD:1.1

SD:1.2

No similar action. Manage riparian areas and wet meadows for proper functioning condition.

96 X X SD:1.1

SD:1.2

No similar action. Manage wet meadows to maintain a component of perennial forbs with diverse species 

richness relative to site potential (e.g., reference state) to facilitate brood rearing. Also 

conserve or enhance these wet meadow complexes to maintain or increase amount of edge 

and cover within that edge to minimize elevated mortality during the late brood rearing 

period.

97 X X SD:1.1

SD:1.2

No similar action. Where riparian areas and wet meadows meet proper functioning condition strive to attain 

reference state vegetation relative to the ecological site description.

98 X X SD:1.1

SD:1.2

No similar action. Reduce hot season grazing on riparian and meadow complexes to promote recovery or 

maintenance of appropriate vegetation and water quality. Use fencing/herding techniques or 

seasonal use or livestock distribution changes to reduce pressure on riparian or wet meadow 

vegetation used by sage-grouse in the summer.

99 X X SD:1.1

SD:1.2

No similar action. Avoid grazing and trailing within lekking, nesting, brood-rearing, and winter habitats during 

periods of the year when these habitats are used by sage-grouse.

101 X X SD:1.1

SD:1.2

No similar action. Analyze springs, seeps, and associated water pipelines to determine if modifications are 

necessary to maintain the continuity of the predevelopment riparian area. Make 

modifications where necessary, considering impacts to other water uses when such 

considerations are neutral or beneficial to sage-grouse.
Resource Management Alternatives

2-34 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Chapter 2 – Resource Management Alternatives

Table 2-5. Detailed Alternatives

7000 SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS (SD) – ACECs – Proposed Greater Sage-Grouse Priority Habitat Area ACECs

Record

# C1 W2 Goal/Obj. Alternative E Alternative F

102 X X SD:1.1

SD:1.2

Only allow treatments that conserve, enhance, or restore sage-grouse 

habitat in the Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC (this 

includes treatments that benefit livestock as part of an 

AMP/Conservation Plan to improve sage-grouse habitat).

Sagebrush Treatment: Sagebrush eradication is considered disturbance and will contribute to 

the 3 percent disturbance factor.

In stands with less than 15% cover, treatment should be designed to maintain or improve 

sagebrush habitat percent. Sagebrush treatments that maintain sagebrush canopy cover at or 

above 15 percent total canopy cover within the treated acres will not be considered 

disturbance. Treatments that reduce sagebrush canopy cover below 15 percent will be 

allowed if all such treated areas make up less than 20 percent of the suitable sagebrush 

habitat within the DDCT analysis, and any point within the treated area is within 60 meters of 

sagebrush habitat with 10 percent or greater canopy cover. Treatments to enhance 

sagebrush/grassland will be evaluated based upon the existing habitat quality and the 

functional level post-treatment.

Although seasonal restrictions on activities may apply, vegetation treatments that do not 

make the habitat unsuitable for greater sage-grouse (e.g., fence lines, two-tracks, water 

pipelines, or stock tanks) are not considered in the density calculation.

Only allow treatments that conserve, enhance, or restore sage-grouse habitat in the Greater 

Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC (this includes treatments that benefit livestock as part 

of an AMP/Conservation Plan to improve sage-grouse habitat).

103 X X SD:1.1

SD:1.2

No similar action. Evaluate the role of existing seedings to determine if the area should be restored to sagebrush 

or habitat of higher quality for sage-grouse. If these seedings are part of an AMP/ 

Conservation Plan or if they provide value in conserving or enhancing the rest of the greater 

sage-grouse Core Habitat Area, then no restoration would be necessary. Assess the 

compatibility of these seedings for sage-grouse habitat or as a component of a grazing system 

during the land health assessments (or other analyses [USFS only]).

104 X X SD:1.1

SD:1.2

No similar action. Design any new structural range improvements and supplements (salt or protein blocks) 

locations to conserve, enhance, or restore sage-grouse habitat through an improved grazing 

management system relative to sage-grouse objectives. Structural range improvements, in 

this context, include but are not limited to cattle guards, fences, exclosures, corrals, or other 

livestock handling structures; pipelines, troughs, and storage tanks (including moveable tanks 

used in livestock water hauling); windmills; ponds/reservoirs; solar panels; and spring 

developments. Potential for invasive species establishment or increase following construction 

must be considered in the project planning process and monitored and treated postconstruction.
Resource Management Alternatives

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS 2-35

Chapter 2 – Resource Management Alternatives

Table 2-5. Detailed Alternatives

7000 SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS (SD) – ACECs – Proposed Greater Sage-Grouse Priority Habitat Area ACECs

Record

# C1 W2 Goal/Obj. Alternative E Alternative F

105 X X SD:1.1

SD:1.2

No similar action. When developing or modifying water developments, use applicable required design features

(see Appendix L) to mitigate potential impacts from West Nile virus.

106 X X SD:1.1

SD:1.2

Evaluate existing structural range improvements and supplements 

(salt or protein blocks) locations to make sure they conserve, enhance, 

or restore priority sage-grouse habitat.

Same as Alternative E.

107 X X SD:1.1

SD:1.2

Remove, modify, or mark fences to reduce outright sage-grouse 

strikes and mortality in high risk areas within priority sage-grouse 

habitat based on proximity to lek, lek size, and topography.

Same as Alternative E.

108 X X SD:1.1

SD:1.2

Monitor for and treat invasive species associated with existing range 

improvements in the Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC.

Same as Alternative E.

109 X X SD:1.1

SD:1.2

Maintain retirement of grazing privileges as an option in priority sagegrouse areas when the current permittee is willing to retire grazing on 

all or part of an allotment. Analyze the adverse impacts of no 

livestock use on wildfire and invasive species threats in evaluating 

retirement proposals.

Same as Alternative E.

110 X X SD:1.1

SD:1.2

No similar action. Identify the specific allotment(s) where retirement of grazing privileges is potentially 

beneficial. (See Appendix P for a list of all grazing allotments in Core Habitat Areas; this list 

indicates the universe of allotments where retirement could be considered, not those 

currently identified for retirement.)

111 X X SD:1.1

SD:1.2

No similar action. Encourage partners to monitor effects of retiring grazing permits in sage-grouse habitat.

112 X X SD:1.1

SD:1.2

No similar action. Any vegetation treatment plan must include pretreatment data on wildlife and habitat 

condition, establish non-grazing exclosures, and include long-term monitoring where treated 

areas are monitored for at least 3 years before grazing returns. Continue monitoring for 5 

years after livestock are returned to the area, and compare to treated, ungrazed exclosures, as

well as untreated areas.
Resource Management Alternatives

2-36 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Chapter 2 – Resource Management Alternatives

Table 2-5. Detailed Alternatives

7000 SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS (SD) – ACECs – Proposed Greater Sage-Grouse Priority Habitat Area ACECs

Record

# C1 W2 Goal/Obj. Alternative E Alternative F

Wild Horses and Burros

113 X X SD:1.1

SD:1.2

For all HMAs within priority sage-grouse habitat, prioritize the 

evaluation of all AMLs based on indicators that address structure, 

condition, and composition of vegetation and measurements specific 

to achieving sage-grouse habitat objectives.

Same as Alternative E.

114 X X SD:1.1

SD:1.2

Conduct land health assessments to determine existing structure, 

condition, and composition of vegetation within all HMAs.

Same as Alternative E.

Adaptive Management

115 X X SD:1.1

SD:1.2

This RMP includes the requirements for the development of 

EIS/project level adaptive management strategies in support of the 

population management objectives for greater sage-grouse set by the 

State of Wyoming (State of Wyoming Office of the Governor, EO

2011-5). These adaptive management strategies will be developed in 

partnership with the WGFD, project proponents, partners, and 

stakeholders, incorporating the best available science. The purpose of 

these strategies will be to ensure amelioration of greater sage-grouse 

population declines by providing the framework in which 

management will be changed if negative impacts are detected 

through a rigorous monitoring program.

Wyoming BLM typically manages the public lands to meet objectives 

of the State of Wyoming. At this time the population objective is to 

maintain at least 67% of the 2005-2008 Greater Sage-Grouse Core 

Area Population within the State of Wyoming.

Wyoming BLM and USFS will coordinate with the State of Wyoming in 

implementation planning to develop a state-wide adaptive 

management plan, including mitigation where appropriate, and a 

framework to evaluate causal factors. The adaptive management 

plan will identify adaptive management triggers; indicators to be 

measured; and appropriate mitigation, restoration, and reclamation 

actions, including targets and benchmarks for responses. The plan will 

include both short-term and long-term monitoring. The adaptive 

management plan will guide the development of project level 

adaptive managementstrategies.

Same as Alternative E.
Resource Management Alternatives

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS 2-37

Chapter 2 – Resource Management Alternatives

Table 2-5. Detailed Alternatives

7000 SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS (SD) – ACECs – Proposed Greater Sage-Grouse Priority Habitat Area ACECs

Record

# C1 W2 Goal/Obj. Alternative E Alternative F

Note: For additional supporting rationale for the Management Actions presented in Table 2-5, reference the NTT Report on National Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Measures (Sage-grouse NTT 2011).

1

Cody Field Office

2

Worland Field Office

ACEC Area of Critical Environmental Concern

AML Abandoned Mine Land

AMP Allotment Management Plan

APD Application for Permit to Drill

AUM Animal Unit Month

BLM Bureau of Land Management

BMP Best Management Practice

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CSU Controlled Surface Use

DDCT Wyoming Density and Disturbance Calculation Tool

EO Executive Order

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

ESD Ecological Site Description

HMA Herd Management Area

HUC Hydrologic Unit Code

IM Instruction Memorandum

MA Management Action

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NSO No Surface Occupancy

RMP Resource Management Plan

ROW Rights-of-way

SRP Special Recreation Permit

TLS Timing Limitations

USFS United States Forest Service

WAFWA Western Association of Fish and Wildlife 

WGFD Wyoming Game and Fish Department

WO Washington Office 
Resource Management Alternatives

2-38 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Chapter 2 – Resource Management Alternatives

2.7 Summary of Environmental Consequences by Alternative

NOTE: Replace Table 2-6 (which summarizes potential impacts under alternatives A through F) from the 

Draft RMP and Draft EIS (pages 2-221 to 2-226) with Table 2-6 below. This table has been augmented to 

include the addition of the new alternatives E and F. Draft RMP and Draft EIS alternatives A, B, C, and D 

are retained to provide points of comparison for the reader.

Table 2-6. Summary of Environmental Consequences by Alternative

Resources Alternative

A

Alternative

B

Alternative

C

Alternative

D

Alternative

E

Alternative

F

Air Quality

NAAQS

Not 

anticipated to 

exceed

Not 

anticipated to 

exceed

Potential to 

exceed

Not 

anticipated to 

exceed

Not 

anticipated to 

exceed

Not 

anticipated to 

exceed

WAAQS

Not 

anticipated to 

exceed

Not 

anticipated to 

exceed

Potential to 

exceed

Not 

anticipated to 

exceed

Not 

anticipated to 

exceed

Not 

anticipated to 

exceed

Air Quality Related Value 

Impacts Potential Lowest 

Potential

Highest 

Potential Potential Lowest 

Potential Potential

Visibility Impacts Potential Lowest 

Potential

Highest 

Potential Potential Lowest Potential Potential

Atmospheric Deposition Potential Lowest 

Potential

Highest 

Potential Potential Lowest 

Potential Potential

Soil and Water

Acres of Surface 

Disturbance Anticipated

136,415 shortterm/

15,710 longterm

73,919 shortterm/

10,882 longterm

245,783 

short-term/

41,545 longterm

140,508 

short-term/

18,443 longterm

71,799 shortterm/

10,787 longterm

137,568 

short-term/

17,866 longterm

Long-term Erosion Rate 

(Based on Disturbance 

from BLM Actions)

25,167 

tons/year

17,432 

tons/year

66,555 

tons/year

29,546 

tons/year

17,281 

tons/year

28,622 

tons/year

Groundwater Impacts Potential Lowest 

Potential Potential Potential Lowest Potential Potential

Produced Water Impacts Potential Lowest 

Potential Potential Potential Lowest 

Potential Potential

Exceed Water Quality 

Standards

Not 

anticipated

Not 

anticipated

Not 

anticipated

Not 

anticipated

Not 

anticipated

Not 

anticipated
Resource Management Alternatives

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS 2-39

Chapter 2 – Resource Management Alternatives

Table 2-6. Summary of Environmental Consequences by Alternative (Continued)

Resources Alternative

A

Alternative

B

Alternative

C

Alternative

D

Alternative

E

Alternative

F

Minerals

Acres Withdrawn or 

Recommended for 

Withdrawal from 

Appropriation under the 

Mining Laws for Locatable 

Mineral Entry

174,354 325,102 47,846 72,031 1,764,621 72,031

Total Projected New Oil 

and Gas Wells/Pads 1,641 1,020 1,768 1,543 1,020 1,478

Acres of BLM-administered 

Surface with Moderate Oil 

and Gas Potential Managed 

as Administratively 

Unavailable to Leasing or 

with Major Constraints 

97,731 302,585 12,368 6,455 302,585 27,139

Acres of BLM-administered 

Surface with Moderate Oil 

and Gas Potential Affected 

by Raptor Nest Buffer 

Areas

47,358 72,659 7,908 41,312 72,659 41,312

Acres of BLM-administered 

Mineral Estate with 

Moderate Oil and Gas 

Potential Affected by VRM 

Class I and II Areas

14,128 170,591 1,888 20,408 170,591 20,408

Fire and Fuels Management

Acres of Disturbance from 

Prescribed Fire

40,000 shortterm/

0 long-term

20,000 shortterm/

0 long-term

80,000 shortterm/

0 long-term

40,000 shortterm/

0 long-term

18,000 shortterm/

0 long-term

40,000 shortterm/

0 long-term

Acres of Disturbance from 

Mechanical Fuels 

Treatment

30,000 shortterm/

0 long-term

5,000 shortterm/

0 long-term

60,000 shortterm/

0 long-term

30,000 shortterm/

0 long-term

5,000 shortterm/

0 long-term

30,000 shortterm/

0 long-term

Vegetation

Acres of Surface-disturbing 

Activities in Grassland and 

Shrubland Communities

105,805 

short-term/

13,771 longterm

55,256 shortterm/

9,538 longterm

179,027 

short-term/

36,417 longterm

106,997 

short-term/

16,166 longterm

53,671 shortterm/ 9,455 

long-term

104,759 

short-term/ 

15,656 longterm

Fragmentation of Native 

Plant Communities Potential Lowest Potential Potential Low Potential Lowest Potential Low Potential

Acres within and around 

Riparian/Wetland Areas 

where Surface-disturbing 

Activities are Restricted

55,586 

(prohibited 

unless 

mitigated)

140,464 

(prohibited) CBC

55,586 

(avoided) up 

to 140,464 if 

needed

140,464 

(prohibited)

55,586 

(avoided) up 

to 140,464 if 

needed

Wetland Impacts Potential Lowest 

Potential Potential Low Potential Lowest Potential Low Potential
Resource Management Alternatives

2-40 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Chapter 2 – Resource Management Alternatives

Table 2-6. Summary of Environmental Consequences by Alternative (Continued)

Resources Alternative

A

Alternative

B

Alternative

C

Alternative

D

Alternative

E

Alternative

F

Invasive Species and Pest Management

Contribute to Spread of 

Invasive and/or Pest 

Species

Potential Lowest 

Potential

Highest 

Potential Potential Lowest Potential Potential

Fish and Wildlife

Impacts to Water Quality 

and Fish Habitat Potential Lowest Potential

Highest 

Potential Potential Lowest Potential Potential

Acres/Percent of Big Game 

Crucial Winter Range 

Administratively 

Unavailable to Mineral 

Leasing or with 

Major/Moderate 

Constraints

1,305,334/

99%

1,305,334/

99%

807,501/

62%

1,305,334/

99%

1,305,334/

99%

1,305,334/

99%

Acres of Big Game Crucial 

Winter Range/Big Game 

Parturition Habitat 

Exempted from Seasonal 

Stipulations due to Oil and 

Gas Management Area 

N/A N/A 257,744/3,55

5 49,612/75 N/A 49,612/75

Special Status Species

Adverse Effects to ESA 

Species within the Planning 

Area

Potential Low Potential Highest 

Potential Low Potential Lowest Potential Low Potential

Acres of Sage-grouse Key 

Habitat Areas 

Administratively 

Unavailable to Oil and Gas 

Leasing (only managed 

under alternatives A 

through E)1

37,933 1,226,064 35,435 67,094 1,226,064 67,094

Acres of Sage-grouse Core 

Habitat Areas 

Administratively 

Unavailable to Oil and Gas 

Leasing (only managed 

under Alternative F)1

27,024 999,036 23,019 58,944 999,036 58,944

Acres of Sage-grouse 

Winter Habitat/Key Habitat 

Area Exempted from 

Seasonal Stipulations 

within Oil and Gas 

Management Area

0 0 16,182 0 0 0
Resource Management Alternatives

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS 2-41

Chapter 2 – Resource Management Alternatives

Table 2-6. Summary of Environmental Consequences by Alternative (Continued)

Resources Alternative

A

Alternative

B

Alternative

C

Alternative

D

Alternative

E

Alternative

F

Wild Horses

Acres in McCullough Peaks 

and Fifteenmile HMAs 

Closed to Oil and Gas 

Leasing

28,392 162,815 28,392 39,666 162,815 39,666

Application of Seasonal 

Restrictions No Yes No Yes Yes Yes

Heritage

Potential to Impact 

Eligible/Listed Cultural Sites 

and Paleontological 

Localities

Highest 

Potential

Lowest 

Potential Potential Low Potential Lowest Potential Low Potential

Renewable Energy

Acres with High Wind 

Energy Potential (Wind 

Power Class 4-7) within 

Renewable Energy 

Avoidance/Mitigation 

Areas

N/A 89,345 25,458 89,695 50,505 90,145

Acres with High Wind 

Energy Potential (Wind 

Power Class 4-7) within 

Renewable Energy 

Exclusion Areas

N/A 28,155 3,157 5,835 39,449 5,835

Rights-of-Way and Corridors

Acres of Rights-of-Way and 

Corridors 788,275 90,458 133,284 132,219 90,458 132,219

Travel and Transportation Management

Miles/Acres of New Roads 

and Trails due to Userpioneered and BLMcreated Routes

847 miles/

1,233 acres

1,908 miles/

2,776 acres

8,873 miles/

12,907 acres

4,001 miles/

5,820 acres

1,876 miles/

2,729 acres

3,953 miles/

5,750 acres

Miles/Acres of New Roads 

and Trails due to ROW 

Authorizations

1,351 

miles/1,966 

acres (shortterm)

675 miles/983 

acres

(long-term)

845 

miles/1,229 

acres (shortterm)

422 miles/615 

acres

(long-term)

3,188 

miles/4,638 

acres (shortterm)

1,594 

miles/2,319 

acres

(long-term)

1,351 

miles/1,966 

acres (shortterm)

675 miles/983 

acres

(long-term)

845 

miles/1,229 

acres (shortterm)

422 miles/615 

acres

(long-term)

923 

miles/1,343 

acres (shortterm)

461 

miles/672 

acres

(long-term)

Acres Closed to Motorized 

Vehicle Use 59,192 136,474 10,636 60,681 136,474 60,681

Acres Open to Motorized 

Vehicle Use 1,320 3,169 14,873 5,941 3,169 5,941

Acres Limited to Existing 

Roads and Trails 2,332,355 931,803 2,144,623 2,028,620 931,803 1,341,784
Resource Management Alternatives

2-42 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Chapter 2 – Resource Management Alternatives

Table 2-6. Summary of Environmental Consequences by Alternative (Continued)

Resources Alternative

A

Alternative

B

Alternative

C

Alternative

D

Alternative

E

Alternative

F

Acres Limited to 

Designated Roads and 

Trails

787,626 2,054,228 951,922 1,055,257 2,054,228 1,746,579

Recreation

Potential to Impact 

Recreation Desired 

Settings, Opportunities, 

Activities, Experiences, and 

Beneficial Outcomes

Potential Lowest 

Potential

Highest 

Potential Low Potential Lowest Potential Low Potential

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Potential to Impact Lands 

with Wilderness 

Characteristics

Potential Lowest 

Potential

Highest 

Potential Potential Lowest Potential Low Potential

Livestock Grazing

Total Active AUMs2 Lost 

from Closures and from 

Surface-disturbing Activity

1,670 163,927 4,130 1,930 163,917 1,875

Potential for Effects from 

Restrictions in Greater 

Sage-Grouse Key and Core 

Habitat Areas 

Low Potential Highest 

Potential Low Potential Potential Highest Potential Potential

Active AUMs Projected at 

the End of the Planning 

Cycle/Percent Reduction 

from Baseline (305,887)

304,217/

<1%

141,960/

54%

301,757/

2%

303,957/

<1%

141,970/

54%

304,012/

<1%

Total Authorized AUMs3

Lost from Closures and 

from Surface-disturbing 

Activity

1,072 105,257 2,652 1,239 105,251 1,204

Authorized AUMs 

Projected at the End of the 

Planning Cycle/Percent 

Reduction from Baseline 

(196,410)

195,338/

<1%

91,153/

54%

193,758/

1%

195,171/

<1%

91,159/

54%

195,206/

<1%

Special Designations

Acres Designated as ACECs 71,297 299,954 12,144 103,128 1,436,941 1,192,023

Total Number/Acres of 

Special Designations 

(ACECs, SMAs, WSR eligible 

and draft suitable 

waterways, WSAs) 

Focusing on Resource 

Conservation

35/237,586 43/466,243 14/178,433 26/269,417 1,550,320 1,348,797

National Historic Trails and Other Historic Trails

Impacts to Nez Perce NHT 

and Other Historic Trails Potential Lowest Potential Potential Low Potential Lowest Potential Low Potential
Resource Management Alternatives

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS 2-43

Chapter 2 – Resource Management Alternatives

Table 2-6. Summary of Environmental Consequences by Alternative (Continued)

Resources Alternative

A

Alternative

B

Alternative

C

Alternative

D

Alternative

E

Alternative

F

Socioeconomics

Effect on Planning Area 

Population Low Impact

Medium 

Impact 

(potential 

reductions 

focused in 

oil/gas service 

areas, which 

generally 

correspond to 

population 

centers)

Low Impact Low Impact

Medium 

Impact 

(potential 

reductions 

focused in 

oil/gas service 

areas, which 

generally 

correspond to 

population 

centers)

Low Impact

Effect on Housing and 

Community Services Low Impact

Medium 

Impact

(due to 

potential 

population 

reductions)

Low Impact Low Impact

Medium 

Impact

(due to 

potential 

population 

reductions)

Low Impact

Impacts on Quality of Life 

and Local Culture Low Impact

Low Impact

(change from 

recent trends 

would 

constitute 

greater 

emphasis on 

resource 

conservation)

Medium 

Impact 

(change from 

recent trends 

would 

constitute 

greater 

emphasis on 

resource 

development)

Low Impact

Low Impact

(change from 

recent trends 

would 

constitute 

greater 

emphasis on 

resource 

conservation)

Low Impact

Forecasted annual earnings 

(millions of 2007 dollars) 

due to activities on BLMadministered surface4

$75.0 $36.9 $83.4 $70.8 $36.9 $65.9

Forecasted annual 

employment due to 

activities on BLMadministered surface4

1,465 796 1,606 1,393 796 1,311

1 Core and Key Habitat Areas exist within the Planning Area, but Key Habitat Areas are only managed under alternatives A through E, while Core 

Habitat Areas are only managed under Alternative F.

2

Permitted AUMs are AUMs that are allowed on a permit/lease that can be used in any given year provided the forage is available. 3

Authorized 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 64.21 percent.

4

Estimate of annual earnings and employment includes direct, indirect, and induced economic activity (the “multiplier effect”).

< less than

ACEC Area of Critical Environmental Concern

AUM animal unit month

BLM Bureau of Land Management

CBC case-by-case

ESA Endangered Species Act

HMA Herd Management Area

N/A not applicable

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NHT National Historic Trail

ROW right-of-way

SMA Special Management Area

VRM Visual Resource Management

WAAQS Wyoming Ambient Air Quality Standards

WSA Wilderness Study Area

WSR Wild and Scenic River
Resource Management Alternatives

2-44 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Chapter 2 – Resource Management Alternatives

This page intentionally left blank.
Affected Environment

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS 3-1

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

CHAPTER 3 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Reader’s Guide to Chapter 3

The Bighorn Basin Draft Resource Management Plan (RMP) and Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS) were released for public review and comment in April 2011 (76 FR 22721, April 22, 2011). Chapter 

3 of the Draft RMP and Draft EIS, entitled “Affected Environment,” describes existing conditions for 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) resource programs, resource uses, special designations, and the 

socioeconomic environment in the Bighorn Basin Planning Area (Planning Area). In addition to 

describing existing conditions, where appropriate, this chapter identifies management challenges for 

resource programs and resource uses on BLM-administered lands. Because it describes existing 

conditions in the Planning Area, this chapter serves as the baseline against which the BLM analyzes and 

compares impacts of the alternatives in Chapter 4.

Chapter 3 of the Draft RMP and Draft EIS provides the context needed to understand Chapter 3 and the 

impact analysis that follows in Chapter 4 of this Supplement. The Draft RMP and Draft EIS Chapter 3 is 

supplemented to include information supporting the analysis of the proposed Greater Sage-Grouse Key 

and Core Habitat Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) under alternatives E and F. Only the 

following sections of Chapter 3 of the Draft RMP and Draft EIS are modified by this Supplement:

• Section 3.4.9 – Special Status Species – Wildlife, Subsection Game Birds (Greater Sage-grouse)

• Section 3.7.1 – Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

For all other sections of the Draft RMP and Draft EIS Chapter 3, no change or no substantive change has 

occurred; the reader is referenced to Chapter 3 of the original National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

document for these sections.
Affected Environment

3-2 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

3.4.9 Special Status Species

NOTE: Replace Section 3.4.9 Special Status Species —Wildlife, subsection Game Birds (Greater Sagegrouse) (pages 3-111 to 3-112), with the following text describing the current conditions for and data on 

greater sage-grouse.

Game Birds (Greater Sage-grouse)

Greater sage-grouse populations have declined across North America and the species is a candidate for 

listing under provisions of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) (United States Fish and Wildlife Service 

[USFWS 2010]). In March 2010, the USFWS published its listing decision for the species as “Warranted 

but Precluded” and cited inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms as a major threat to the protection of 

greater sage-grouse populations (USFWS 2010; Manier et al. 2013; BLM 2013a). The USFWS identified 

conservation measures in RMPs as the BLM’s principal mechanism for protecting greater sage-grouse. 

BLM’s Wyoming field offices must incorporate objectives and conservation measures into RMPs in an 

effort to avoid the potential listing of greater sage-grouse as a threatened or endangered species under 

the ESA (BLM 2013a).

In 2012, the Director of the USFWS asked the Conservation Objectives Team (COT), consisting of state 

and USFWS representatives, to produce recommendations regarding the degree to which the threats 

need to be reduced or ameliorated to conserve greater sage-grouse so that it would no longer be in 

danger of extinction or likely to become in danger of extinction in the foreseeable future. The COT 

Report (USFWS 2013) provides objectives based upon the best scientific and commercial data available 

at the time of its release. The highest level objective identified in the COT Report is identified as to meet 

the objectives of the 2006 Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies’ (WAFWA) Greater Sagegrouse Comprehensive Strategy (Stiber et al. 2006) of “reversing negative population trends and 

achieving a neutral or positive population trend.”

The COT Report provides a Management Zone and Population Risk Assessment and identifies localized 

threats from sagebrush elimination, fire, conifer encroachment, weed and annual grass invasion, mining, 

free-roaming equids, and urbanization and widespread threats from energy development, 

infrastructure, grazing, and recreation.

The North American range of the greater sage-grouse has been divided into seven management zones

based on populations within floristic provinces (Stiber et al. 2006). Each floristic province is comprised 

of areas with similar environmental factors influencing desired plant communities (Knick and Connelly 

2011). The Planning Area falls within portions of two greater sage-grouse management zones: the 

Great Plains Management Zone (MZ I) and the Wyoming Basin Management Zone (MZ II). The majority 

of the Planning Area lies within MZ II, and the majority of the sage-grouse habitat managed by the BLM 

in the Planning Area also lies within MZ II. MZ II contains the largest population in the species’ range, 

covers approximately two-thirds of the State of Wyoming, and is separated from adjacent populations 

by distance and topography (USFWS 2013). Sage-grouse habitats are expansive and relatively intact 

outside of areas of energy development. Despite the long-term declines in populations, implementation 

of the Wyoming Governor’s Executive Orders (EOs) for sage-grouse may help alleviate these declines. 

The primary threats to this portion of the population are energy development and transfer, including 

both renewable and non-renewable resources, long-term drought, and brush eradication programs 

(USFWS 2013).
Affected Environment

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS 3-3

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

The Wyoming basins are one of the remaining strongholds of the sagebrush ecosystem and like most 

sagebrush habitats, threats to the region are numerous (USFWS 2013; Hanser et al. 2011). Fire is one of 

the primary factors linked to loss of sagebrush-steppe habitat (USFWS 2013). Wildfire frequency in

some sagebrush ecosystems has also increased due to the incursion of non-native grasses, resulting in a 

cycle of more frequent fires that precludes the re-establishment of sagebrush (USFWS 2013; BLM 

2013a). Greater sage-grouse habitat is also threatened by the encroachment of native conifers, notably 

pinyon-pine (Pinus edulis) and juniper (Juniperus spp.), into some sagebrush ecosystems mainly due to 

changes in fire return intervals and the overstocking of domestic livestock (USFWS 2013). In addition, 

non-renewable development activities can significantly reduce, and in some cases locally extirpate, 

sage-grouse populations, even with the implementation of mitigation measures (USFWS 2013).

Oil and gas developments and the widespread conversion of nearly 60 percent of greater sage-grouse 

habitat to agriculture have been the primary sources of decline of greater sage-grouse populations 

within MZ I (Samson et al. 2004; BLM 2013a). Trends in land cover and land use predominately 

associated with non-renewable and renewable energy extraction, along with livestock grazing, 

prolonged drought, and programs for brush eradication, have been the primary contributors to 

population declines in MZ II (Manier et al. 2013; USFWS 2013; BLM 2013a). Residential development 

has also been identified as a threat (USFWS 2013).

Declines of sage-grouse near oil and gas fields in this area have been well documented (USFWS 2013). 

However, recent conservation actions, including the Wyoming Governor’s EOs designating protective 

stipulations for Core Habitat Areas and the implementation of conservation easements within these 

areas have reduced the threat risk to populations in the Wyoming portion of the Wyoming Basin 

Management Zone (USFWS 2013). Designated state Core Habitat Areas adequately capture redundancy 

and representation for the Wyoming portion of the Wyoming Basin MZ population. Due to the large size 

of this population, the presence of large, contiguous habitats, and regulatory measures providing

habitat protection, this population is considered low risk (USFWS 2013). Within the Planning Area, 

greater sage-grouse are distributed in habitat that has not been rendered unsuitable due to 

fragmentation and degradation. In spring, males congregate in areas known as leks to engage in 

competitive courtship displays. There are approximately 339 leks in the Planning Area, which are 

generally located at mid-elevation sagebrush habitat. Sage-grouse often return to the same lekking 

grounds year after year. Nesting and brood-rearing habitat is sometimes associated with the lek and 

sometimes found at a distance from the lek in sagebrush habitat. These remaining suitable sagebrush 

habitat areas could be productive for greater sage-grouse; however, fragmentation and degradation 

sometimes limits the distribution and abundance of greater sage-grouse in these areas. The Wyoming 

Game and Fish Department (WGFD) has identified Core Habitat Areas that represent relatively 

productive areas, and has suggested special management for these areas (Wyoming Office of the 

Governor 2008). On June 29, 2010, the State of Wyoming issued revised boundaries for its sage-grouse 

Core Habitat Areas (Version 3) from the previous version (Core Habitat Areas Version 2). Map SEIS-2 

identifies the current BLM Core Habitat Areas for greater sage-grouse in the Planning Area.

The BLM identified Key Habitat Areas for greater sage-grouse, which largely coincide with WGFD Core 

Habitat Areas, but include additional productive habitats identified as important to greater sage-grouse 

in the Planning Area by the BLM, such as the Little Mountain Mexican Hills area. Map SEIS-1 identifies 

the current BLM Key Habitat Areas for greater sage-grouse in the Planning Area. The BLM referenced 

Core Habitat Areas Version 2 in the delineation of Key Habitat Areas. Using the modification criteria 

described in Appendix Q of the Draft RMP and Draft EIS, the BLM is in the process of reviewing Core 

Habitat Areas Version 3 to determine if and how BLM’s Key Habitat Areas should be modified for 

consistency with the revised Core Habitat Area boundaries. This review was not completed in time to 
Affected Environment

3-4 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

allow its incorporation into this Supplement, and both Key Habitat Areas and Core Habitat Areas Version 

3 are considered in the analysis.

There are many sources of habitat alteration, all of which may affect the greater sage-grouse. Industrial 

and urban development, livestock and wildlife grazing, mining, gravel pit operations, oil and gas activity, 

land exchanges and disposal, vegetation manipulation, fuel reduction projects, and other activities may 

introduce artificial components into a natural habitats. Structures such as powerlines and towers and 

industrial disruptive activities may cause avoidance and abandonment of habitat. Livestock grazing, 

fuels treatments, and weed infestations are factors that may cause habitat degradation depending upon 

severity, intensity, and design. West Nile virus, which recently has had lethal effects on greater sagegrouse in parts of Wyoming, could become an important factor in the long-term survival of the greater 

sage-grouse species. To date, there has been little research to document the presence of the virus and 

its effect on greater sage-grouse in the Bighorn Basin. In some circumstances, predators may play a 

significant role in sage-grouse mortality. Large numbers of raptors migrate to the Bighorn Basin during 

the winter months, and corvids, which have a propensity for egg predation, appear to be increasing in 

the Planning Area (Bighorn Basin Sage-grouse Local Working Group 2007). However, actual sage-grouse 

mortality rates in the Bighorn Basin resulting from predation are currently unknown and are subject to 

ongoing research (Bighorn Basin Sage-grouse Local Working Group 2007).

Greater sage-grouse have been declining across the western United States, which has prompted several 

petitions to list them as threatened under the ESA, including a recent petition that led to the March 

2010 finding by the USFWS of warranted for listing but precluded (USFWS 2010). Population levels 

throughout the Planning Area declined during the mid 1990s. However, population levels have 

remained stable or slightly increased since 2004. Well-timed precipitation events are suspected as a 

major factor in this resurgence (WGFD 2000; WGFD 2004). These precipitation events promoted forage 

growth, which aided the survival of young. Population growth has varied throughout the Planning Area 

based on specific local conditions, with some areas showing little change; other areas have had a recent 

increase in lek count numbers. With more favorable spring and summer conditions for greater sagegrouse in many parts of the Bighorn Basin in recent years, there are some greater sage-grouse leks that 

have become active again after many years of non-use. Even so, population modeling suggests that 

declines will continue over the long-term (USFWS 2013). Winter conditions generally are not a limiting 

factor in the Bighorn Basin because snow depths are not as severe as in other parts of Wyoming. 3. 3.7.
Affected Environment

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS 3-5

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

3.7.1. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

NOTE: Replace paragraph Section 3.7.1 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern page 3-180 with the 

following text describing the addition of the proposed Greater Sage-Grouse Key and Core Habitat Area 

ACECs.

Section 103(a) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) defines an ACEC as an area 

within public lands where special management attention is required to protect and prevent irreparable 

damage to important historical, cultural, or scenic values; fish and wildlife; or other natural systems or 

processes, or to protect life and safety from natural hazards. BLM regulations for implementing FLPMA 

ACEC provisions are at Title 43 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 1610.7-2(b).

The Cody Field Office (CYFO) and Worland Field Office (WFO) manage nine ACECs in the Planning Area −

Carter Mountain, Five Springs Falls, Little Mountain, Sheep Mountain Anticline, Brown/Howe Dinosaur 

Area, Upper Owl Creek Area, Spanish Point Karst, Red Gulch Dinosaur Tracksite, and Big Cedar Ridge. 

Refer to Map 67 of the Draft RMP and Draft EIS for the locations of these ACECs in the Planning Area.

Through the public and internal scoping processes, the BLM received a number of nominations for new 

or expanded ACECs. The BLM reviewed all such nominations to determine if they met the importance 

and relevance criteria required for consideration as an ACEC outlined in BLM Manual 1613 – Areas of 

Critical Environmental Concern (BLM 1988). Of the nominations received, 10 new proposed ACECs met 

the criteria, as did areas adjacent to four existing ACECs (referred to as expansion areas). Table 3-50 lists 

existing and proposed ACECs, their acreages, the resource value(s) of concern that justify their 

consideration as ACECs, and identified threats to the areas. Appendix F of this Supplement and the 

Draft RMP and Draft EIS contain further discussion of the ACEC nomination process, and the ACEC 

Evaluation Report (BLM 2010a), available on the project website, contains the ACEC evaluation forms 

completed by the BLM for all existing and proposed ACECs. The ACEC evaluations provide more 

information about the ACECs identified in this section.
Affected Environment

3-6 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

NOTE: Table 3-50 (which identifies existing and proposed ACECs in the Planning Area) from the Draft RMP and Draft EIS (pages 3-181 to 3-184) is 

augmented to include the addition of the proposed Greater Sage-Grouse Key and Core Habitat Area ACECs. Because ACEC designations under 

alternatives E and F only differ from alternatives B and D from the Draft RMP and Draft EIS in the addition of the Greater Sage-Grouse Key and 

Core Habitat Area ACECs, only those ACECs are included below. These new ACECs are inserted into the corresponding table from the draft NEPA 

document (between McCullough Peaks South Paleontological Area and Rainbow Canyon ACECs).

Table 3-50. Existing and Proposed Areas of Critical Environmental Concern in the Planning Area

Area Acreage Value(s) of Concern Threats1

Existing Proposed

Proposed ACECs

Greater Sage-Grouse Key 

Habitat Areas

N/A 1,231,383 Special Status Species; Vegetation Threats to this proposed ACEC include surface disturbance 

from mineral (including gravel pits) and ROW development, 

non-renewable and renewable energy developments, bush 

eradication programs, prolonged drought, heavy 

recreational and motorized vehicle use, wildfire, predation, 

and invasive and nonnative species infestations. These 

activities threaten important greater sage-grouse habitats, 

including breeding, later brood-rearing, and winter 

concentration areas.

Greater Sage-Grouse Core 

Habitat Areas

N/A 1,116,124 Special Status Species; Vegetation Same as above.

1

USFWS 2010 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Findings (USFWS 2010); USFWS Conservation Objectives Team (COT) Report (USFWS 2013); Big Horn Basin Sage-grouse Local 

Working Group (Bighorn Basin Sage-grouse Local Working Group 2007).

ACEC Area of Critical Environmental Concern

N/A Not applicable

ROW rights-of-way
Affected Environment

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS 3-7

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

3.7.1.3. Proposed ACECs

NOTE: Add to Section 3.7.1.3 “Proposed ACECs” (page 3-190) between McCullough Peaks South 

Paleontological Area and Rainbow Canyon subsections the following text describing the Greater SageGrouse Key and Core Habitat Area ACECs.

Greater Sage-Grouse Key and Core Habitat Areas

The proposed Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC encompasses BLM-administered lands in 

Key Habitat Areas (1,231,383 acres), while the Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC 

encompasses BLM-administered lands in Core Habitat Areas (1,116,124 acres). These ACECs encompass 

large portions of the Planning Area (39 percent of BLM-administered surface for the Greater SageGrouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC and 35 percent for the Core Habitat Areas ACEC). Both proposed ACECs 

are discussed together, since both met the same relevance and importance criteria and contain the 

same values of concern.

The BLM has identified the priority greater sage-grouse habitat encompassed by the proposed Key and 

Core Habitat Areas ACECs as highly important to the health and viability of greater sage-grouse 

populations. The sagebrush steppe has been identified as one of the most threatened ecosystems in 

America (Stiber et al. 2006). Numerous sagebrush obligate species are dependent on healthy, intact 

sagebrush steppe ecosystems and are put at risk by its decline. The primary threats to the Wyoming 

Basin greater sage-grouse population include energy development and transfer, long-term drought, and 

brush eradication programs (USFWS 2013). In addition, sagebrush steppe area provides habitat for 

numerous BLM Sensitive Species, including greater sage-grouse, Brewer’s sparrow, sage thrasher, sage 

sparrow, loggerhead shrike, mountain plover, burrowing owl, white-tailed prairie dog, black-tailed 

prairie dog, long-billed curlew, and Baird’s sparrow. Portions of the ACEC in Chapman Bench and Loch 

Katrine that contain sagebrush steppe habitat are designated as important bird areas by the Audubon 

Society. Many other animal species are also dependent upon this ecosystem for grazing, pollination, 

winter range, nesting areas, and parturition habitat. For example, pronghorn, though not a sensitive 

species, are dependent on the sagebrush steppe; Wyoming supports the majority of this species’ 

population.
Affected Environment

3-8 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

This page intentionally left blank.
Environmental Consequences

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS 4-1

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

CHAPTER 4 – ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Reader’s Guide to Chapter 4

The Bighorn Basin Draft Resource Management Plan (RMP) and Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS) were released for public review and comment in April 2011 (76 Federal Register [FR] 22721, April 

22, 2011). Chapter 4 of the Draft RMP and Draft EIS, entitled “Environmental Consequences,” describes 

environmental consequences that may result from implementing the four alternatives described in 

Chapter 2, including the No Action Alternative, on the resources programs, resource uses, special 

designations, and socioeconomic environment described in Chapter 3. Methods assumptions for the 

impact analysis are presented at the beginning of each impact section in Chapter 4. Impacts are 

generally described in terms of direct, indirect, and cumulative; adverse or beneficial; and short- or longterm in nature.

The Draft RMP and Draft EIS provides the context for this Chapter 4 Supplement. Chapter 4 of the Draft 

RMP and Draft EIS is supplemented to describe the impacts of applying proposed management decisions 

under the new alternatives E and F (as described in Chapter 2 of this Supplement) on surface 

disturbance, resources uses, special designations, resources, and proactive management, as applicable

for each resource topic. The supplement incorporates alternatives E and F into a summary of impacts 

for each affected resource and analyzes the potential impacts of alternatives E and F with a level of 

detail equivalent to existing alternatives analyzed in the Draft RMP and Draft EIS. Whenever possible, 

the impact analysis references the existing Draft RMP and Draft EIS analysis to highlight differences with 

existing alternatives and to avoid repetition.

The following sections of the Draft RMP and Draft EIS are modified by this Chapter 4 Supplement:

• Section 4.1.1 Air Quality

• Section 4.1.3 Soil

• Section 4.1.4 Water

• Section 4.2.1 Locatable Minerals

• Section 4.2.4 Leasable Minerals – Geothermal

• Section 4.2.5 Leasable Minerals – Oil and Gas

• Section 4.2.7 Salable Minerals

• Section 4.3 Fire and Fuels Management

• Section 4.4 Biological Resources

• Section 4.5 Heritage and Visual Resources

• Section 4.6 Land Resources

• Section 4.7.1 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

• Section 4.7.4 National Historic Trails and Other Historic Trails

• Section 4.8.1 Social Conditions

• Section 4.8.2 Economic Conditions

• Section 4.9 Cumulative Impacts
Environmental Consequences

4-2 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

In all other respects, Chapter 4 of the Draft RMP and Draft EIS remains the same and unmodified 

portions of that Chapter 4 are incorporated by reference in this Supplement. Impacts from 

management under Alternative A, Alternative B, Alternative C, and Alternative D remain the same as in 

the Draft RMP and Draft EIS because no changes have been made to the proposed management 

decisions under those alternatives. Impacts from management actions common to all alternatives also 

remain the same and would apply under the new alternatives E and F as well. Only the modified and 

augmented portions of the Draft RMP and Draft EIS Chapter 4 are presented here, and therefore the 

reader must use the Draft RMP and Draft EIS to understand the analysis of impacts for alternatives A 

through D. Gray shaded notes in the sections that follow instruct the reader on how this supplement 

text is integrated into the Draft RMP and Draft EIS.

How to the incorporate this supplement into the Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Chapter 4 of the Draft RMP and Draft EIS followed a consistent pattern when describing the direct and 

indirect effects from the alternatives; the analysis in this supplement is designed to follow that existing 

format to ensure readers are able to compare the impacts of the new alternatives E and F with those of 

the other alternatives already considered in the Draft RMP and Draft EIS. In the analysis that follows, 

the “Summary of Impacts by Alternative” sections provided in this supplement should replace those 

sections from the Draft RMP and Draft EIS. The Summary of Impacts by Alternative sections have been 

augmented to include discussion of alternatives E and F so that the reader may understand the impacts 

of these alternatives in the context of alternatives A through D. The new “Detailed Analysis of 

Alternatives” sections discuss potential direct and indirect impacts from alternatives E and F; these 

sections should be placed after the discussions of “Alternative D” from the Draft RMP and Draft EIS. In 

addition, summary tables that compared the alternatives from the Draft RMP and Draft EIS have been 

augmented to include alternatives E and F; notes throughout the Supplement Chapter 4 describe how to 

incorporate these summary tables.
Environmental Consequences

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS 4-3

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

NOTE: Replace Table 4-1 of the Draft RMP and Draft EIS (page 4-4) with the following table.

Table 4-1. Total Projected Surface Disturbance from BLM Reasonable Foreseeable Actions in the Bighorn Basin Planning Area

Action Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

(Agency Preferred) Alternative E Alternative F

Total Acres Short-Term Disturbance from 

BLM Actions 136,415 73,919 245,783 140,508 71,799 137,568

Total Acres Reclaimed from BLM Actions 120,704 63,037 204,238 122,065 61,993 119,684

Total Acres Long-Term Disturbance from 

BLM Actions 15,710 10,882 41,545 18,443 10,787 17,866

Source: Appendix T

BLM Bureau of Land Management
Air Quality

4-4 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

4.1 Physical Resources

4.1.1 Air Quality

4.1.1.2 Summary of Impacts by Alternatives

As detailed in the Draft RMP and Draft EIS, impacts on air quality were assessed indirectly by calculating 

emissions by alternative for the following types of development and use activities: (1) oil development, 

(2) natural gas development, (3) salable minerals development, (4) locatable minerals development, (5) 

renewable energy development, (6) livestock management activities, (7) vegetation management, (8) 

vegetation management of invasive species, (9) fire management (including prescribed fire), (10) 

forests, woodlands, and forest products activities, (11) rights-of-way (ROW) and corridors, (12) off 

highway vehicle (OHV) use, and (13) resource road maintenance. Emissions were estimated for the 

following pollutants: particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10), particulate matter less 

than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5), nitrogen oxides (NOX), sulfur dioxide (SO2), carbon monoxide (CO), 

volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). The Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) estimated emissions for the base year (2005) corresponding to Alternative A. The 

BLM also estimated emissions for two future years (2015 and 2024) to examine potential impacts midway through the 20-year plan and at the end of the plan. The analysis compares operational emissions 

for 2015 and 2024 to base-year emissions to determine the expected future change in emission levels 

for each alternative. The details of the methodologies for calculating emissions for each resource are 

included in Appendix U.

For each alternative, Table 4-2 presents a summary of criteria pollutant emission estimates for 2015 and 

2024 and Table 4-3 presents carbon dioxide (CO2) equivalent emission estimates for 2018 and 2028. 

Figures 4-2 and 4-3 present criteria pollutant emission estimates for 2015 and 2024, respectively. Air 

quality impacts would primarily result from minerals development and production, and oil and gas 

activities; emissions associated with these actions would outweigh those produced from other proposed 

activities. Alternative E would result in the lowest levels of emissions in 2015 and 2024 and, therefore, it 

is unlikely that emissions under this alternative would contribute to an exceedance of the National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) or Wyoming Ambient Air Quality Standards (WAAQS). 

Alternatives A and C would result in increases for some pollutants (PM10, CO) and decreases for all 

others compared to the 2005 base year. Alternative C would have the greatest potential to contribute 

to exceedances of the NAAQS or WAAQS of any alternative. Alternatives D and F would result in 

comparable impacts to the base level (year 2005), except that VOC emissions are expected to decrease 

slightly in 2015 and further by 2024; projected emissions are, therefore, unlikely to contribute to an 

exceedance of the NAAQS or WAAQS. Alternative C is projected to result in the most new oil and gas 

wells and locatable mineral development (the activities anticipated to result in the greatest CO2

contributions during the planning cycle), resulting in the most CO2 emissions, followed by alternatives D, 

A, F, B, and E respectively. Management under Alternative E is the same as under Alternative B, except 

that it designates BLM-administered lands within greater sage-grouse Key Habitat Areas as an Area of 

Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) (1,231,383 acres). The Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas 

ACEC places limitations on resource development and other activities that cause emissions, and 

Alternative E, therefore, would result in the least amount of emissions of all the alternatives. 

Management under Alternative F is the same as management under Alternative D, except it designates 

greater sage-grouse Core Habitat Areas as an ACEC (1,116,124 acres). Similar to management of greater 
Air Quality

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS 4‐5

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

sage‐grouse priority habitat under Alternative E, the designation of the Greater Sage‐Grouse Core

Habitat Areas ACEC under Alternative F would limit resource development and other activities that

cause emissions, though to a lesser extent than under Alternative E or Alternative B (which includes

restrictive management for greater sage‐grouse priority habitat, though not as an ACEC designation).

NOTE:  Replace Table 4‐2 of the Draft RMP and Draft EIS (page 4‐7) with the following table.

Table 4‐2. Total Annual Emissions Summary for BLM Activities in the

Bighorn Basin Planning Area

Summary Year

Emissions (tons per year)

PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAP

Base Year (2005) Total 2,507 342 1,101 108 2,719 2,143 117

Alternative A       

2015 Total 2,641 354 1,073 106 2,905 1,925 111

2024 Total 2,679 354 1,134 108 2,731 1,473 95

Alternative B       

2015 Total 2,376 310 748 67 2,808 1,780 96

2024 Total 2,401 308 794 68 2,612 1,382 85

Alternative C       

2015 Total 3,134 422 1,157 115 2,949 2,064 126

2024 Total 3,174 422 1,221 117 2,779 1,563 105

Alternative D         

2015 Total 2,514 340 1,045 102 2,907 1,865 105

2024 Total 2,551 340 1,109 103 2,737 1,415 89

Alternative E         

2015 Total 1,946 264 732 67 2,808 1,780 96

2024 Total 1,970 262 776 68 2,612 1,382 85

Alternative F         

2015 Total 2,501 336 985 96 2,885 1859 104

2024 Total 2,535 336 1,040 97 2,704 1,405 88

Source:  BLM 2010b; BLM 2013b

BLM Bureau of Land Management PM2.5 particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter

CO carbon monoxide PM10 particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter

HAP hazardous air pollutant SO2 sulfur dioxide

NOx nitrogen oxides VOC volatile organic compound
Air Quality

4-6 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

4.1.1.3 Detailed Analysis of Alternatives

Greenhouse Gases

Under all of the alternatives, a variety of activities in the Planning Area would generate greenhouse gas 

(GHG) emissions, including CO2, methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O). These activities include oil and 

gas and other minerals development, fire events, motorized vehicle use, livestock grazing, facilities 

development, and other surface-disturbing activities. The lack of scientific tools designed to predict 

climate change on regional or local scales limits the ability to quantify potential future impacts. 

Currently, the BLM does not have an established mechanism to accurately predict the effect of resource 

management-level decisions from this planning effort on global climate change. Since the Industrial 

Revolution, atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have risen about 36 percent (IPCC 2007), principally due 

to the combustion of fossil fuels. Fossil fuel combustion accounted for 94 percent of national CO2

emissions in 2008 (EPA 2010). Activities that require fossil fuel-powered machinery, such as minerals 

development and motorized vehicle use, would comprise the majority of CO2 emissions in the Planning 

Area under all of the alternatives. Wildland fires, including prescribed burns, would also result in CO2

emissions. However, CO2 from fires, particularly prescribed fires, is typically considered to be 

counterbalanced by the increased productivity of existing larger vegetation and new growth of 

vegetation post-fire. Alternative C is projected to result in the most new oil and gas wells and locatable 

mineral development (the activities anticipated to result in the greatest CO2 contributions during the 

planning cycle), resulting in the most CO2 emissions, followed by alternatives D, A, F, B, and E (see Tables 

4-3 and 4-4 for CO2 emissions by alternative measured in CO2 equivalents).

CH4 is more than 20 times as effective as CO2 at trapping heat in the atmosphere and accounted for 8.2 

percent of GHG emissions in 2008 (based on CO2 equivalents) (EPA 2010). CO2 equivalent is a 

measurement that allows an aggregate comparison of multiple GHGs (e.g., CH4 and N2O), created by 

multiplying the actual or anticipated emissions of each gas by its relative global warming potential. Oil, 

gas, and locatable mineral development and enteric fermentation from livestock (which accounted for 

25 percent of total CH4 emissions in 2008 [EPA 2010]) are the predominant source of CH4 emissions in 

the Planning Area. As a result of higher levels of mineral development, CH4 emissions are anticipated to 

be highest under Alternative C, followed by alternatives A, D, F, B, and E. Animal Unit Month (AUM) 

projections under alternatives A, C, D, and F are similar, and therefore would result in similar CH4

emissions. Alternatives B and E would reduce AUMs by about 50 percent, resulting in a proportional 

reduction in CH4 emissions from enteric fermentation.

N2O emissions, which like CH4 are also more effective heat trapping agents than CO2, would result 

predominantly from fuel combustion in motor vehicles in the Planning Area. These emissions are likely 

to be greatest under Alternative C, followed by alternatives A, D, F, B, and E.

Under all alternatives, management actions would likely affect the level of carbon sequestration in the 

Planning Area. Management that conserves carbon sinks or provides for research and technology to 

store carbon that would otherwise be released into the atmosphere would reduce overall contributions 

of GHGs. Alternative E would result in the greatest preservation of biological carbon sinks including 

vegetation and soils, followed by alternatives B, F, D, A, and C. Forest management practices and 

silvicultural treatments that improve forest health and reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire may 

increase or maintain carbon sequestration in forests and woodlands in the short term; however, altering 

the natural fire regime through forest management may lead to long-term impacts on forest health 

(e.g., infestation) that affect carbon sequestration in forests and woodlands. Alternative C includes the 

greatest number of silvicultural practices and other treatments to actively manage forests and 
Air Quality

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS 4-7

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

woodlands, followed by alternatives D, A, F, B, and E. Allowing carbon sequestration research and 

projects under Alternative C and considering carbon sequestration research and projects under 

alternatives D and F would increase the potential for carbon sequestration projects and management 

that reduces atmospheric CO2, compared to the other alternatives.

NOTE: Replace Table 4-3 of the Draft RMP and Draft EIS (page 4-10) with the following table.

Table 4-3. Carbon Dioxide Equivalent Emissions in Metric Tons by Alternative for 2018

Oil Emissions1 Natural Gas Emission1 Locatable Emissions1 Total

Alternative A 34,014 250,945 5,816 290,775

Alternative B 20,735 238,379 5,761 264,875

Alternative C 37,078 261,474 5,817 304,369

Alternative D 32,482 261,298 5,351 299,131

Alternative E 20,735 238,379 3,840 262,954

Alternative F 30,439 252,154 5,351 287,944

Source: BLM 2013b

1 Carbon Dioxide Equivalent is a measurement that allows an aggregate comparison of multiple greenhouse gases, created by multiplying 

the emissions of each gas by its relative global warming potential. For this analysis however, metric tons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent 

includes only carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.

NOTE: Replace Table 4-4 of the Draft RMP and Draft EIS (page 4-10) with the following table.

Table 4-4. Carbon Dioxide Equivalent Emissions in Metric Tons by Alternative for 2028

Oil Emissions1 Natural Gas Emission1 Locatable Emissions1 Total

Alternative A 34,656 303,327 5,817 343,801

Alternative B 21,279 269,797 5,762 296,838

Alternative C 37,743 319,066 5,817 362,626

Alternative D 33,113 318,937 5,352 357,401

Alternative E 21,279 269,797 3,841 294,917

Alternative F 31,055 299,281 5,352 335,687

Source: BLM 2013b

1 Carbon Dioxide Equivalent is a measurement that allows an aggregate comparison of multiple greenhouse gases, created by multiplying 

the emissions of each gas by its relative global warming potential. For this analysis however, metric tons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent 

includes only carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.
Air Quality

4-8 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

NOTE: Replace Figure 4-1 of the Draft RMP and Draft EIS (page 4-11) with the following figure.

Figure 4-1. Emissions Estimates for BLM Activities in the Bighorn Basin Planning Area: 2015

NOTE: Replace Figure 4-2 of the Draft RMP and Draft EIS (page 4-12) with the following figure.

Figure 4-2. Emissions Estimates for BLM Activities in the Bighorn Basin Planning Area: 2024
Air Quality

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS 4-9

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Alternative E

As shown in Figure 4-1 and Figure 4-2, Alternative E would result in similar emissions to Alternative B, 

except to a slightly lesser extent due to additional restrictions within the Greater Sage-Grouse Key 

Habitat Areas ACEC. Under this alternative, the designation of greater sage-grouse Key Habitat Areas as 

an ACEC limits the development and impacts on physical, mineral, biological, and other resources in the 

Planning Area beyond the restrictions already placed under Alternative B, and to a much greater extent 

than under Alternative A. The expected effects on all BLM activities and resources in the Planning Area 

under this alternative were summarized in Chapter 2 and are detailed in the remainder of Chapter 4 

below. In summary, this alternative reduces the number of acres available for mineral development, 

increases acreage available for withdrawal for mining, reduces acreage available for disposal of mineral 

materials, reduces slightly the number of acres open to renewable energy development, reduces 

acreage for renewable energy avoidance areas, increases the size of renewable energy exclusion areas, 

reduces acres limited to existing roads and trails for motorized vehicle use, increases acres limited to 

designated roads and trails for motorized vehicle use, reduces land available for standard disposal, 

reduces acreage for ROW avoidance areas, and increases the size of ROW exclusion areas. As a result, 

the emissions for sources involved in the development of leasable and locatable mineral resources and 

other activities under Alternative E, would be comparable to or less than those for Alternative B for all 

pollutants. Overall, Alternative E would result in the least emissions for future years when compared to 

the other alternatives.

Alternative F

The emissions estimates for 2015 and 2024 for Alternative F are generally the same as Alternative D 

(Figure 4-1 and Figure 4-2). Under Alternative F, the management of physical, mineral, biological, and 

other resources in the Planning Area would be the same as under Alternative D, except for areas within 

the Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC. Under this alternative, the designation of greater 

sage-grouse Core Habitat Areas as an ACEC limits the development and impacts beyond the restrictions 

already placed under alternatives A and D, but not as much as under Alternative B or E. In summary, 

this alternative increases the number of acres open to oil and gas leasing with major and moderate 

constraints, reduces slightly the number of acres open to oil and gas leasing subject to the standard 

lease form, reduces slightly the number of acres open to renewable energy development, increases 

slightly the acreage for renewable energy avoidance areas, reduces acres limited to existing roads and 

trails for motorized vehicle use, increases acres limited to designated roads and trails for motorized 

vehicle use, and reduces acreage for ROW avoidance areas. As a result of these limitations and 

restrictions, the emissions estimates for Alternative F would be comparable to those for Alternative D 

with the exceptions being for PM10 and NOx emissions where slight decreases in emissions under this 

alternative are estimated. Overall, emissions under Alternative F are estimated to be less than 

Alternative A for all emissions and more than alternatives B and E for all emissions.
Geologic Resources

4-10 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

4.1.2 Geologic Resources

NOTE: The Draft RMP and Draft EIS impact analysis for Geologic Resources is not changed by the 

addition of alternatives E and F; please refer to the Draft RMP and Draft EIS for a discussion of impacts 

to this resource.

4.1.3 Soil

4.1.3.2 Summary of Impacts by Alternative

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

programs that result in vegetation removal including mineral resources development, motorized vehicle 

use, road construction, and recreation. Concentrated or improperly managed livestock grazing can also 

result in adverse impacts to soil due to herbaceous vegetation removal. The greatest impacts to soil 

resources are anticipated under Alternative C, which would result in the greatest surface disturbance 

and erosion. The erosion rate due to surface-disturbing activities under Alternative C is estimated to be 

66,555 tons per year in the long term, followed by Alternative D (29,546 tons per year), Alternative F 

(28,622 tons per year), Alternative A (25,167 tons per year), Alternative B (17,432 tons per year), and 

Alternative E (17,281 tons per year). Alternative E would result in the fewest potential adverse impacts 

to soil resources because it includes the most restrictions on surface-disturbing activities compared to 

the other alternatives. Alternative E also includes the most proactive management to minimize adverse 

impacts to soils in disturbed areas, followed by alternatives B, F, D, C, and A.

4.1.3.3 Detailed Analysis of Alternatives

Alternative E

Surface Disturbance

Alternative E includes the greatest restrictions on surface-disturbing activities, compared to the other 

alternatives, for the protection of other resources such as special designations, crucial wildlife habitat,

and recreation management areas, and would result in the fewest impacts on soils. Under Alternative E, 

projected short-term disturbance from all BLM actions would affect 71,799 acres (Table 4-1), resulting in 

a short-term erosion rate of 299,044 tons per year. Following reclamation of disturbed sites, projected 

long-term erosion rates would average 17,281 tons per year, which is the least among the alternatives. 

Management practices relating to surface disturbance would be the same as Alternative B, except for 

areas within the Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC (1,231,383 acres). In this ACEC, the BLM 

manages anthropogenic disturbances (e.g., roads, oil and gas wells, pipelines, etc.) so they do not 

exceed one disturbance per 640 acres and cover less than 3 percent of the total sage-grouse habitat, 

compared to a larger allowable disturbance of 5 percent in these areas under Alternative B. This 

restrictive management over the large area of the ACEC would generally benefit soil resources by 

limiting the size and extent of disturbances.

Resource Uses

Under Alternative E, initial disturbance of 17,327 acres for mineral resource development is projected, 

and short-term erosion rates would average 72,167 tons per year under Alternative E (see Appendix T 

and Appendix V). Following stabilization and reclamation of disturbed areas, erosion rates are projected 

to drop to 9,960 tons per year, which is the same as Alternative B and lower than the other alternatives.
Soil

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS 4-11

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Alternative E identifies 22,133 acres for disposal (including disposal for specific uses), which is the fewest 

of the alternatives, decreasing the potential for surface-disturbing activities and soil resource 

degradation in areas removed from federal ownership. The initial erosion rate from disturbance 

associated with other ROW facilities would be 396 tons per year, decreasing to 152 tons per year after 

reclamation, which is the same as Alternative B and lower than the other alternatives (Appendix V).

Alternatives B and E include the most limitations on and closures to motorized vehicle use for resource 

protection. Therefore, these alternatives would minimize new route proliferation and provide more 

protection to soil resources than the other alternatives. Similarly, alternatives B and E close the largest 

area to motorized vehicle use compared to the other alternatives and include the greatest areas of 

seasonal closures. Under Alternative E, new road and trail creation in areas open to cross-country 

motorized travel would result in generally the same acreage of short- and long-term disturbance as 

Alternative B and erosion rates following stabilization would be the same as listed under Alternative B 

(Appendix T and Appendix V). Total disturbances associated with road construction under Alternative E 

are projected to be the same as Alternative B, resulting in less short- and long-term erosion when 

compared to alternatives A, C, D, and F (Appendix T and Appendix V).

Livestock grazing management under Alternative E would be the same as Alternative B, and impacts to 

soil would be the same as described under that alternative.

Special Designations

Special designations under Alternative E would be the same as Alternative B, with the exception of an 

additional 1,231,383 acres of BLM-administered land within greater sage-grouse Key Habitat Areas that 

would be designated as an ACEC. The relative size and additional restrictions on surface-disturbing 

activities and resource uses in special designation areas under Alternative E would result in additional 

protection for soils in comparison to the other alternatives. Specifically, requirements include a full 

reclamation bond to insure restoration of disturbed areas to their original condition and other habitat 

restoration and vegetation management requirements associated with the Greater Sage-Grouse Key 

Habitat Areas ACEC would reduce adverse impacts from surface-disturbing activities in greater sagegrouse Key Habitat Areas.

Resources

Fire and fuels management under Alternative E would result in the least amount of disturbance from 

fuels treatment and prescribed fire of any alternative, and the fewest short-term adverse impacts to 

soils from fire management activities. Approximately 18,000 acres of short-term disturbance from 

prescribed fire is projected under Alternative E (Appendix T). An average erosion rate of 74,970 tons per 

year for prescribed fire and 20,825 tons per year for mechanical fuel treatments is projected for 

Alternative E, which is the least for all alternatives (Appendix V). Post-fire reclamation requirements 

within the Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC would result in additional beneficial impacts on 

soil retention through management practices that ensure long-term persistence of seeded and pretreatment native plants.

Proactive Management

Soil resources management under Alternative E would generally be the same as Alternative B, and 

beneficial impacts to soils would be the same as Alternative B. However, areas in the Greater SageGrouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC would be subject to additional protective management under 

Alternative E; these additional protections would result in the greatest overall beneficial impacts to soil 

resources of any alternative.
Soil

4-12 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Alternative F

Surface Disturbance

Impacts to soil resources from surface disturbance under Alternative F are projected to be greater than 

under alternatives A, B, and E, but less than under alternatives C and D. Short-term disturbance from all 

BLM actions would affect 137,568 acres (see Table 4-1 and Appendix T) under Alternative F, resulting in 

an erosion rate of 572,972 tons per year. Following reclamation, the long-term erosion rate would be 

28,622 tons per year, which is greater than alternatives A, B, and E (Appendix V). Management practices 

restricting surface disturbances for the protection of other resources (such as soil, water, biological 

resources, and special designations) would be the same as Alternative D, except within areas of the 

proposed Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC (1,116,124 acres). In this ACEC, the BLM 

manages the density of disturbance to not exceed an average of one disruptive activity location per 640 

acres and cover less than 3 percent of the total greater sage-grouse Core Habitat Areas, compared to a 

larger allowable disturbance of 5 percent under Alternative D. This restrictive management over the 

large area of the ACEC would generally benefit soil resources by limiting the size and extent of 

disturbances.

Resource Uses

The projected surface disturbance from minerals development would be 24,720 acres under 

Alternative F and would be greater than alternatives B and E, less than alternatives A and C, and 

generally the same as Alternative D (Appendix T). A predicted average erosion rate of 102,959 tons per 

year would result from these surface disturbances under Alternative F in the short term (Appendix V). 

Following reclamation and stabilization, the erosion rate is expected to decrease to 12,528 tons per 

year. Resource exploration, development, and extraction management under Alternative F would be 

the same as Alternative D, and impacts to soils would generally be the same as Alternative D. However, 

in greater sage-grouse Core Habitat Areas, additional restrictions on leasable minerals under Alternative 

F would decrease surface disturbance impacts compared to Alternative D.

The management of lands and realty and ROWs under Alternative F would generally be the same as 

Alternative D, and impacts to soils would be the same as Alternative D.

Impacts from comprehensive travel and transportation management (CTTM) and recreation 

management under Alternative F would provide greater protections for soil resources than under 

alternatives A, C, and D, but fewer protections than under alternatives B and E. CTTM management 

practices for Alternative F would be the same as Alternative D, except within the Greater Sage-Grouse 

Core Habitat Areas ACEC where motorized vehicle use would be limited to designated roads. Under 

Alternative F, disturbances associated with the creation of new roads and trails is projected to involve 

1,343 acres and would be lower than alternatives A, C, and D, but higher than under alternatives B and E 

(Appendix T). New road and trail construction under Alternative F would result in erosion rates of 3,564 

tons per year in the short term and 1,783 tons per year in the long term (Appendix V).

Livestock grazing management under Alternative F would generally be the same as Alternative D, and 

impacts to soils would be the same as Alternative D. However, for areas within the Greater Sage-Grouse

Core Habitat Areas ACEC, livestock grazing restrictions and vegetation management requirements under 

Alternative F would result in additional beneficial impacts to soil resources through increased vegetation 

cover and infiltration compared to Alternative D.
Water

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS 4-13

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Special Designations

The relative size and additional restrictions on surface-disturbing activities and resource uses in special 

designation areas under Alternative F would result in greater protections for soil resources in 

comparison to alternatives A, C, and D, but fewer than under alternatives B and E. Special designations 

under Alternative F would be the same as Alternative D, with the exception of an additional 1,116,124 

acres of BLM-administered land within the Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC. When 

compared to alternatives A and D, Alternative F would add additional management actions within the 

Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC that would provide benefits to soil by limiting surfacedisturbing activities and other actions that could degrade soil health. The beneficial impacts would be 

similar to Alternative A, except that more acreage would be managed to avoid and minimize surfacedisturbing activities, thereby limiting short- and long-term adverse impacts.

Resources

Under Alternative F, prescribed fire and mechanical fuels treatments are projected to disturb less 

acreage than Alternative A and would subsequently result in decreased erosion rates. Approximately 

40,000 acres of short-term disturbance from prescribed fire is projected under Alternative F (Appendix 

T). An average erosion rate of 166,600 tons per year for prescribed fire and 124,950 tons per year for 

mechanical fuel treatments is projected for Alternative F, the same as alternatives A and D, and greater 

than alternatives B and E (Appendix V). Disturbance from fuels treatments and prescribed fire under 

Alternative F would be the same as Alternative D, with the exception of additional fire management 

restrictions within the Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC that would be designed to 

maintain or improve sagebrush habitat. The additional ACEC restrictions would decrease the potential 

adverse impacts to soil resources from fire management activities compared to alternatives A and D.

Proactive Management

Soil resources management that would benefit soil resources under Alternative F are the same as 

Alternative D for areas outside of the Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC; management of 

areas inside that ACEC would provide greater protection and improve reclamation efforts more than 

alternatives A, C, and D, but less than alternatives B and E.

4.1.4 Water

4.1.4.2 Summary of Impacts by Alternative

Adverse impacts to surface and groundwater quality and quantity include increased erosion and 

sediment loading in streams and may result from a variety of resource programs including soils 

management, minerals development, management of fish and wildlife, motorized vehicle use, and 

improper livestock grazing management. Reclamation and other management activities that increase 

vegetative cover result in beneficial impacts to water resources. Alternatives that result in more longterm surface disturbances and stipulate fewer restrictions on resource uses that might affect water 

resources are anticipated to result in the greatest overall impact to water resources. Alternative C 

would result in the greatest adverse impacts to water resources due to the greatest projected surface 

disturbance and the fewest resource use restrictions. Although it would allow more long-term 

disturbance than Alternative A, Alternative D may result in fewer long-term adverse impacts to water 

resources due to increased reclamation standards and requirements for mitigation under this 

alternative. Alternative E would result in the fewest adverse impacts to water resources due to the 

comparatively smaller amount of projected surface disturbance and greater number of resource use 
Water

4-14 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

restrictions under this alternative. Impacts to groundwater quality may result from produced water 

discharge where oil and gas wells are in areas with shallow groundwater. Alternative C is projected to 

result in the greatest number of new federal oil and gas wells, followed by alternatives A, D, F, B, and E 

(Appendix T).

4.1.4.3 Detailed Analysis of Alternatives

Alternative E

Surface Disturbance

Alternative E would result in 10,787 acres of long-term and 71,799 acres of short-term surface 

disturbance (see Table 4-1 and Appendix T), the smallest acreage of disturbance of any alternative. 

Projected short-term surface disturbance would result in an initial 299,044 tons of soil erosion, followed 

by an estimated rate of 17,281 tons per year for the long term (Appendix V). Management practices 

relating to surface disturbance would be the same as Alternative B, except for areas within the Greater 

Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC (1,231,383 acres). In this ACEC, the BLM manages anthropogenic 

disturbances (e.g., roads, oil and gas wells, pipelines, etc.) so that they do not exceed one disturbance 

per 640 acres and cover less than 3 percent of the total sage-grouse habitat, compared to a larger 

allowable disturbance of 5 percent in these areas under Alternative B. When compared to the other 

alternatives, the potential for erosion and sedimentation in surface waterbodies would be the least for 

the surface-disturbing activities of Alternative E, resulting in less impervious surfaces to diminish 

groundwater recharge. Surface-disturbing activities under Alternative E would provide the best chances 

for successful reclamation while also reducing the chances for watershed deterioration.

Resource Uses

Compared to the other alternatives, the restrictions on surface disturbance and conservation measures 

of Alternative E would provide the most improvement to water quality and quantity by increasing 

infiltration rates and reducing existing and future erosion and sedimentation sources. Management for 

resource uses would be the same as Alternative B, except for areas within the Greater Sage-Grouse Key 

Habitat Areas ACEC. Livestock grazing management under Alternative E would be the same as 

Alternative B, and impacts to water would be the same as Alternative B.

Alternative E would result in a similar number of new roads from ROW authorizations and new roads in 

locales open to cross-country motorized travel or from BLM road and trail creation as anticipated under 

Alternative B (Appendix T). Also similar to Alternative B, travel during the wettest months of the year 

would be restricted under Alternative E through a seasonal closure of routes within greater sage-grouse 

Key Habitat Areas from February 1 through July 31. However, unlike Alternative B, Alternative E includes 

additional restrictions on new road and trail development in the Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas 

ACEC (1,231,383). Management in this ACEC limits the allowable surface disturbance, prohibits 

construction within 4 miles of leks, and restricts the types of routes that can be constructed. These 

restrictions would result in the least potential vegetation removal, soil compaction, and fewest water 

crossings and associated adverse impacts to water resources. Outside of the Greater Sage-Grouse Key 

Habitat Areas ACEC, management of ROWs and CTTM under Alternative E would be the same as 

Alternative B.

Management of new surface discharges of produced water under Alternative E would be the same as 

Alternative B, and beneficial impacts to surface water quality and groundwater quality and quantity 

would be the same as Alternative B.
Water

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS 4-15

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Special Designations

Special designations under Alternative E would be the same as Alternative B, with the exception of an 

additional 1,231,383 acres of BLM-administered land in the Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas 

ACEC. Under this alternative, special designations and Lands with Wilderness Characteristics (LWCs)

managed to maintain their wilderness characteristics would encompass 71 miles of streams.

The relative size and additional restrictions on surface-disturbing activities and resource uses in special 

designation areas under Alternative E would result in additional protection for surface and groundwater 

in comparison to the other alternatives. Specifically, requirements to include a full reclamation bond to 

insure restoration of disturbed areas to their original condition and other habitat restoration and 

vegetation management requirements associated with the Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC 

would reduce adverse impacts from surface-disturbing activities in greater sage-grouse Key Habitat 

Areas.

Resources

The erosion control requirements and habitat restoration and vegetation management under 

Alternative E would result in the fewest adverse impacts to water resources through restricting surface 

disturbances. Management and impacts under Alternative E would be the same as Alternative B except 

in the Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC, with additional management regarding reestablishment of sagebrush cover and understory vegetation.

Fire and fuels management under Alternative E would be the same as Alternative B, except in the 

Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC, which includes additional restrictions on the use of 

prescribed fire and post-fire reclamation requirements compared to Alternative B. Alternative E would 

result in the fewest short-term adverse impacts to surface water quality and quantity from soil erosion 

related to fuels treatments and prescribed fire. However, fuels management under Alternative E could 

result in the largest adverse impacts to water quality from catastrophic fires.

Forests, woodlands, and forest products management practices under Alternative E would be the same 

as Alternative B, and impacts to water would be the same as Alternative B.

Proactive Management

Proactive management to protect and enhance water resources under Alternative E would be the same 

as Alternative B, and beneficial impacts to water from these actions would be the same as Alternative B.

Alternative F

Surface Disturbance

Alternative F would result in 137,568 acres of long-term and 17,866 acres of short-term surface 

disturbance (see Table 4-1 and Appendix T); this projected disturbance is more acreage than alternatives 

B and E, but less than alternatives A, C, and D. Short-term surface disturbance under Alternative F 

would result in an initial 572,972 tons of soil erosion, followed by an estimated rate of 28,622 tons per 

year for the long term (Appendix V). Management practices restricting surface disturbances for the 

protection of other resources (such as soil, water, biological resources, and special designations) would 

be the same as Alternative D, except within areas of the proposed Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat 

Areas ACEC (1,116,124 acres). In this ACEC, the BLM manages the density of disturbance to not exceed 

an average of one disruptive activity location per 640 acres and cover less than 3 percent of the total 
Water

4-16 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

greater sage-grouse Core Habitat Areas, compared to a larger allowable disturbance of 5 percent in 

greater sage-grouse Key Habitat Areas (1,231,383 acres) under Alternative D.

Resource Uses

Alternative F would allow fewer surface-disturbing resource uses and subsequent adverse impacts to 

water resources than alternatives A, C, and D, but more than alternatives B and E. As a result of 

additional restrictions in the Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC, the number of new roads 

from ROW development and user-pioneered roads would be greater under Alternative F than 

alternatives A, B, and E, but less than alternatives C and D. In the Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat 

Areas ACEC, Alternative F would result in fewer mineral development-related surface disturbances than 

alternatives A, C, and D. In areas outside the Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC, 

management for mineral resources, CTTM, and ROWs would be similar to Alternative D, and impacts to 

water resources would generally be the same as described for that alternative.

Livestock grazing management under Alternative F is similar to management under Alternative D, and 

impacts to water would be similar to Alternative D. However, management for the Greater Sage-Grouse 

Core Habitat Areas ACEC includes additional livestock grazing management restrictions to promote 

vegetative cover compared to management under Alternative D, which could reduce adverse impacts to 

water quality and quantity from surface runoff compared to alternatives A, C, and D.

The areas open to cross-country motorized travel under Alternative F would be the same as Alternative 

D, and impacts from runoff and erosion would be the same as described under Alternative D; however, 

Alternative F also limits travel in the Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC to designated roads 

and trails, resulting in greater beneficial impacts than alternatives A, C, and D, but fewer than 

alternatives B and E.

Management of new surface discharges of produced water under Alternative F would be the same as 

Alternative D, and impacts to surface water quality and groundwater quality and quantity would be the 

same as Alternative D. However, by comparison, the number of new federal wells projected under 

Alternative F would be less than under alternatives A, C, and D, resulting in an overall reduction of 

adverse impacts to water resources.

Special Designations

Special designations under Alternative F would be the same as Alternative D, with the exception of an 

additional 1,116,124 acres of BLM-administered land in the Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas 

ACEC. Under this alternative, special designations and LWCs managed to maintain their wilderness 

characteristics would encompass 69 miles of streams.

The relative size and additional restrictions on surface-disturbing activities and resource uses in special 

designation areas under Alternative F would result in greater protection for surface and groundwater 

than alternatives A, C, and D, but fewer than under alternatives B and E. Specifically, requirements to 

include a full reclamation bond to insure restoration of disturbed areas to their original condition and 

other habitat restoration and vegetation management requirements associated with the Greater SageGrouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC would reduce adverse impacts from surface-disturbing activities in 

greater sage-grouse Core Habitat Areas.

Resources

Measures to prevent erosion under Alternative F would result in a greater beneficial impact to surface 

water than under alternatives, A, C, and D, but less than under alternatives B and E. Erosion and 

subsequent sediment loading in streams under Alternative F would be the same as Alternative D, except 
Cave and Karst Resources

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS 4-17

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

in the Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC, which includes additional management to enhance 

healthy native vegetation and to manage disturbed areas to predisturbance or better conditions.

Fire and fuels management under Alternative F would be the same as Alternative D, except in the 

Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC, which includes additional restrictions on the use of 

prescribed fire and post-fire reclamation requirements compared to Alternative D. Alternative F would 

result in fewer adverse impacts to surface water quality and quantity from fuels treatments and 

prescribed fire than under alternatives A and D. However, similar to Alternative E, Alternative F would 

increase adverse impacts to water quality from potential catastrophic fires, though to a lesser extent 

than under Alternative E.

Forests, woodlands, and forest products management practices under Alternative F would be the same 

as Alternative D, and impacts to water would be the same as Alternative D.

Proactive Management

Proactive management to protect and enhance water resources under Alternative F would be the same 

as Alternative D, and beneficial impacts to water from these actions would be the same as Alternative D.

4.1.5 Cave and Karst Resources

NOTE: The Draft RMP and Draft EIS impact analysis for Cave and Karst Resources under Alternative B is 

representative of the impacts anticipated under Alternative E, and the impact analysis for Cave and 

Karst Resources under Alternative D is representative of the impacts anticipated under Alternative F. 

Please refer to the Draft RMP and Draft EIS for a discussion of impacts to this resource anticipated under 

these new alternatives.

4.2 Mineral Resources

4.2.1 Locatable Minerals

4.2.1.2 Summary of Impacts by Alternative

Implementation of the alternatives would result in public lands being opened (a beneficial impact) or 

withdrawn or segregated (an adverse impact) from appropriation under the mining laws. Alternative E, 

primarily due to withdrawals for ACECs and Wild and Scenic Rivers (WSR) suitable waterway segments, 

would result in the largest acreage of restrictions to locatable mineral development (1,764,621 acres), 

followed by Alternative B (325,102 acres), Alternative A (174,354 acres), alternatives D and F (72,031 

acres), and Alternative C (47,846 acres). Alternative E includes the greatest acreage of withdrawals in 

known or moderate potential areas for occurrence of common locatable minerals, followed by 

alternatives B, A, D and F, and C.
Locatable Minerals

4-18 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

4.2.1.3 Detailed Analysis of Alternatives

Alternative E

Alternative E would pursue withdrawal from appropriation under the mining laws for locatable minerals 

on 1,764,621 acres, or 42 percent, of the federal mineral estate in the Planning Area (Map SEIS-3). The 

area of withdrawal from mineral entry under Alternative E would be substantially larger than under any 

other alternative due to the withdrawal of the proposed Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC 

(1,231,383 acres). This alternative would withdraw 1,590,267 more acres from mineral entry than 

Alternative A. As per 43 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 3809.100, when surface management 

operations are proposed on claims that pre-date a withdrawal, operations would not proceed until the 

BLM has prepared a mineral examination report to determine whether or not the claim was valid before 

the withdrawal and if it continues to be valid.

Under Alternative E, the following locatable minerals and associated acreages (and percent of total 

occurrence on federal mineral estate in the Planning Area) are known to occur or have a moderate 

potential for occurrence (not actual commercial development) in areas pursued for withdrawal from 

operation of the mining laws, as amended:

• Bentonite – 141,563 acres (41 percent) of known occurrence

• Gypsum – 35,867 acres (50 percent) of known occurrence and 11,608 acres (26 percent) of 

moderate potential

• Uranium – 17,867 acres (97 percent) of known occurrence and 40,158 acres (36 percent) of 

moderate potential

• Thorium – 1,120 acres (73 percent) of known occurrence and 92,378 acres (44 percent) of 

moderate potential

• Titaniferous black sands – 1,120 acres (73 percent) of known occurrence and 92,378 acres (44 

percent) of moderate potential

The remainder of the discussion for this alternative identifies the major withdrawals that would result 

from other resources and uses, regardless of known mineral occurrence or mineral potential.

Resource Uses

Impacts to locatable mineral development from resources uses would be greater under Alternative E 

than under any other alternative. Management within the proposed Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat 

Areas ACEC, including restrictions on ROW development, withdrawals, limitations and closures on 

motorized vehicle use, and land tenure adjustments would adversely impact locatable mineral 

development. However, authorized or permitted uses that specify allowable access would not be 

affected by travel management designations. Impacts to lands outside the ACEC would be the same as 

those identified under Alternative B.

Special Designations

Management of special designations under Alternative E, except in the Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat 

Areas ACEC (1,231,383 acres), would be the same as Alternative B, and impacts would be similar to 

Alternative B. Withdrawal of the Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC from mineral entry under 

Alternative E would result in more acres withdrawn due to special designations than any other 

alternative. Alternative E includes the largest area of designated ACECs (1,436,941 acres). In addition, 

surface disturbances would be limited to one disturbance per 640 acres and less than 3 percent of 
Locatable Minerals

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS 4-19

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

greater sage-grouse Key Habitat Areas, compared to a larger allowable disturbance of 5 percent in these 

areas under Alternative B. As per 43 CFR 3809.11, a Pan of Operations must be submitted for any 

operation greater than casual use within an ACEC.

Resources

Adverse impacts to locatable mineral development would be substantially greater under Alternative E 

than under any other alternative due to the withdrawal of the proposed Greater Sage-Grouse Key 

Habitat Areas ACEC for the protection of greater sage-grouse (1,231,383 acres). Management actions to 

protect resources outside of this ACEC would be the same as Alternative B, and impacts would be the 

same as described under Alternative B.

Alternative F

Withdrawals from locatable mineral entry under Alternative F would be the same as under Alternative D 

(Map SEIS-4), and the impacts to locatable minerals would be the same as described under 

Alternative D.

Resource Uses

Lands and realty actions that withdraw, classify, or segregate lands from mineral entry under Alternative 

F would be the same as under Alternative D, and the impacts to locatable minerals would be the same 

as Alternative D. A complete list of the withdrawals, classifications, and other segregations in the 

Planning Area by alternative is provided in Table 4-13 in Section 4.6.1 Lands and Realty.

Withdrawals pursued for the protection of recreational resources are the same as Alternative D, and 

impacts to locatable minerals would be the same as that alternative.

Special Designations

Withdrawals pursued in ACECs under Alternative F are the same as those pursued under Alternative D, 

and the impacts from those withdrawals are the same as described under Alternative D. However, 

Alternative F implements additional restrictions in the Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC 

that would result in adverse impacts to claimants from requirements for plans of operation by limiting 

surface-disturbing activities and motorized vehicle use, as well as considering seasonal restrictions on 

locatable mineral development if deemed necessary to protect greater sage-grouse Core Habitat Areas. 

However, ACEC designation under Alternative F would also necessitate a Plan of Operation for 

exploration activities in Core Habitat Areas where a notice would have otherwise sufficed.

Resources

Impacts from resource protective management would be greater under Alternative F than under 

alternatives A and D due to restrictions on surface disturbance and motorized vehicle use, and potential 

seasonal restrictions within the proposed Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC. However, 

authorized or permitted uses that specify allowable access would not be affected by travel management 

designations.
Leasable Minerals – Coal

4-20 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

4.2.2 Leasable Minerals – Coal

NOTE: The BLM did not consider coal leasing and development under any alternative due to a lack of 

reasonable foreseeable coal exploration, leasing, or development during the planning cycle. Therefore, 

impacts to coal from alternatives E and F would be consistent with the analysis of alternatives in the 

Draft RMP and Draft EIS.

4.2.3 Leasable Minerals – Oil Shale

NOTE: The BLM did not consider oil shale leasing and development under any alternative due to the 

absence of known, commercially exploitable resources and lack of anticipated leasing and development. 

Therefore, impacts to oil shale from alternatives E and F would be consistent with the analysis of 

alternatives in the Draft RMP and Draft EIS.

4.2.4 Leasable Minerals – Geothermal

4.2.4.2 Summary of Impacts by Alternative

The principal source of adverse impacts to geothermal exploration and development results from 

applying restrictions (i.e., managing these areas as administratively unavailable or applying no surface 

occupancy [NSO] or controlled surface use [CSU] stipulations) on areas with development potential; 

managing these areas as open to geothermal leasing with standard restrictions would generally result in 

beneficial impacts. Geothermal resources in the Planning Area are classified as moderately low to 

negligible and, since none of these resources are capable of generating electricity, restrictions on 

geothermal exploration and development are anticipated to result in minimal impacts under all 

alternatives. Alternatives B and E would result in the greatest potential for adverse impacts to 

geothermal exploration and development as they contain the largest areas administratively unavailable 

to geothermal leasing (2,493,630 acres each), followed by alternatives D and F (324,737 acres), 

Alternative A (154,861 acres), and Alternative C (147,760 acres). Alternatives B, D, E, and F place 

additional restrictions on the geothermal development around Hot Springs State Park in Thermopolis, 

the only area of moderate geothermal resources potential in the Planning Area; though these 

restrictions would prevent commercial development, these alternatives would provide the greatest 

protection to the current public uses of these thermal springs.

4.2.4.3 Detailed Analysis of Alternatives

Alternative E

Under Alternative E, lands open to leasing subject to standard lease stipulations, open with constraints, 

and administratively unavailable to geothermal exploration and development are the same as 

Alternative B (Map SEIS-5), and impacts to geothermal resources would be the same as Alternative B.
Leasable Minerals – Oil and Gas

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS 4-21

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Alternative F

Under Alternative F, lands open to leasing subject to standard lease stipulations, open with constraints, 

and administratively unavailable to geothermal exploration and development are the same as 

Alternative D, except within the Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC (Map SEIS-6). In this 

ACEC, the BLM applies an NSO stipulation within 0.6 mile of greater sage-grouse leks, which would result 

in more adverse impacts to geothermal exploration and development than alternatives A, C, and D, but 

fewer than alternatives B and E.

4.2.5 Leasable Minerals – Oil and Gas

4.2.5.2 Summary of Impacts by Alternative

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

exploration (via NSO, CSU, and timing limitations [TLS] restrictions or managing areas as administratively 

unavailable) would result in adverse impacts to the development and production of oil and gas; 

management actions that ease restrictions or maintain areas as open for oil and gas exploration and 

development would result in beneficial impacts to the development and production of oil and gas. All of 

the alternatives include management that restricts oil and gas leasing and development to varying 

levels; alternatives B and E would generally result in the most adverse impacts to oil and gas 

development and Alternative C the least. Figure 4-3 displays the acreage open to oil and gas 

development subject to the standard lease form, open with constraints, and administratively 

unavailable under each alternative. Projected new well counts under each alternative are listed in Table 

4-5. Areas administratively unavailable for oil and gas development are smallest under Alternative C 

(147,760 acres) and largest under alternatives B and E (2,296,279 acres). The number of acres within 

the Planning Area by level of constraint is depicted in Figure 4-3. Impacts to oil and gas exploration and 

development from the restriction of geophysical exploration would be the greatest under Alternative E 

due to closure of the proposed Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC to geophysical exploration. 

The number of acres within the Planning Area closed to leasing because the management of special 

designations (e.g., ACECs and National Historic Trails [NHTs]) is depicted in Table 4-6. Additionally, the 

BLM manages LWCs as administratively unavailable for oil and gas leasing under alternatives B and E 

(565,868 acres of federal mineral estate), and alternatives D and F (47,469 acres of federal mineral 

estate), except for the Painted Hills under alternatives D and F, which are available for leasing with an 

NSO restriction. Alternatives C, D, and F establish Oil and Gas Management Areas (568,164 acres for 

Alternative C; 134,214 acres for alternatives D and F) allowing full development of known oil and gas 

resources in existing fields and exempting these areas from seasonal wildlife limitations and other 

restrictions, resulting in beneficial impacts to oil and gas exploration and development. The 

development potential for leasable oil and gas in the Planning Area ranges from moderate to no 

potential, depending on location. As shown in Table 4-7, alternatives B, E, D, and F all contain areas 

managed as administratively unavailable to oil and gas leasing that include some areas with moderate 

development potential (219,821 acres for alternatives B and E; 2,834 acres for alternatives F and D).
Leasable Minerals – Oil and Gas

4-22 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

NOTE: Replace Table 4-5 (page 4-57), Figure 4-3 (page 4-60), Table 4-6 (page 4-60), and Table 4-7 (page 

4-61) from the Draft RMP and Draft EIS with the following table.

Table 4-5. Bighorn Basin Planning Area Projected New-Well Counts by Alternative

Alternative Total Coalbed 

Natural Gas Wells

Total Conventional 

Oil and Gas Wells

Total Oil and

Gas Wells

Percent of Total 

Wells on Federal 

Mineral Estate

Baseline

Unconstrained Projection1 150 1,715 1,865 72.6

Alternative A 130 1,511 1,641 68.9

Alternative B 84 936 1,020 49.9

Alternative C 124 1,644 1,768 71.1

Alternative D 98 1,436 1,534 66.7

Alternative E 84 936 1,020 49.9

Alternative F 115 1,363 1,478 65.6

Source: BLM 2009a

1 Only terms and conditions of the standard lease form would be applied; operations would also be subject to existing laws, regulations, 

Onshore Oil and Gas Orders, and Notices to Lessees.

Figure 4-3. Oil and Gas Constraints by Alternative

Source: BLM 2009b; BLM2013o

- 

500,000 

1,000,000 

1,500,000 

2,000,000 

2,500,000 

3,000,000 

3,500,000 

4,000,000 

Closed Open - Major 

Constraints

Open - Moderate 

Constraints

Open - Standard 

Stipulations

Total Acres

Alternative A

Alternative B

Alternative C

Alternative D

Alternative E

Alternative F
Leasable Minerals – Oil and Gas

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS 4-23

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Table 4-6. Acres of Federal Mineral Estate Closed or Administratively Unavailable

for Oil and Gas Leasing due to Special Designations and Other Management Areas1

Type of Area Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Alternative F

Wilderness Study Areas 142,031 142,031 142,031 142,031 142,031 142,031

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 0 565,868 0 47,469 565,868 47,469

National Historic Trails 0 0 0 0 0 0

National Historic Landmark 0 12,506 833 833 12,506 833

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 11,928 340,8632 8,560 78,993 1,427,5122 78,993

Wild and Scenic Rivers 14,330 21,863 0 0 21,863 0

Absaroka Front Management Area 0 217,122 0 85,634 217,122 85,634

Special Recreation Management Areas 0 0 0 0 0 0

Source: BLM 2009b; BLM2013o

1

Acreages provided indicate areas administratively unavailable to leasing as a direct result of the management of the special designation or other management area. Other areas may be closed to

leasing as a result of other overlapping resource considerations. 2

Greatersage-grouse Key Habitat Areas are administratively unavailable to oil and gas leasing under Alternative B and Alternative E; however, unlike Alternative E, Alternative B does not designate Key

Habitat Areas as an Area of Critical Environmental Concern.
Leasable Minerals – Oil and Gas

4-24 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Table 4-7. Acres of Oil and Gas Development Potential and Constraints by Alternative

Development 

Potential Constraint Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Alternative F

Moderate Closed or Administratively Unavailable1 0 219,821 0 2,834 219,821 2,834

Standard Terms & Conditions 82,703 10,228 128,933 18,775 10,228 18,775

Moderate Constraints 164,105 31,726 203,238 319,310 31,726 299,775

Major Constraints 97,731 82,764 12,368 3,621 82,764 23,158

Low Closed or Administratively Unavailable1 0 887,853 0 3,689 887,853 3,689

Standard Terms & Conditions 416,271 81,158 905,847 83,789 81,158 84,931

Moderate Constraints 828,800 167,729 797,216 1,656,939 167,729 1,597,761

Major Constraints 547,837 656,169 89,846 48,491 656,169 106,527

Very Low Closed or Administratively Unavailable1 9,373 978,427 5,752 93,149 978,427 93,149

Standard Terms & Conditions 338,930 47,605 579,249 133,078 47,605 129,691

Moderate Constraints 759,059 234,633 1,122,828 1,531,662 234,633 1,470,459

Major Constraints 713,710 560,407 113,243 63,183 560,407 127,773

None Closed or Administratively Unavailable1 3,479 68,087 0 52,624 68,087 52,624

Standard Terms & Conditions 25,646 48 48,380 20,862 48 20,822

Moderate Constraints 37,649 17,859 52,524 30,782 17,859 30,782

Major Constraints 40,126 20,908 5,997 2,672 20,908 2,672

Source: BLM 2009b; BLM2013o

1 There are no oil and gas development potential data for Wilderness Study Areas (143,974 acres), and the data in this table do not reflect those areas. All Wilderness Study Areas are closed to new 

leasable mineral exploration and development (BLM 2012c).
Leasable Minerals – Oil and Gas

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS 4-25

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

4.2.5.3 Detailed Analysis of Alternatives

Alternative E

Resource Uses

Under Alternative E, lands open to leasing subject to standard lease stipulations, open with constraints, 

and administratively unavailable to oil and gas leasing, as well as associated projections of new well 

development, are the same as Alternative B (Map SEIS-7).

Impacts to oil and gas exploration and development from resource uses under Alternative E would be 

the same as Alternative B, except within the Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC (1,231,383 

acres), where impacts would be greater due to additional constraints on ROW development and surface 

disturbance. Alternative E would manage a total of 1,618,771 acres as ROW avoidance/mitigation areas 

and 1,321,884 acres as ROW exclusion areas, which is greater than any other alternative and would 

result in the most adverse impacts to oil and gas development.

The management of the Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC (1,231,383) is the single largest 

contributing factor to the increase in ROW exclusion areas under Alternative E, compared to Alternative 

B. The size of ROW exclusion areas under this alternative (42 percent of the BLM-administered surface 

in the Planning Area) may affect the ability of project proponents to site future ROWs across BLMadministered lands for projects such as CO2 for enhanced oil recovery operations or new transmission 

lines outside of existing corridors. The extensive exclusion areas under Alternative E may also increase 

the concentration of linear ROWs on and through private lands compared to the other alternatives. 

Where such exclusion areas occur in large, contiguous blocks (such as the Greater Sage-Grouse Key 

Habitat Areas ACEC), finding practicable alternative routes that avoid BLM-administered lands may be 

difficult.

Surface disturbances would be limited to one disturbance per 640 acres and less than 3 percent of the 

total sage-grouse habitat (subject to valid existing rights), compared to a larger allowable disturbance of 

5 percent in these areas under Alternative B. However, the BLM anticipates that even with these 

additional restrictions, oil and gas wells would be developed and ROWs across BLM-administered land 

would be approved at the same rate as Alternative B, and impacts would be similar to Alternative B.

As with Alternative B, the BLM does not suspend existing non-producing oil and gas leases in areas 

closed to mineral leasing and, after such leases expire, would not offer the land for future leasing under 

Alternative E. However, Alternative E would result in additional adverse impacts to the development of 

existing oil and gas leases in the Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC (Map SEIS-9). Specifically, 

upon the expiration or termination of existing leases, nominations or expressions of interest for parcels 

would not be accepted in this ACEC, resulting in greater losses of future oil and gas development 

opportunities when compared to the other alternatives. Additional conservation measures and 

appropriate Fluid Mineral best management practices (BMPs) would also apply in the Greater SageGrouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC on split estate.

Alternative E would also close the proposed Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC to geophysical 

exploration, which would limit the use of seismic technology to obtain subsurface stratigraphic and 

structural information useful for exploration of oil and gas reserves to a greater extent than any other 

alternative.

CTTM designations for motorized vehicle use are the same as Alternative B, and impacts to oil and gas 

development would be the same as Alternative B.
Leasable Minerals – Oil and Gas

4-26 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Special Designations

Management of special designations under Alternative E, except in the Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat 

Areas ACEC (1,231,383 acres), would be the same as Alternative B, and impacts would be similar to 

Alternative B. Due to the relative size and additional restrictions on surface-disturbing activities, ROW 

development, and geophysical exploration applied for the Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC, 

special designation management under Alternative E would result in the most adverse impacts to oil and 

gas exploration and development of any alternative. Table 4-6 shows the acreages of closures due to 

special designations and other management under this alternative.

Resources

Restrictions for resource protection are the same as Alternative B, except within the Greater SageGrouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC, which applies management actions for the conservation of greater 

sage-grouse habitat. Restrictions implemented in this ACEC with adverse impacts to oil and gas 

development would include closure of the area to geophysical exploration and new ROW development, 

and a lower threshold on allowable surface disturbance. Restrictions and constraints on oil and gas 

development resulting from management actions to protect resources would therefore be the greatest 

under Alternative E.

Alternative F

Resource Uses

Under Alternative F, lands unavailable to oil and gas leasing and open to oil and gas leasing subject to 

the terms and conditions of the standard lease form are the same as Alternative D. However, 

Alternative F applies an NSO stipulation within 0.6 mile of occupied or undetermined sage-grouse leks in 

the proposed Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC and limits anthropogenic disturbances to, 

on average, no more than one per 640 acres and no greater than 3 percent loss of sagebrush habitat 

within this ACEC, compared to 5 percent in Alternative D. These management actions would result in 

greater adverse impacts to oil and gas exploration and development relative to alternatives A and D. 

Under Alternative F, 261,282 acres of federal mineral estate are open to oil and gas leasing subject to 

major constraints (Map SEIS-8), which constitutes an 81-percent decrease in area managed with major 

constraints compared to Alternative A, an 80-percent decrease compared to alternatives B and E, an 18-

percent decrease compared to Alternative C, and a 121-percent increase compared to Alternative D.

Federal mineral estate open to oil and gas leasing subject to moderate constraints are reduced under 

Alternative F (3,399,708 acres) in comparison to Alternative D (3,540,775 acres) due to a corresponding 

increase in federal mineral estate subject to major constraints in the proposed Greater Sage-Grouse 

Core Habitat Areas ACEC, as described above (Map SEIS-8). Implementing Alternative F would result in a 

90-percent increase in area managed with moderate constraints compared to Alternative A, a 652-

percent increase compared to alternatives B and E, a 56-percent increase compared to Alternative C, 

and a 4-percent decrease compared to Alternative D.

As a result of the restrictions implemented under Alternative F, projected drilling is reduced from the 

baseline projections. The baseline scenario projects that 1,354 federal wells could be drilled (1,249 

conventional wells and 105 coalbed natural gas [CBNG] wells). Under Alternative F, 973 wells are 

projected (906 conventional wells and 67 CBNG wells). This represents an approximately 28-percent 

decrease from the baseline, or 27 fewer federal conventional wells and 36 fewer federal CBNG wells. 

Under Alternative F, 309 fewer federal wells (both conventional and CBNG) are expected to remain in 

production at the end of the planning period than projected in the baseline scenario. This represents an 
Leasable Minerals – Oil and Gas

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS 4‐27

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

approximately 9‐percent decrease.  Abandonment of federal wells is expected to decrease

(approximately 8 percent) from 957 wells under the baseline scenario to 885 wells under Alternative F

(BLM 2009c; BLM 2013p). The projected number of total producing wells at the end of the planning

period under Alternative F (3,054) would be less than under Alternative D (3,100), Alternative C (3,283),

and Alternative A (3,182), but more than under alternatives B and E (2,680).

Management of the Greater Sage‐Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC under Alternative F requires

additional consideration and mitigation of impacts for leased mineral estate similar to management of

Key Habitat Areas under Alternative E, but to a lesser degree (Map SEIS‐10).  Like Alternative E, the BLM

requires a full reclamation bond to insure restoration of disturbed areas to their original condition in the

Greater Sage‐Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC and places greater limitations on surface‐disturbing

activities.  Additional conservation measures and appropriate Fluid Mineral BMPs also apply in the

Greater Sage‐Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC on split estate.  However, unlike Alternative E, Alternative

F considers waivers to these stipulations where resource uses do not preclude the achievement of sage‐

grouse habitat objectives.

Under Alternative F, the BLM manages 2,398,483 acres as ROW avoidance/mitigation areas (slightly less

than Alternative D due to the smaller overall acreage of Core Habitat Areas in the Planning Area in

comparison to Key Habitat Areas) and 39,003 acres as ROW exclusion areas.  The management of ROW

avoidance/mitigation and exclusion areas would result in similar impacts to those described for

Alternative D, although to a greater extent due to additional limitations on ROW development that

require seasonal restrictions on construction of above‐ground powerlines or require use of buried

powerlines within the proposed Greater Sage‐Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC.  However, the BLM

anticipates that even with these additional restrictions, ROWs across BLM‐administered land would be

approved at the same rate as Alternative D, and impacts would be similar to Alternative D.

Similar to Alternative D, geophysical exploration is subject to limitations on motorized vehicle use and

restrictions on surface‐disturbing activities under Alternative F; however, Alternative F applies additional

limitations within the proposed Greater Sage‐Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC, where geophysical

exploration is allowed only by helicopter‐portable drilling methods in accordance with seasonal timing

restrictions.  Alternative F CTTM is the same as Alternative D, except that travel within greater sage‐

grouse Core Habitat Areas is limited to designated roads and trails.  Impacts from Alternative F would be

the same as Alternative D, except in Core Habitat Areas where impacts would be more adverse due to

additional access constraints.  As under all the management alternatives, authorized or permitted uses

that specify allowable access are not precluded by travel management designations.

Special Designations

Impacts to oil and gas exploration and development from special designations under Alternative F would

be the same as Alternative D, except within the Greater Sage‐Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC

(1,116,124 acres), where more adverse impacts would result due to additional restrictions on surface

disturbance, geophysical exploration, and motorized vehicle use.  Similar to Alternative D, the impacts

from this alternative would be more adverse than alternatives A and C, and less adverse than

alternatives B and E.  Table 4‐6 shows the acreages of closures due to special designations and other

management under this alternative.

Resources

Except for lands within the Greater Sage‐Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC, impacts to oil and gas

exploration and development from management actions to protect resources would be the same as

Alternative D.  In this ACEC, Alternative F applies an NSO stipulation within 0.6 mile of occupied or
Leasable Minerals – Other Solid Leasable Minerals

4-28 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

undetermined sage-grouse leks in this ACEC, whereas Alternative D applies a CSU stipulation. Overall, 

additional protections for greater sage-grouse under Alternative F would result in more adverse impacts 

to oil and gas development than alternatives A, C, and D, but less than alternatives B and E.

Proactive Management

The designation and management of Oil and Gas Management Areas under Alternative F is the same as 

for Alternative D (Map SEIS-11); however, in areas where the Oil and Gas Management Area is 

overlapped by the Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC, management for the latter would be 

applied, resulting in more adverse impacts to oil and gas exploration and development.

4.2.6 Leasable Minerals – Other Solid Leasable Minerals

4.2.6.1 Analysis of Alternatives

Under alternatives B, D, E, and F, known tar sand deposits/areas, including Sherard Dome and Trapper 

Canyon, would be administratively unavailable to leasing. However, the BLM does not anticipate new 

leasing or development of tar sands, or anticipates only minimal interest in these deposits, during the 

planning period. Therefore, the BLM anticipates only minimal adverse or beneficial impacts to the 

exploration or development of these resources under any alternative.

4.2.7 Salable Minerals

4.2.7.2 Summary of Impacts by Alternative

Principal impacts to the development of mineral materials (e.g., sand and gravel) result from 

management that prohibits or limits (adverse impacts) or opens (beneficial impact) areas to mineral 

materials disposal. Such management commonly includes restrictions on surface-disturbing activities or 

closures to mineral materials disposal. Alternative E would result in the greatest adverse impacts to 

mineral materials, as this alternative closes 3,153,255 acres to mineral materials disposal, including 

areas within 0.25 mile of riparian/wetland areas, LWCs managed to maintain their wilderness 

characteristics (565,868 acres), and some ACECs (1,386,566 acres). Closures under alternatives B 

(2,599,082), C (348,215 acres), A (231,854 acres), and D and F (184,193 acres) would result in decreasing 

adverse impacts to mineral materials disposal.

4.2.7.3 Detailed Analysis of Alternatives

Alternative E

Under Alternative E, closing public lands to mineral materials disposal would result in similar impacts as 

Alternative B, although to a greater extent because more land would be closed. Alternative E would 

close areas or prohibit surface disturbance, therefore prohibiting mineral materials disposal, on a total 

of 3,153,255 acres, or 75 percent, of federal mineral estate in the Planning Area (Map SEIS-12). 

Alternative E represents the largest acreage of mineral materials closures compared to the other 

alternatives, and approximately 93 percent more acreage than Alternative A.

Disposal of sand and gravel would be closed on 260,957 acres, or 30 percent, of the areas where there is 

a known occurrence of sand and gravel. About 2,180 acres, or 35 percent, of land with a moderate 

potential for occurrence of sand and gravel would be closed. The amount of area closed to sand and 
Salable Minerals

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS 4-29

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

gravel disposal in known and moderate potential areas is greater under Alternative E than under any 

other alternative, which would result in more adverse impacts to mineral materials than the other 

alternatives. Specifically, these additional closures to sand and gravel disposal may eliminate existing 

sources of sand and gravel in the area, requiring the sourcing of these minerals from more distant sites.

Resource Uses

Closing public lands to mineral materials disposal would result in similar impacts as those described for 

Alternative B, although to a greater extent due to the closure of the Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat 

Areas ACEC. Mineral materials closures outside this ACEC are the same as Alternative B, and impacts 

would be the same as Alternative B.

Special Designations

Management of special designations under Alternative E, except in the Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat 

Areas ACEC (1,231,383 acres), would be the same as Alternative B, and impacts would be similar to 

Alternative B. Due to the relative size and additional restrictions on surface-disturbing activities applied 

for the Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC, special designation management under Alternative 

E would result in the most adverse impacts to mineral materials disposal of any alternative.

Resources

Impacts to salable minerals from resource management actions would be similar to Alternative B, but 

slightly greater in the Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC due to additional limitations on 

surface disturbance and closure of the area to mineral materials disposal for the protection of greater 

sage-grouse. Greater long-term adverse impacts would result from the requirement that salable 

mineral pits no longer in use be restored to meet sage-grouse habitat conservation objectives under 

Alternative E.

Alternative F

Management of salable minerals under Alternative F is the same as Alternative D (Map SEIS-13), and 

impacts would be consistent with those described under Alternative D.

Resource Uses

Impacts from the management of mineral materials disposal and surface-disturbing activities under this 

alternative would be the same as Alternative D in areas outside the Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat 

Areas ACEC. More adverse impacts would occur inside the ACEC, where anthropogenic disturbances are 

limited to one per 640 acres and no greater than 3 percent loss of sagebrush habitat within this ACEC, 

compared to 5 percent under Alternative D. This alternative would therefore result in greater adverse 

impacts to salable minerals than Alternative D, but less than alternatives A, B, and E, which close more 

areas to mineral materials disposal.

Special Designations

Impacts to mineral materials disposal from special designations under Alternative F would be the same 

as Alternative D, except within the Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC (1,116,124 acres), 

where more adverse impacts would result due to additional restrictions on surface disturbance.
Wildfires (Unplanned Ignitions)

4-30 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Resources

Impacts to salable minerals from resource management actions would be similar to Alternative D, but 

slightly more adverse within the Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC due to additional 

limitations on surface disturbance. Similar to greater sage-grouse Key Habitat Areas under Alternative E, 

greater long-term adverse impacts would result from the requirement that salable mineral pits no 

longer in use be restored to meet sage-grouse habitat conservation objectives.

4.3 Fire and Fuels Management

4.3.1 Wildfires (Unplanned Ignitions)

4.3.1.2 Summary of Impacts by Alternative

All alternatives use wildland fire to restore fire-adapted ecosystems and reduce hazardous fuels. 

Alternative C would result in the greatest potential for adverse impacts from human caused, unplanned 

ignitions due to increased access and additional travel routes. Conversely, Alternative C would also 

result in the greatest beneficial impacts from active fuels management (i.e., this alternative allows the 

widest use of fuels treatments) and the greatest ability to employ fire suppression tactics, followed by 

alternatives A, D, F, B, and E. Alternative C includes the greatest amount of mechanical fuels treatments 

by acreage (60,000 acres), followed by alternatives A, D, and F (30,000 acres each), and alternatives B 

and E (5,000 acres each), resulting in beneficial impacts to fire and fuels management by reducing fuels 

and thereby the potential for fire spread and severity. Fire suppression restrictions (e.g., prohibiting the 

use of heavy equipment on fragile soils) increase the potential for wildfire spread in the short term and 

may increase the need for stabilization and rehabilitation as more wildfires occur. However, intensive 

fire suppression that reduces the natural role of fire in the ecosystem may result in large catastrophic 

wildfires in the long term that require more intensive stabilization and rehabilitation activities. Under all 

of the alternatives, implementing the BLM Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation standards in the 

United States Department of the Interior (DOI) Interagency Burned Area Emergency Response 

Guidebook (DOI 2006) and BLM Burned Area Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation Handbook (BLM 

2007) would prescribe activities that would allow rehabilitation of areas following a wildfire and reduce 

the potential for future fires in burned areas.

4.3.1.3 Detailed Analysis of Alternatives

Alternative E

Surface Disturbance

Adverse impacts to fire and fuels management from surface disturbance would be the same as 

alternatives A and B, but to a lesser degree. Under Alternative E, the BLM manages anthropogenic 

disturbances (e.g., roads, oil and gas wells, and pipelines) in greater sage-grouse Key Habitat Areas to 

not exceed one disturbance per 640 acres and cover less than 3 percent of the total sage-grouse habitat, 

compared to a larger allowable disturbance of 5 percent in these areas under Alternative B. This 

restrictive management could reduce potential disturbance-related invasive species spread and 

subsequent increases in fire severity when compared to the other alternatives. Among the alternatives, 

Alternative E would result in the least amount of short- and long-term surface disturbance on BLMadministered land (71,799 acres and 10,787 acres, respectively; Table 4-1).
Wildfires (Unplanned Ignitions)

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS 4-31

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Restrictions from Resources and Special Designations

Under Alternative E, management actions restricting fire suppression, fuels management, or wildland 

fire planning would result in the greatest adverse impacts to wildland fire management. In general, 

restrictions on fire management for the protection of resource objectives are greater under Alternative 

E than under the other alternatives. Under Alternative E, the BLM designs and implements fuels 

treatments in the Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC (1,231,383 acres) with an emphasis on 

protecting existing sagebrush ecosystems and the benefits of fuel breaks would be evaluated against the 

additional loss of sagebrush cover. In greater sage-grouse Key Habitat Areas, sagebrush canopy cover 

may not be reduced to less than 15 percent unless a fuels management objective requires an additional 

reduction in sagebrush cover to meet strategic protection of priority sage-grouse habitat and conserve 

habitat quality for the species. Additional limits on fuels management (based on habitat type and 

invasive species composition) also apply in the Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC under 

Alternative E, but with exceptions to allow fuels treatments that would limit wildfire risk. In areas 

outside of the Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC, fire suppression and fuels management are 

the same as Alternative B, and impacts to fire and fuels management would be the same as described 

under that alternative.

Visual Resource Management (VRM) under Alternative E is the same as Alternative B, and impacts to fire 

and fuels management would be the same as Alternative B.

Resource Uses

Under Alternative E, management actions for minerals would have similar impacts as alternatives A and 

B, though to a lesser degree due to additional restrictions on minerals development under Alternative E.

Identifying specific disposal and acquisition zones would result in similar impacts as Alternative B, 

though to a lesser extent since Alternative E identifies fewer areas for disposal.

Management of utility corridors under Alternative E is the same as Alternative B, and impacts to fire and 

fuels management would be the same as Alternative B. Alternative E manages more acreage as ROW 

exclusion areas than any other alternative, which would reduce the prevalence of fuel breaks and fire 

lines but would also decrease human presence and the potential for unplanned ignitions to a greater 

degree than under the other alternatives. Impacts to fire and fuels management from the management 

of forests, woodlands, and forest products; travel and transportation; recreation; and livestock grazing 

under Alternative E would be the same as Alternative B. As under Alternative B, closure of the greater 

sage-grouse Key Habitat Areas to livestock grazing may contribute to a buildup of fine fuels, which 

would facilitate the spread of larger wildland fire in the short term; however, the return to a more 

natural fire regime would reduce the potential for larger catastrophic wildfires in the long term.

Proactive Management

Under Alternative E, response to wildland fires, mechanical fuels treatment, and use of wildland fires to 

achieve management objectives are the same as Alternative B for areas outside of the Greater SageGrouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC, and impacts to fire and fuels management would be the same as 

Alternative B. Inside the Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC, Alternative E focuses fuels 

treatments on interfaces with human habitation or significant existing disturbances, designs fuels 

management projects to reduce wildland fires, and applies seasonal restrictions for implementing fuels 

management treatments according to the type of seasonal habitats present. Compared to the other 

alternatives, management methods applied under Alternative E for the protection of greater sagegrouse may result in the greatest short-term adverse impact to fire and fuels management by limiting 
Wildfires (Unplanned Ignitions)

4-32 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

the types of treatments used, but would decrease the risk of large, catastrophic fires in the long-term 

through a return to natural fire regimes.

Alternative F

Surface Disturbance

Adverse impacts to fire and fuels management from surface disturbance under Alternative F would be 

greater than those described under Alternative A, but less than under Alternative D. Management 

practices relating to surface disturbance are the same as Alternative D, except within areas of the 

proposed Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC (1,116,124 acres). In this ACEC, the BLM 

manages the density of disturbance to not exceed an average of one disruptive activity location per 640 

acres and cover less than 3 percent of the total sage-grouse habitat, compared to a larger allowable 

disturbance of 5 percent in under Alternative D. This management would reduce potential disturbancerelated invasive species spread and subsequent increases in fire severity when compared to Alternative 

D. Total short- and long-term surface disturbances on BLM-administered land under Alternative F would 

be 137,568 acres and 17,866 acres, respectively (Table 4-1).

Restrictions from Resources and Special Designations

Special designations under Alternative F would result in similar adverse impacts to fire and fuels 

management as those under alternatives A and D, but to a greater degree due to additional protections 

for other resource objectives within the Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC. Similar to 

Alternative E, Alternative F designs and implements fuels treatments in the Greater Sage-Grouse Core 

Habitat Areas ACEC (1,116,124 acres) with an emphasis on protecting existing sagebrush ecosystems 

and the benefits of fuel breaks would be evaluated against the additional loss of sagebrush cover. In 

greater sage-grouse Core Habitat Areas, sagebrush canopy cover may not be reduced to less than 15 

percent unless a fuels management objective requires additional reduction in sagebrush cover to meet 

strategic protection of priority sage-grouse habitat and conserve habitat quality for the species. 

Additional limits on fuels management would also apply in the Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas 

ACEC under Alternative F, including seasonal restrictions for implementing fuels management 

treatments.

In areas outside of the Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC, management for fire suppression 

and fuels management are the same as Alternative D, and impacts to fire and fuels management would 

be the same as Alternative D.

VRM under Alternative F is the same as under Alternative D, and impacts to fire and fuels management 

would be the same as Alternative D.

Resource Uses

Under Alternative F, mineral resource exploration and development would have similar impacts as 

Alternative D, though to a lesser degree due to decreased minerals development projected under 

Alternative F.

Impacts to fire and fuels management from travel and transportation management under Alternative F 

would be similar to Alternative D, but to a lesser degree because travel is limited to designated roads 

and trails on a larger acreage under Alternative F.

Overall, impacts from livestock grazing management on wildfires would be similar to under Alternative 

D, and reduced compared to impacts under alternatives B and E that close greater-sage grouse Key 

Habitat Areas to livestock grazing and may increase the potential for wildfires from fine fuel buildups. 
Prescribed Fires (Planned Ignitions)

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS 4-33

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Alternative F focuses on implementing grazing management to strategically reduce fine fuels in greater 

sage-grouse Core Habitat Areas (35 percent of BLM-administered surface lands), and could reduce the 

potential for wildfires in the long term in these areas.

Impacts to fire and fuels management from the management of forests, woodlands, and forest 

products; lands and realty; ROWs; recreation; and livestock grazing under Alternative F are the same as 

those described under Alternative D.

Proactive Management

Under Alternative F, the response to wildland fire mechanical fuels treatment and use of wildland fires 

to achieve management objectives are the same as Alternative D for areas outside of the Greater SageGrouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC, and impacts to fire and fuels management would be the same as 

Alternative D. Inside the Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC, Alternative F designs fuels 

management projects to reduce wildland fires and apply seasonal restrictions for implementing fuels 

management treatments according to the type of seasonal habitats present. Compared to the other 

alternatives, management methods applied under Alternative F for the protection of greater sagegrouse may result in more adverse impacts to fire and fuels management when compared to 

alternatives A, C, and D by limiting the types of treatments used.

4.3.2 Prescribed Fires (Planned Ignitions)

4.3.2.2 Summary of Impacts by Alternative

The use of prescribed fire to achieve measurable objectives and to reduce fuel loading would result in 

beneficial impacts to fire and fuels management. Conversely, restricting the use of prescribed fire 

would result in adverse impacts to fire and fuels management, such as the ability to reduce fuel loads. 

Limiting the use of prescribed fire may also affect the ability of the fire and fuels program to meet fire 

management goals. Alternative E would restrict the use of prescribed fire the most, followed by 

alternatives B, D, F, A, and C, respectively. Alternative C would result in the greatest beneficial impacts 

to fire and fuels management from the use of prescribed fire compared to the other alternatives. 

Alternative C would impose the fewest restrictions on the use of prescribed fire, resulting in the 

application of prescribed fire on a projected 80,000 acres over the life of the plan, followed by 

alternatives A, D, and F (40,000 acres each), Alternative B (20,000 acres), and Alternative E (18,000 

acres). Alternatives D and F also emphasize the use of prescribed fire to meet resource management 

objectives, but apply greater restrictions on its use compared to Alternative C.

4.3.2.3 Detailed Analysis of Alternatives

Alternative E

Surface Disturbance

Surface disturbance may result in the establishment of invasive species, which increases the potential 

for fire occurrence and spread. In areas where invasive species become established or spread after 

surface disturbance, the BLM may use prescribed fire as a management tool to reduce these fuels. 

Section 4.3.1 Wildfire describes total surface-disturbance acreages and compares alternatives.

Implementing Alternative E is projected to result in 18,000 acres of short-term surface disturbance on 

BLM-administered land from prescribed fires (Appendix T). Short-term surface disturbance from 
Prescribed Fires (Planned Ignitions)

4-34 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

prescribed fire under Alternative E is projected to be the least of all the alternatives; no long-term 

disturbance is projected.

Restrictions from Resources and Special Designations

Restrictions that limit or prohibit prescribed fire for the protection of resource values would result in 

similar impacts to those described under Alternative A, though to a greater degree. In general, 

management under Alternative E focuses on the protection and conservation of resources and resource 

values. Under Alternative E, restrictions on surface-disturbing activities for the protection of resources 

that limit or prohibit prescribed fire would be the greatest among the alternatives.

Alternative E includes the largest acreage of special designations where management is prescribed for 

the protection of resource values; as a result, prescribed fire and other fuels treatments are decreased 

in these areas more than under the other alternatives. Seasonal fuels treatment stipulations in ACECs 

under Alternative E are similar to Alternative B except in the Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas 

ACEC, which includes seasonal restrictions on fuels treatments. Alternative E also prohibits the use of 

fire to treat sagebrush in portions of greater sage-grouse Key Habitat Areas located in less than 12-inch 

precipitation zones. For ACECs and other special designations outside the Greater Sage-Grouse Key 

Habitat Areas ACEC, management of and impacts to prescribed fire use would be the same as 

Alternative B.

Overall, management of special designations under Alternative E would result in similar impacts to 

private lands to those described under Alternative B, but to a greater extent due to a larger area of 

special designations with restrictions on fuels treatments and a correspondingly increased likelihood of 

fire spreading from public lands with high fuel loads to adjacent private lands.

Resource Uses

Under Alternative E, impacts to prescribed fire from management for ROWs and minerals development 

would result in similar impacts as those described under Alternative A, though to a lesser degree due to 

additional restrictions on these activities in the Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC. Outside 

the Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC, ROW and minerals management under Alternative E 

are the same as Alternative B, and impacts to prescribed fire management would be the same as 

Alternative B.

Proactive Management

Alternative E uses prescribed fire and other vegetative treatments to restore fire-adapted ecosystems 

for natural resource systems and to reduce hazardous fuels in a similar manner to Alternative B. 

Therefore, impacts to prescribed fire management would be the same as Alternative B except within the 

Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC.

In the Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC (1,231,383 acres), Alternative E places additional 

restrictions on the use of prescribed fire including prohibiting fuels treatments in known winter range 

unless the treatments are designed to strategically reduce wildfire risk around or in the winter range 

and restrict the use of fire to treat sagebrush in less than 12-inch precipitation zones (e.g., Wyoming big 

sagebrush or other sagebrush species). However, if as a last resort and after all other treatment 

opportunities have been explored and site specific variables allow, the use of prescribed fire for fuel 

breaks that would disrupt the fuel continuity across the landscape could be considered in stands where 

cheatgrass is a very minor component in the understory (Brown 1982). Based on prescribed measures, 

Alternative E would monitor and control invasive vegetation post-treatment and require use of native 
Prescribed Fires (Planned Ignitions)

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS 4-35

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

seeds for fuels management treatment based on availability, adaptation (site potential), and probability 

of success.

Alternative F

Surface Disturbance

Surface disturbance may result in the establishment of invasive species, which increases the potential 

for fire occurrence and spread. In areas where invasive species become established or spread after 

surface disturbance, the BLM may use prescribed fire as a management tool to reduce these fuels. 

Section 4.3.1 Wildfire describes total surface-disturbance acreages and compares alternatives.

Alternative F is projected to result in the same acreage of short- and long-term surface disturbance on 

BLM-administered land from prescribed fire as alternatives A and D (Appendix T).

Restrictions from Resources and Special Designations

Under Alternative F, restrictions on surface-disturbing activities for the protection of resources that limit 

or prohibit prescribed fire are greater than under alternatives A, C, and D, but less than under 

alternatives B and E. Impacts resulting from restrictions that limit or prohibit prescribed fire would be 

similar to Alternative D, but to a greater degree due to the additional acreage with special designations 

under Alternative F.

Seasonal stipulations on fuel treatments under Alternative F would result in similar impacts to fire and 

fuels management as those under Alternative D, but to a greater degree overall because seasonal 

stipulations are placed on an additional 1,116,124 acres in the Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas 

ACEC.

In areas outside of the Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC, management for the use of 

prescribed fire is the same as Alternative D, and impacts to fire and fuels management would be the 

same as Alternative D.

Resource Uses

Minerals development under Alternative F would result in similar beneficial impacts to prescribed fire as 

alternatives A and D, though to a lesser degree due to additional restrictions on these activities in the 

Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC. Utility corridors designated under Alternative F would 

result in beneficial impacts similar to those described under alternatives A and D, and to a greater 

degree than alternatives B and E. Under Alternative F, lands managed as ROW avoidance/mitigation 

and exclusion areas are similar to Alternative D (ROW avoidance/mitigation areas are based on greater 

sage-grouse Key Habitat Areas under Alternative D and Core Habitat Areas under Alternative F), and 

impacts would be similar to those listed under Alternative D.

Proactive Management

Under Alternative F, the BLM uses prescribed fire to a similar extent as under Alternative D, but with 

greater emphasis on using prescribed fire to accomplish resource management objectives. Impacts to 

prescribed fire management would be similar to those described under alternatives A and D except 

within the Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC.

In the Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC (1,116,124 acres), Alternative F would place 

additional restrictions on the use of prescribed fire including prohibiting fuels treatments in known 

greater sage-grouse winter range unless the treatments are designed to strategically reduce wildfire risk

around or in the winter range. Within greater sage-grouse Core Habitat Areas, Alternative F also limits 
Stabilization and Rehabilitation

4-36 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

the use of fire to treat sagebrush in areas receiving less than 12 inches of annual precipitation, and 

designs post-fuels management projects to ensure long-term persistence of seeded or pre-treatment 

native plants.

In areas outside the Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC, prescribed fire management would 

be the same as Alternative D, and impacts to fire and fuels management would be the same as

Alternative D.

4.3.3 Stabilization and Rehabilitation

4.3.3.2 Summary of Impacts by Alternative

The principal impacts to stabilization and rehabilitation in relation to fire and fuels management result 

from management that affects the occurrence and spread of wildfire, and management that limits or 

restricts rehabilitation and stabilization tactics or activity. Under all alternatives, the BLM would 

conduct stabilization and rehabilitation consistent with BLM policy and guidance and in accordance with 

the Northern Zone Fire Management Plan (FMP). An increase in fire suppression restrictions associated 

with wildfire management (as described in Section 4.3.1 Wildfire) that increases the potential for 

wildfire occurrence and spread in the short term may increase the need for stabilization and 

rehabilitation as more wildfires occur. However, intensive fire suppression that reduces the natural role 

of fire in the ecosystem may result in large catastrophic wildfires in the long term that require more

intensive stabilization and rehabilitation activities. Restrictions on wildfire suppression are greatest 

under alternatives B and E. There are no restrictions or limitations on stabilization and rehabilitation in 

specific areas under any of the alternatives.

4.3.3.3 Detailed Analysis of Alternatives

Alternative E

Under Alternative E, the BLM would perform stabilization and rehabilitation consistent with the BLM 

Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation standards in the DOI Interagency Burned Area Emergency 

Response Guidebook (DOI 2006) and BLM Burned Area Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation 

Handbook (BLM 2007).

Alternative E also provides separate management for stabilization and rehabilitation activities in the 

Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC. In greater sage-grouse Key Habitat Areas, Alternative E 

would design post-fuels management projects (including emergency stabilization and rehabilitation 

management) to ensure long-term persistence of seeded or pre-treatment native plants. This may 

require temporary or long-term changes in livestock grazing management, wild horse and burro 

management, travel management, or other activities to achieve and maintain the desired condition of 

the fuels management project. Alternative E would also provide management to consider potential 

changes in climate when proposing post-fire seedlings and consider seed collections from the warmer 

component within a species’ current range for selection of native seed.

In addition, under Alternative E, the BLM may carry forward stabilization and rehabilitation activities and 

monitoring identified in the Northern Zone FMP, with impacts similar to Alternative A.
Stabilization and Rehabilitation

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS 4-37

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Alternative F

Under Alternative F, the BLM would perform stabilization and rehabilitation consistent with the BLM 

Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation standards in the DOI Interagency Burned Area Emergency 

Response Guidebook (DOI 2006) and BLM Burned Area Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation 

Handbook (BLM 2007).

Alternative F also provides separate management for stabilization and rehabilitation activities in the 

Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC. In the ACEC, Alternative F would design post-fuels 

management projects to ensure long-term persistence of seeded or pre-treatment native plants to 

reestablish disturbed areas with healthy native or desired plant communities based on pre-disturbance 

conditions or desired species composition. This may require temporary or long-term changes in 

livestock grazing management, wild horse and burro management, travel management, or other 

activities to achieve and maintain the desired condition of the fuels management project. Similar to 

Alternative E, Alternative F would provide management to consider potential changes in climate when 

proposing post-fire seedlings using native plants. Seed collections from the warmer component within a 

species’ current range would be considered under Alternative F.

Under Alternative F, post-fire stabilization and rehabilitation activities in the Greater Sage-Grouse Core 

Habitat Areas ACEC would also include the establishment of exclosures (free of livestock grazing) that 

would be used to assess recovery. Livestock grazing would be excluded from burned areas until woody 

and herbaceous plants achieve sage-grouse habitat objectives. Lastly, where burned sage-grouse 

habitat cannot be fenced from other unburned habitat, the entire area (e.g., allotment/pasture) should 

be close to grazing until recovered.

Under Alternative F, the BLM may carry forward stabilization and rehabilitation activities and monitoring 

identified in the Northern Zone FMP, with impacts similar to Alternative A.

4.4 Biological Resources

Vegetation Resources

Summary of Impacts by Alternative

Certain types of management that restrict surface-disturbing activities and other resource uses would 

generally protect vegetation communities. Table 4-8 provides an overview of select protective 

management actions by alternative for each plant community in the Planning Area. The purpose of this 

table is to provide a broad overview comparison of the alternatives. The proceeding sections further 

discuss the effects of these and other management actions for each plant community.
Stabilization and Rehabilitation

4-38 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

NOTE: Replace Table 4-8 of the Draft RMP and Draft EIS (pages 4-108 to 4-109) with the following table.

Table 4-8. Comparison of Acres of Protective Management by Alternative Encompassing 

Different Plant Communities

Protective 

Management

Alternative

Plant Community

Forests and 

Woodlands Grasslands

Nonnative 

Annual 

Brome

Riparian Sagebrush Salt Desert 

Shrub

Locatable 

Minerals -

Closed

A 15,670 6,963 114 1,610 19,175 15,226

B 46,582 21,941 114 2,346 124,819 66,563

C 4,274 1,519 0 1,327 7,915 8,264

D 5,171 2,881 114 1,609 17,303 15,381

E 145,322 28,433 29,794 15,729 1,136,811 363,867

F 5,171 2,881 114 1,609 17,303 15,381

Oil and Gas 

Constraints -

Closed

A 17,499 8,922 30 569 45,985 80,243

B 236,801 55,571 31,961 18,764 1,289,779 615,011

C 14,353 8,116 30 564 42,842 80,243

D 59,007 23,420 30 1,533 126,378 77,670

E 236,801 55,571 31,961 18,764 1,289,779 615,011

F 59,007 23,420 30 1,533 126,378 77,670

Oil and Gas 

Constraints -

Major

A 212,220 58,472 32,018 36,970 791,774 226,757

B 191,321 64,733 12,484 18,775 528,006 428,071

C 34,905 7,671 1,166 36,925 70,882 53,184

D 14,850 664 0 33,719 23,023 34,851

E 191,321 64,733 12,484 18,775 528,006 428,071

F 19,645 1,399 6,114 33,719 138,944 46,719

Oil and Gas 

Constraints -

Moderate

A 181,199 55,609 9,556 0 800,764 702,880

B 37,430 35,566 2,016 0 84,996 273,000

C 254,658 71,036 34,040 49 1,127,262 641,005

D 366,009 96,757 46,530 2,227 1,697,541 1,222,109

E 37,430 35,566 2,016 0 84,996 273,000

F 361,214 96,061 40,416 2,227 1,581,620 1,210,241

ROW -

Exclusion

A 4,661 1,819 653 24,036 16,513 12,023

B 26,820 6,347 5,754 2,443 136,239 39,024

C 19 0 0 1,366 253 5,091

D 1,048 48 0 2,218 4,316 23,977

E 90,770 12,104 26,201 12,641 856,305 294,743

F 1,048 48 0 2,218 4,316 23,977

Lands with 

Wilderness 

Characteristics1

A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

B 48,987 19,175 938 6,835 201,007 271,671

C N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

D 16,948 10,381 0 221 19,624 1,581

E 48,987 19,175 938 6,835 201,007 271,671

F 16,948 10,381 0 221 19,624 1,581
Stabilization and Rehabilitation

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS 4-39

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Table 4-8. Comparison of Acres of Protective Management by Alternative Encompassing 

Different Plant Communities

Protective 

Management

Alternative

Plant Community

Forests and 

Woodlands Grasslands

Nonnative 

Annual 

Brome

Riparian Sagebrush Salt Desert 

Shrub

Livestock 

Grazing -

Closed

A 384 45 9 1,885 609 1,900

B 209,914 44,658 33,806 19,655 1,137,889 504,989

C 384 45 9 1,885 609 1,899

D 384 45 9 1,885 609 1,900

E 209,914 44,658 33,806 19,655 1,137,889 504,989

F 384 45 9 1,885 609 1,900

ACEC A 18,388 11,265 0 281 28,230 6,780

B 68,398 14,915 0 1,059 141,642 65,926

C 3,202 1,519 0 0 7,362 0

D 26,924 12,718 0 357 42,736 14,033

E 128,747 19,863 23,950 11,112 897,566 329,604

F 106,436 16,949 33,710 8,535 803,002 200,239

WSR A 9,224 5,139 0 1,380 10,886 0

B 9,224 5,139 0 1,380 10,886 0

C N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

D N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

E 9,224 5,139 0 1,380 10,886 0

F N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

WSAs A 10,919 6,766 30 563 42,727 81,355

B 10,919 6,766 30 563 42,727 81,355

C 10,919 6,766 30 563 42,727 81,355

D 10,919 6,766 30 563 42,727 81,355

E 10,919 6,766 30 563 42,727 81,355

F 10,919 6,766 30 563 42,727 81,355

Sources: BLM 2008b; BLM 2009b; BLM2013o

1 Includes only LWCs managed to maintain their wilderness characteristics

N/A not applicable

ACEC Area of Critical Environmental Concern

LWC Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

ROW rights-of-way 

WSA Wilderness Study Area

WSR Wild and Scenic River
Vegetation – Forests, Woodlands, and Forest Products

4-40 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

4.4.1 Vegetation – Forests, Woodlands, and Forest Products

4.4.1.2 Summary of Impacts by Alternative

Impacts to forests, woodlands, and forest products would result from surface-disturbing activities or 

actions that increase the chance of catastrophic wildfire or degrade forest health through increased 

erosion and disease. Surface disturbance would adversely affect forests and woodlands under all 

alternatives, but would have the greatest impact under Alternative C, followed by alternatives D, F, A, B, 

and E. Alternative C would also place the fewest restrictions on motorized vehicle use and new road 

construction, which, in addition to increasing erosion, would increase the risk of unplanned ignitions and 

unauthorized woodcutting that would degrade forest health. Beneficial impacts to forests and 

woodlands would result from more intense forest management practices and silvicultural treatments 

that would improve forest health and reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfires, which pose the greatest 

threat to forests and woodlands. Forest products would also benefit from similar treatments that 

increase the availability of commercially viable stands. Alternative C, followed by alternatives D and F,

A, and B and E, implements the largest number of silvicultural practices and other treatments to actively 

manage forests and woodlands. Beneficial impacts would also result from management actions that 

restrict surface-disturbing activities within certain specially managed areas, such as ACECs, where 

forests and woodlands are present. However, such actions may also limit silvicultural treatments in 

certain areas. Alternative E manages the most acres of forests and woodlands within ACECs, followed 

by alternatives F, B, D, A, and C. Therefore, while Alternative E would result in the least surfacedisturbing activities that may affect forests and woodlands, it would also place the most restrictions on 

proactive management that would improve forest health and reduce the risk of catastrophic fire.

4.4.1.3 Detailed Analysis of Alternatives

Alternative E

Surface Disturbance

Alternative E would result in 47 percent less acreage of long-term surface disturbance that may 

contribute to the decline in abundance, distribution, or health of forests and woodlands than Alternative 

A (Table 4-1), and a similar but slightly smaller acreage of surface disturbance than Alternative B. Under 

Alternative E, surface-disturbing activities that may contribute to the decline in abundance, distribution, 

or health of forests and woodlands would be the same as Alternative B, except for areas within the 

Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC. In this ACEC, the BLM manages anthropogenic 

disturbances (e.g., roads, oil and gas wells, pipelines, etc.) to not exceed one disturbance per 640 acres 

and cover less than 3 percent of the total priority sage-grouse habitat, compared to a larger allowable 

disturbance of 5 percent in these areas under Alternative B; this additional surface disturbance 

restriction would result in greater beneficial effects than under Alternative B, as the Greater SageGrouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC encompasses areas of forests and woodlands in addition to sagebrush 

steppe (shrubland) vegetation. Alternative E would involve the same acreage (20,000 acres) of shortterm surface disturbance from silvicultural treatments as Alternative B.
Vegetation – Forests, Woodlands, and Forest Products

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS 4-41

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Resource Uses

Under Alternative E, oil, gas, and other minerals development would result in 17,327 acres of short-term 

surface disturbance (Appendix T), a portion of which may adversely impact forests and woodlands by 

contributing to a decline in abundance, distribution, or health of these areas. Impacts from mineral 

development under Alternative E would be the same as Alternative B, but the location of development 

may vary due to greater limitations on surface disturbance within the Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat 

Areas ACEC under Alternative E. As with Alternative B, the majority of the impacts would be temporary 

during the life of the operation with most areas of disturbance reclaimed following closure of 

operations.

Management of motorized vehicle use and livestock grazing are similar to Alternative B, and impacts to 

forests and woodlands under Alternative E would therefore be similar to those described under 

Alternative B. Compared to Alternative A, limitations and closures to motorized vehicle use for resource 

protection, including seasonal motorized vehicle closures in greater sage-grouse Key Habitat Areas and 

for the protection of big game species, would result in beneficial impacts to forests and woodlands under 

Alternative E.

Special Designations

Special designations under Alternative E are the same as Alternative B, with the exception of an 

additional 1,231,383 acres of BLM-administered land in the Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas 

ACEC. As a result, the BLM would manage a greater portion of forests and woodlands in the Planning 

Area with special designation areas under Alternative E (see Table 4-8). Overall, the relative size and 

additional restrictions on surface-disturbing activities in special designation areas under Alternative E 

would create more short-term beneficial impacts to forests, woodlands, and forest products than the 

other alternatives.

Resources

Under Alternative E, fire and fuels management practices and impacts are the same as Alternative B, 

with the exception of lands within the Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC, which would be 

managed with an emphasis on protecting existing sagebrush ecosystems. In general, fuels treatments 

would be minimized in greater sage-grouse Key Habitat Areas and focused instead on interfaces with 

human habitation or significant existing disturbances. The build-up of fuels from limitations on fire 

management activities under Alternative E, which restricts the use of fire to treat sagebrush in less than 

12-inch precipitation zones, may increase the potential for catastrophic fires in forest and woodland 

vegetation in the short term, but may decrease the risk of catastrophic fire in the long term through a 

return to more natural fire regimes. However, effects from the additional restrictions in this ACEC may 

be limited since its management also requires strategically and effectively designed fuels treatments to 

reduce wildfire to the greatest extent possible, potentially resulting in attempts to address areas of 

inadequate fuels treatments before catastrophic wildfires begin.

Vegetation management would be the same as Alternative B, with exception of lands within the Greater 

Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC, where management would emphasize the restoration and 

preservation of native sagebrush ecosystems to create a landscape pattern that most benefits sagegrouse. Activities in this ACEC that control juniper encroachment or stimulate herbaceous growth at 

interfaces with sagebrush habitats may also adversely impact forests and woodlands under Alternative 

E. As a whole, vegetation and fire management practices under Alternative E may result in short-term 

adverse impacts to forests and woodlands by restricting activities that could improve forest health (e.g., 

fuels reduction) and allow the collection of forest products.
Vegetation – Forests, Woodlands, and Forest Products

4-42 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Proactive Management

Forest and woodland management under Alternative E is the same as Alternative B, and impacts to 

forests and woodlands would be the same as Alternative B.

Alternative F

Surface Disturbance

Impacts to forests and woodlands from surface disturbances under Alternative F are projected to be 

greater than alternatives A, B, and E, but less than alternatives C and D. Alternative F would result in 

approximately 12 percent more acreage of long-term surface disturbance that may contribute to the 

decline in abundance, distribution, or health of forests and woodlands than Alternative A. Management 

practices relating to surface disturbance would be the same as Alternative D, except within areas of the 

proposed Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC (1,116,124 acres). In this ACEC, the density of 

disturbance would not exceed an average of one disruptive activity location per 640 acres and cover less 

than 3 percent of the greater sage-grouse Core Habitat Areas, compared to a larger allowable 

disturbance of 5 percent under Alternative D. This additional restrictive management over that large 

ACEC (35 percent of BLM-administered surface land) would generally provide a short-term benefit to 

forest and woodland resources by limiting the size and extent of disturbances, but may reduce the 

ability to control insects and disease and may increase the potential for catastrophic fire in the area 

compared to alternatives A and D. However, in general the BLM anticipates Alternative F would result in 

the same acreage (30,000 acres) of short-term surface disturbance from silvicultural treatments as 

Alternative D, though the location of those treatments under Alternative F may vary due to the 

additional restrictions on anthropogenic disturbances.

Resource Uses

Alternative F manages mineral resource exploration, development, and extraction similar to Alternative 

D, and impacts to forests and woodlands would be similar to Alternative D. However, Alternative F 

places additional restrictions on mineral development, including limiting disturbances to one per 640 

acres and 3 percent or less of the greater sage-grouse Core Habitat Areas. This additional restrictive 

management would reduce impacts from surface disturbance compared to alternatives C and D, but not 

compared to alternatives A, B, or E.

Management of motorized vehicle use under Alternative F would provide greater protections for forests 

and woodlands than under alternatives A, C, and D, but fewer protections than under alternatives B and 

E. Alternative F manages motorized vehicle use the same as Alternative D, except within the Greater 

Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC, where such travel is limited to designated roads and trails, 

reducing potential adverse impacts compared to Alternative D. Under Alternative F, disturbances 

associated with the creation of new roads and trails is projected to be less than alternatives A, C, and D, 

but higher than under alternatives B and E. Additional limitations on motorized vehicle use would have 

greater adverse impacts on forest products than alternatives A, C, and D, but less than alternatives B 

and E. As stated under Alternative A, authorized or permitted uses that specify allowable access are not 

affected by travel management designations.

Special Designations

Special designations under Alternative F are the same as Alternative D, with the exception of an 

additional 1,116,124 acres of BLM-administered land in the Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas 

ACEC. Overall, the relative size and additional restrictions on surface-disturbing activities in special 
Vegetation – Grassland and Shrubland Communities

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS 4-43

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

designation areas under Alternative F would result in greater short-term beneficial impacts to forests 

and woodlands than Alternative D.

Resources

Fire and fuels management would result in impacts to forests and woodlands similar to those under 

alternatives A and D, except in the Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC. Additional 

restrictions on fuels treatment and prescribed fire in this ACEC would prioritize the conservation and 

restoration of native sagebrush habitats over other priorities, and would design and implement fuels 

treatments with an emphasis on protecting existing sagebrush ecosystems. Additional restrictions on 

where and how fuels treatments are implemented may increase the build-up of fuels under Alternative 

F and increase the potential for catastrophic fire in the short-term; however, the extent of this build-up 

may be limited due to management under this alternative that designs treatments to reduce wildfire to 

the greatest extent possible. Overall, specific management actions to protect wildlife, special status 

species, and their habitats under Alternative F would result in more adverse impacts to forests, 

woodlands, and forest products than alternatives A, C, and D, but fewer than alternatives B and E.

Proactive Management

Under Alternative F, management of forests and woodlands is the same as Alternative D, and the 

impacts would be the same as Alternative D.

4.4.2 Vegetation – Grassland and Shrubland Communities

4.4.2.2 Summary of Impacts by Alternative

Adverse impacts to grassland and shrubland communities would result from surface-disturbing activities 

and other actions that alter the distribution and abundance of grassland and shrubland communities 

and change the community structure and diversity. Therefore, management actions that result in more 

surface disturbance would result in more adverse impacts to these communities. Alternative C would 

involve the most surface disturbance to grassland and shrubland communities, followed by alternatives 

D, F, A, B, and E. Other adverse impacts may result from concentrated livestock grazing that compacts 

soil and degrades the health of vegetation communities. However, proper grazing practices would 

reduce the potential for these impacts and may improve resource conditions in certain areas. Under 

alternatives B and E, allotment monitoring practices, Allotment Management Plan (AMP) development, 

livestock flushing practices, and rangeland improvements would cause the fewest adverse impacts to 

grassland and shrubland communities, but would also restrict grazing from certain areas where it could 

be used as a management tool to improve resource conditions.

Reclamation practices under Alternative E would facilitate the restoration of disturbed areas the most, 

followed by alternatives B, F, D, A, and C. Special designations and other resource programs under 

alternatives B and E protect the most grasslands and shrublands from surface disturbance and 

degradation due to off-road motorized vehicle use, followed by alternatives F, D, A, and C. However, 

Alternative E would involve the least amount of treatment to prevent wildfires and eradicate invasive 

species. Alternatives A, D, F, and C allow for more treatment of grassland and shrubland communities, 

but overall, adverse impacts due to surface disturbance under these alternatives are likely to be greater 

than under Alternative E. Alternative C would result in the greatest adverse impact to grassland and 

shrubland communities, followed by alternatives A, D, F, B, and E.
Vegetation – Grassland and Shrubland Communities

4-44 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

4.4.2.3 Detailed Analysis of Alternatives

Alternative E

Surface Disturbance

Under Alternative E, surface-disturbing activities that would affect grassland and shrubland communities 

are the same as Alternative B, except within areas of the Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC. 

In this ACEC, the BLM manages anthropogenic disturbances (e.g., roads, oil and gas wells, pipelines, etc.) 

to not exceed one disturbance per 640 acres and cover less than 3 percent of the total sage-grouse 

habitat, compared to a larger allowable disturbance of 5 percent in these areas under Alternative B. 

Alternative E also requires beneficial reclamation and rehabilitation activities in the Greater Sage-Grouse 

Key Habitat Areas ACEC that would prioritize the reestablishment of native vegetation communities in 

sagebrush steppe communities to a greater extent than under the other alternatives. Under Alternative 

E, approximately 32,786 acres of short-term and 4,926 acres of long-term surface disturbance is 

projected in grassland and shrubland communities, based on the percent cover of these vegetation 

types in the Planning Area, which is the least amount of any alternative (see Table 4-8).

Resource Uses

Under Alternative E, oil, gas, and other minerals development would involve 17,327 acres of short-term 

surface disturbance (Appendix T), a portion of which may adversely impact grassland and shrubland 

communities. Impacts from mineral development under Alternative E would be similar to Alternative B, 

but the location of development may vary due to greater limitations on locatable and mineral materials 

development in the Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC (1,231,383). As with Alternative B, the 

majority of the impacts would be temporary during the life of the operation with most areas of 

disturbance reclaimed following closure of operations.

Adverse impacts from invasive species would be similar to Alternative B, but to a lesser degree due to 

additional management practices within the Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC. Although 

Alternative E places additional limitation on the use of herbicides to control the spread of invasive 

species in that ACEC, it would result in the smallest area vulnerable to invasive species establishment 

due to reduced surface disturbance and more stringent reclamation practices. Overall, Alternative E 

would result in the fewest adverse impacts to grassland and shrubland communities from invasive 

species of any alternative.

Disturbance from pipeline and road construction would be the same as Alternative B. However, 

additional restrictions on ROW applications and more stringent vegetation management and habitat 

restoration requirements under Alternative E in the Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC would 

decrease potential adverse impacts to grasslands and shrublands from ROWs compared to the other 

alternatives. Management of the Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC designed to preserve 

large contiguous blocks of important plant communities by managing the area as ROW exclusion areas 

and limiting new ROWs to access valid existing rights would provide the greatest protection from 

fragmentation of grassland and shrubland communities and associated loss of diversity of any 

alternative.

Management of motorized vehicle use and livestock grazing are similar to Alternative B, and impacts to 

grassland and shrubland communities under Alternative E would therefore be similar to that alternative. 

Travel management and livestock grazing under Alternative E, includes the most limitations and closures 

for resource protection of any alternative.
Vegetation – Grassland and Shrubland Communities

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS 4-45

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Special Designations

Special designations under Alternative E are the same as Alternative B, with the exception of an 

additional 1,231,383 acres of BLM-administered land in the Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas 

ACEC. As a result, the BLM would manage a greater portion of grasslands and scrublands in the Planning 

Area as special designation areas under Alternative E (see Table 4-8). Requirements to include a full 

reclamation bond to insure restoration of disturbed areas to their original condition and other habitat 

restoration and vegetation management requirements associated with the Greater Sage-Grouse Key 

Habitat Areas ACEC would reduce adverse impacts from surface-disturbing activities in greater sagegrouse Key Habitat Areas. Overall, the relative size and additional restrictions on surface-disturbing 

activities in special designation areas under Alternative E would create more beneficial impacts to 

grassland and shrubland communities than the other alternatives.

Resources

Under Alternative E, impacts from fire and fuels management practices, and prescribed fire and fuels 

treatments are the same as Alternative B, with the exception of lands within the Greater Sage-Grouse 

Key Habitat Areas ACEC. Management emphasizing the protection of existing sagebrush ecosystems in 

this ACEC may restrict potential fuels treatments, increasing the short-term risk of catastrophic fire in 

these areas when compared to the other alternatives. However, Alternative E also includes 

management that requires strategically and effectively designed fuels treatments and sets canopy cover 

and invasive species thresholds for areas to be treated; this focus on the overall health of the primarily 

sagebrush steppe communities in the Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC may result in longterm beneficial impacts and healthier grassland and shrubland communities in these areas.

With exception of lands within the Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC, vegetation 

management under Alternative E is the same as Alternative B. Vegetation management in the Greater 

Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC emphasizes the restoration and preservation of native sagebrush 

ecosystems to create a landscape pattern that most benefits sage-grouse habitat. However, Alternative 

E may result in fewer long-term beneficial impacts in these areas by restricting vegetation treatments in 

plant community that are degraded, especially by the occurrence of noxious weeds, or by the increase in 

certain conifer species (e.g., juniper). The short-term beneficial impacts of preventing vegetation loss 

from surface disturbance may outweigh the potential loss of long-term benefits from vegetation 

treatments where they are necessary to restore degraded vegetation communities. Overall, the 

management of resources under Alternative E would result in the most short- and long-term beneficial 

impacts to grassland and shrubland communities when compared to the other alternatives.

Proactive Management

Grassland and shrubland management under Alternative E is generally the same as Alternative B, and 

the beneficial and adverse impacts would be the same as Alternative B. However, under Alternative E,

the Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC includes additional limitations on surface-disturbing 

activities and manages vegetation communities consistent with the reference state of the appropriate 

ecological site description, resulting in additional beneficial impacts to grasslands and shrublands in the 

ACEC compared to Alternative B.
Vegetation – Grassland and Shrubland Communities

4-46 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Alternative F

Surface Disturbance

Alternative F would result in approximately 120,561 acres of short-term and 15,657 acres of long-term 

surface disturbance in grassland and shrubland communities based on the percent cover of these 

vegetation types in the Planning Area, which is less than alternatives A, D, and C but greater than 

alternatives B and E. The management of surface-disturbing activities and reclamation is the same as 

Alternative D, except in the Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC (1,116,124 acres). In this 

ACEC, the BLM applies the density of disturbance management requirements proposed under 

Alternative F for the Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC, which would result in similar 

beneficial impacts from reduced disturbance across a large portion of the Planning Area and from 

increased reclamation of disturbances. However, unlike Alternative E, Alternative F still allows ROW, 

renewable energy, and mineral development in the Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC, 

resulting in greater adverse impacts from disturbance and fragmentation from resource uses under 

Alternative F compared to Alternative E.

Resource Uses

Alternative F manages resource exploration, development, and extraction the same as Alternative D, 

and impacts to grasslands and shrublands would be similar to Alternative D. However, Alternative F 

places additional restrictions on mineral development, including limiting disturbances to one per 640 

acres and 3 percent or less of the greater sage-grouse Core Habitat Areas. Oil, gas, and other minerals 

development would result in 24,720 acres of short-term surface disturbance, affecting a smaller area of 

grassland and shrubland communities than alternatives A, C, or D.

Adverse impacts from invasive species would be the same as alternatives A and D, but to a lesser degree 

due to additional restrictions on resource uses and management to prevent and treat invasive species in 

the Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC. Alternative F controls or eradicates invasive species 

on the same amount of land as alternatives A and D; however, a decrease in surface disturbance under 

Alternative F would leave a smaller amount of land vulnerable to spread of invasive species.

ROW development under Alternative F would result in impacts similar to Alternative A, but to a lesser 

degree because more acreage is managed as ROW avoidance/mitigation or exclusion areas under 

Alternative F. Compared to alternatives A, C, and D, this additional restrictive ROW management would 

decrease adverse effects from road and pipeline disturbance and habitat fragmentation in grassland and 

shrubland communities.

Motorized vehicle use under Alternative D would result in adverse impacts similar to those under 

alternatives A and D, but to a lesser degree. Travel management under Alternative F would be the same 

as Alternative D, except within the Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC, where motorized 

vehicle use would be limited to designated roads and trails. This additional management would result in 

fewer adverse impacts to grasslands and shrublands from motorized vehicle use than under alternatives 

A, C, and D.

Impacts resulting from livestock grazing under Alternative F would be the same as Alternative D, with 

the exception of areas in the Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC (1,116,124 acres). Livestock 

grazing management in this ACEC includes multiple management actions that would benefit grasslands 

and shrublands, including requirements for land health assessments to determine whether rangeland 

health standards are being met, reviews against greater sage-grouse habitat objectives during grazing 

permit renewal, location and timing restrictions on grazing (e.g., following drought or fires), restrictions 

on vegetation treatments that reduce sagebrush cover, and greater restrictions on range improvement 
Vegetation – Riparian/Wetland Resources

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS 4-47

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

projects. The ACEC-related restrictions would provide additional tools to ensure livestock grazing 

management would not adversely affect vegetation communities.

Special Designations

Special designations under Alternative F are the same as Alternative D, with the exception of an 

additional 1,116,124 acres of BLM-administered land in the Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas 

ACEC. Overall, the size and additional restrictions on surface-disturbing activities in special designation 

areas under Alternative F would result in greater beneficial impacts to grassland and shrubland 

communities than alternatives A, C, and D, but less than alternatives B and E.

Resources

Disturbance from fuels treatments and prescribed fire under Alternative F would be the same as 

Alternative D and would result in impacts similar to those under Alternative A. However, in the Greater 

Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC, additional restrictions on fuels treatment and a management 

priority of protecting sagebrush communities would result in impacts similar to those under Alternative 

E in the Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC.

Wildlife management actions under Alternative F would be the same as Alternative D and would provide 

the same benefits to grassland and shrubland communities as under that alternative. However, with the 

exception of areas within the Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC, additional protections for 

greater-sage-grouse and sagebrush habitats would provide benefits to grassland and shrubland

communities similar to those under Alternative E. These benefits would come from restricting resource 

uses across the ACEC that would remove vegetation or degrade grassland and shrubland health, as well 

as a management focus on maintaining or restoring sagebrush habitat. However, similar to under 

Alternative E, these additional restrictions may also result in adverse impacts to grasslands and 

shrublands where they restrict the use of certain vegetation treatments that may improve the health of 

degraded areas. Overall, wildlife management under Alternative F would result in more beneficial 

impacts to grassland and shrubland communities than alternatives A, C, and D, but fewer than 

alternatives B and E.

Proactive Management

Under Alternative F, management of grassland and shrubland communities would be the same as 

Alternative D, and the beneficial and adverse impacts would be the same as Alternative D. However, in 

the Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC, Alternative F includes additional management 

designed to protect existing and restore degraded native vegetation communities, which would result in 

similar beneficial impacts as those from the designation of the Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas 

ACEC under Alternative E.

4.4.3 Vegetation – Riparian/Wetland Resources

4.4.3.2 Summary of Impacts by Alternative

Adverse impacts to riparian/wetland resources arise from surface-disturbing and other activities that 

increase erosion and sediment loading into surface waterbodies and degrade vegetation health. Major 

sources of these impacts include mineral resources development, motorized vehicle use, road 

construction, and wild horse and improper livestock grazing management. Alternative C would result in

the greatest projected total surface disturbance, followed by alternatives D, F, A, B, and E. Surface 

disturbance is anticipated to result in proportional levels of erosion and sedimentation, and as such, 
Vegetation – Riparian/Wetland Resources

4-48 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

impacts to riparian/wetland resources are expected to be greatest under Alternative C, the least under 

alternatives B and E, and similar under alternatives A, D, and F. Alternative E would result in the 

greatest direct beneficial impact to riparian/wetland resources by imposing greater restrictions on 

surface-disturbing activities in proximity to riparian/wetland resources and by instituting more beneficial 

proactive management actions such as watershed improvement projects, followed by alternatives B, F, 

D, A, and C. Alternatives B and E prohibit livestock forage supplements within 0.5 mile of 

riparian/wetland resources to prevent vegetation degradation and soil compaction in these areas. 

Alternatives A, D, and F prohibit livestock forage supplements within 0.25 mile of riparian/wetland 

resources. Alternative C does not provide similar protections from livestock forage supplements. 

Overall, Alternative E would result in the fewest adverse impacts to riparian/wetland resources, 

followed by alternatives B, F, D, A, and C.

4.4.3.3 Detailed Analysis of Alternatives

Alternative E

Surface Disturbance

The management of surface-disturbing activities and their impacts to riparian/wetland resources under 

Alternative E would be similar to Alternative B. Alternative E includes the same 0.25 mile 

riparian/wetland area protective buffer as Alternative B, and therefore impacts would be primarily 

indirect. Alternative E is projected to result in the least amount of short- and long-term erosion 

(approximately 2.9 percent less than Alternative A, and approximately 2.2 percent less than Alternative 

B), which would result in the least potential adverse impacts to riparian/wetland resources compared to 

the other alternatives (see Section 4.1.3 Soil). Table 4-8 details the acreages of riparian/wetland areas 

protected from some common surface-disturbing activities (e.g., ROWs and locatable mineral 

development) under this alternative.

Resource Uses

Under Alternative E, oil, gas, and other minerals development would involve 17,327 acres of short-term 

surface disturbance (Appendix T), a portion of which may adversely impact riparian/wetland resources. 

Impacts from mineral development under Alternative E would be similar to Alternative B, but the 

location of development may vary due to greater limitations on surface disturbance in the Greater SageGrouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC (1,231,383) under Alternative E. Alternative E would also provide 

additional long-term benefits through full reclamation of disturbed sites within greater sage-grouse Key 

Habitat Areas. Impacts from increased runoff and sediment loading to streams, as well as the surface 

discharge of produced water, would similar to Alternative B, and less than all other alternatives.

Under Alternative E, adverse impacts from the spread of invasive species would be similar to Alternative 

B, but to a lesser extent due to the lower projected surface disturbance under Alternative E. In 

particular, Alternative E management of the Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC exclude 

surface disturbing mineral developments and ROWs to a greater extent than any other alternative, 

reducing the potential spread of invasive species in disturbed areas over a large portion of the Planning 

Area.

Overall, adverse impacts to riparian/wetland areas from projected new roads and management under 

Alternative E would be similar to Alternative B, and would result in fewer adverse impacts than the 

other alternatives. Disturbance from pipeline, road development, and new road construction would be 
Vegetation – Riparian/Wetland Resources

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS 4-49

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

the same as Alternative B; however, the location of these disturbances may vary under Alternative E as a 

result of the management of the Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Area ACEC as a ROW exclusion area.

Management of motorized vehicle use and livestock grazing are the same as Alternative B, and impacts 

to riparian/wetland resources would therefore be the same as Alternative B. Compared to Alternative 

A, limitations and closures to motorized vehicle use for resource protection, including seasonal 

motorized vehicle closures in greater sage-grouse Key Habitat Areas and for the protection of big game 

species, would result in beneficial impacts to riparian/wetland areas under Alternative E.

Special Designations

Special designations under Alternative E are the same as Alternative B, with the exception of an 

additional 1,231,383 acres of BLM-administered land in the Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas 

ACEC. As a result, the BLM would manage a greater portion of riparian/wetland areas in the Planning 

Area with special designations under Alternative E (see Table 4-8). Overall, the relative size and 

additional restrictions on surface-disturbing activities in special designation areas under Alternative E 

would limit adverse impacts to riparian/wetland areas to a greater extent than under the other 

alternatives.

Resources

Watershed improvement practices under Alternative E are the same as Alternative B and would provide 

the same beneficial impacts to riparian/wetland areas as Alternative B. Under Alternative E, fire and 

fuels management practices and impacts are the same as Alternative B with the exception of lands 

within the Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC, which would be managed with an emphasis on 

protecting existing sagebrush ecosystems. In general, fuels treatments are minimized in priority sagegrouse habitat and are focused instead on interfaces with human habitation or significant existing 

disturbances. Limiting areas subject to fuels treatments could reduce short-term impacts from 

prescribed fire compared to Alternative A, but could increase long-term adverse impacts compared to 

the other alternatives if additional fuel loading leads to an increase in high-intensity fires.

Impact from management designed to protect wildlife and special status species habitat would be the 

same as under Alternative B, except in the Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC where 

restrictions on surface-disturbing activities would result in greater beneficial impacts than under the 

other alternatives.

Proactive Management

Under Alternative E, riparian/wetland management would be the same as Alternative B, and the impacts 

would be the same as Alternative B.

Alternative F

Surface Disturbance

Surface disturbance impacts to riparian/wetland areas under Alternative F are projected to be greater 

than alternatives A, B, and E, but less than alternatives C and D. Management practices relating to 

surface disturbance would be the same as Alternative D, except in the Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat 

Areas ACEC (1,116,124 acres) where additional restrictions on surface disturbance would apply. Based 

on the percent cover of this vegetation type and the total projected surface disturbance, Alternative F 

would result in approximately 1,037 acres of short-term and 135 acres of long-term surface disturbance 

in riparian/wetland areas on BLM-administered surface. However, avoiding surface-disturbing activities 
Vegetation – Riparian/Wetland Resources

4-50 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

within a minimum of 500 feet, and up to a 0.25 mile if needed of surface water and riparian/wetland 

areas would reduce the direct adverse impacts from surface disturbance in these areas similar to 

Alternative A. Alternative F is projected to result in more surface disturbance than Alternative A, with 

proportional indirect impacts to riparian/wetland areas. Table 4-8 details the acreages of 

riparian/wetland areas protected from some common surface-disturbing activities (e.g., ROWs and 

locatable mineral development) under this alternative.

Resource Uses

Under Alternative F, management practices for resource exploration, development, and extraction 

would be the same as Alternative D, and impacts to riparian/wetland areas would generally be the same 

as Alternative D. However, Alternative F would place additional restrictions on mineral development 

and include management that limits disturbances to one per 640 acres and 3 percent or less of the 

greater sage-grouse Core Habitat Areas, compared to 5 percent under Alternative D. When compared 

to alternatives A, C, and D, the restrictive management of Alternative F over the large area of the ACEC 

would generally provide greater benefit to riparian/wetland areas by limiting the size and extent of 

mineral development and other disturbances.

Impacts from motorized vehicle use under Alternative F would provide greater protections for 

riparian/wetland areas than under alternatives A, C, and D, but fewer protections than under 

alternatives B and E. CTTM management practices for Alternative F are the same as Alternative D, 

except within the Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC, where motorized vehicle use would be 

limited to designated roads. Under Alternative F, disturbances associated with the creation of new 

roads and trails is projected to be less than alternatives A, C, and D, but higher than alternatives B and E. 

Overall, the limitations placed on motorized vehicle use under Alternative F would result in fewer 

adverse impacts to riparian/wetland areas than alternatives A and D by reducing erosion and 

sedimentation while also limiting vehicle activity within riparian/wetland areas.

Impacts resulting from livestock grazing under Alternative F would be the same as Alternative D, with 

the exception of areas in the Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC. The Greater Sage-Grouse 

Core Habitat Areas ACEC is managed to reduce hot season grazing on riparian and meadow complexes 

through fencing and herding techniques, as well as seasonal use restrictions or livestock distribution 

changes. This ACEC management would protect or enhance vegetation and water quality in 

riparian/wetland areas by managing livestock grazing in these areas during the period of the year when 

they are most susceptible to damage from herbivory. Overall, the additional livestock grazing 

restrictions under Alternative F would result in greater beneficial impacts to riparian/wetland areas than 

alternatives A or D.

Special Designations

Special designations under Alternative F are the same as Alternative D, with the exception of an 

additional 1,116,124 acres of BLM-administered land in the Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas 

ACEC. As a result, the BLM would manage a greater portion of riparian/wetland areas and wetlands in 

the Planning Area with special designations under Alternative F (see Table 4-8). Overall, the relative size 

and additional restrictions on surface-disturbing activities in special designation areas under Alternative 

F would result in greater beneficial impacts to riparian/wetland areas in comparison to alternatives A 

and D.

Resources

Watershed improvement practices under Alternative F would result in the same beneficial impacts to 

riparian/wetland resources as alternatives B and D.
Invasive Species and Pest Management

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS 4-51

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Fuels treatments and prescribed fire management under Alternative F is the same as Alternative D 

except in the Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC. Restrictions on fuels treatment and 

prescribed fire under Alternative F in the Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC are similar to 

management in the Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC under Alternative E; impacts to 

riparian/wetland areas would be similar to those under Alternative E.

Impact from management designed to protect wildlife and special status species habitat would be the 

same as under Alternative D except in the Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC, where 

restrictions on surface-disturbing activities and managing riparian/wetland areas to achieve proper 

functioning condition/attain ecological site description would result in greater beneficial impacts than 

under the Alternative D. Overall, management wildlife and special status species habitat under 

Alternative F would result in more beneficial impacts to riparian/wetland areas than alternatives A, C, 

and D, but less than alternatives B and E.

Proactive Management

Under Alternative F, the management of riparian/wetland areas would be the same as Alternative D, 

and the beneficial and adverse impacts would be same as Alternative D.

4.4.4 Invasive Species and Pest Management

4.4.4.2 Summary of Impacts by Alternative

Invasive species are expected to spread under all alternatives. Surface disturbance can increase the 

spread of invasive species by either damaging native vegetation and creating a space for the 

establishment of invasive species, or introducing invasive species seed and plant matter from machinery 

and other equipment. Correspondingly, alternatives projected to involve the greatest amount of surface 

disturbance would have the greatest potential to increase the spread of invasive species. Reclamation 

requirements, especially the development of reclamation plans prior to initiating surface-disturbing 

activities, would decrease long-term disturbance and the likelihood of invasive species establishment. 

Based on projected surface disturbance, Alternative C would result in the greatest potential spread of 

invasive species, followed by alternatives A, D, F, B, and E. Alternatives D and F are projected to result in 

greater surface disturbances than Alternative A, but they contain additional reclamation requirements 

that would result in a reduced potential for the spread of invasive species.

Fire and fuels management, motorized vehicle use, and livestock grazing would have the greatest impact 

on the spread of invasive species. Though disturbance caused by fire can spread invasive species, when 

conditions are favorable and proactive management to reestablish native plants follows closely after, 

fire can be a tool to reestablish historic fire regimes that favor native plants over invasive species. 

Alternative C would result in the greatest short-term adverse impacts from disturbance due to fire and 

fuels management and the greatest potential long-term benefits from restoration of historic fire 

regimes, followed by alternatives A, D, F, B, and E. Closing areas to motorized vehicle use can help 

prevent the unintentional spread of invasive species; alternatives B and E restrict travel across the 

largest portion of the Planning Area, and would provide the greatest potential reduction in the spread of 

invasive species from motorized vehicles, followed by alternatives F, D, A, and C. The potential adverse 

impacts from livestock grazing related spread of invasive species would be greatest under Alternative C 

due to fewer management options to control their spread (e.g., the option to require livestock flushing); 

alternatives A, D, F, B, and E contain more management options to control livestock grazing related 

invasive species spread.
Invasive Species and Pest Management

4-52 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

4.4.4.3 Detailed Analysis of Alternatives

Alternative E

Surface Disturbance

Under Alternative E, the projected long-term disturbance acreage is least among the alternatives and is 

approximately 31 percent, 1 percent, 74 percent, 42 percent, and 40 percent less than alternatives A, B, 

C, D, and F, respectively. Reclamation requirements of disturbed areas under Alternative E would be the 

same as Alternative B, except in the Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC, which would include 

additional proactive reclamation requirements for disturbed sites. Although the use of herbicides would 

be minimized under this alternative in the Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC, the overall 

amount of surface disturbance, proactive reclamation requirements, and additional management 

measures in the ACEC would result in the least potential for the spread of invasive species when 

compared to the other alternatives.

Resource Uses

Mineral development would result in 17,327 acres of short-term surface disturbance and 6,217 acres of 

long-term surface disturbance under Alternative E. Although these overall disturbance estimates are 

the same as Alternative B, the location of mineral development may vary due to greater limitations on 

surface disturbance in the Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC (1,231,383) under Alternative E.

Approximately 20,000 acres of short-term surface disturbance associated with forest and woodland 

treatments and recovery of forest products are projected to result under Alternative E (Appendix T); 

however, all of this acreage would be reclaimed. Under Alternative E, timber harvest management 

would be the same as Alternative B, and the associated surface disturbance impacts to invasive species 

management would be the same as Alternative B. In general, the practices of Alternative E would be the 

same as Alternative B and would have the most beneficial impact by slowing the spread of invasive 

species over the largest area of any alternative.

Rates of invasive species establishment and spread are expected to increase proportionally with longterm anthropogenic surface disturbances. Disturbance from pipeline, road development, and new road 

construction would be the same as Alternative B. However, the location of these disturbances may vary 

under Alternative E, which manages more areas as ROW exclusion areas than any other alternative.

Recreational developments such as new trails, trailheads, access route improvements, and new 

motorized touring loops would be the least extensive under Alternative E. These types of developments 

could result in increased public access and the potential for invasive species spread. Alternative E 

requires that Special Recreation Permits in the proposed Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC 

have neutral or beneficial effects to sage-grouse habitat, potentially limiting the recreational activities 

that may contribute to the spread of invasive species. Therefore, recreational use under Alternative E 

would result in fewer adverse impacts to invasive species and pest management when compared to the 

other alternatives.

Management of motorized vehicle use and livestock grazing are the same as under Alternative B, and 

impacts to invasive species management would therefore be the same as Alternative B.
Invasive Species and Pest Management

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS 4-53

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Special Designations

Special designations under Alternative E are the same as Alternative B, with the exception of an 

additional 1,231,383 acres of BLM-administered land in the Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas 

ACECs. The relative size and additional restrictions on surface-disturbing activities and resource uses in 

special designation areas under Alternative E would result in additional benefits to invasive species 

management in comparison to the other alternatives. Specifically, requirements to include a full 

reclamation bond to insure restoration of disturbed areas to their original condition and other habitat 

restoration and vegetation management requirements associated with the Sage-Grouse Key Habitat 

Areas ACEC, would reduce adverse impacts from surface-disturbing activities in the largest area when 

compared to the other alternatives.

Resources

Under Alternative E, fire and fuels management practices and impacts are the same as Alternative B 

with the exception of lands within the Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC, which would be 

managed with an emphasis on protecting existing sagebrush ecosystems. The design and 

implementation of fire management within the Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC would be 

conducted with an emphasis on protecting existing sagebrush ecosystems and would promote the 

persistence of native plant communities. Among all of the alternatives, fire and fuels management 

under Alternative E would result in the least short-term surface disturbance (Appendix T) and therefore 

the least adverse impact of spreading invasive species. In general, the additional fuel management 

restrictions of areas within the Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC would encourage the longterm establishment of native plant communities. Therefore, Alternative E would result in more longterm beneficial impacts to invasive species management by restoring native vegetation than the other 

alternatives.

With the exception of lands within the Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC, vegetation 

management under Alternative E would be the same as Alternative B. Vegetation management in the 

Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC will emphasize the restoration and preservation of native 

sagebrush ecosystems to create a landscape pattern which most benefits sage-grouse. These actions 

would require the use of native seeds for restoration based on availability, adaptation, and probability 

of success. Management actions would also be designed to ensure long-term persistence of 

restorations. The additional vegetation and habitat restoration management strategies of Alternative E 

would result in the greatest beneficial impacts by promoting growth and establishment of native plant 

communities, particularly native sagebrush communities, within the largest acreage of all the 

alternatives.

Proactive Management

Under Alternative E, the same invasive species management methods outlined for Alternative B would 

apply, but different control and treatment methods would be practiced in the Greater Sage-Grouse Key 

Habitat Areas ACEC. These include the restriction of activities that facilitate the spread of invasive 

plants and the development and implementation of methods for prioritizing and restoring sagebrush 

steppe invaded by nonnative plants. In addition, project vehicles would avoid driving through 

infestations and would be washed when accessing and/or leaving sites. To help protect against invasive 

plants within the Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC, Alternative E would provide assurance 

that soil cover and native herbaceous plants are at their ecological site description (ESD) potential. In 

areas without ESDs, reference sites would be used to identify appropriate vegetation communities and 

soil cover. Under Alternative E, the use of herbicides would be minimized within the Greater SageGrouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC and would only be used as a last resort to achieve clearly defined goals 
Invasive Species and Pest Management

4-54 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

and objectives. Flash burners, mowing, and selected hand-cutting would be prioritized in these areas, 

which may restrict grazing permit holders to more labor-intensive methods to control weeds when 

compared to the other alternatives. Additional proactive management, as well as the resulting 

beneficial and adverse impacts, would be the same as Alternative B in areas outside of the Greater SageGrouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC. Although the limited use of herbicide may result in an adverse impact 

on the control of invasive plants, the long-term activity restrictions and additional management 

practices within the Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC would result in the greatest beneficial 

impact to the control of invasive species when compared to the other alternatives.

Alternative F

Surface Disturbance

Under Alternative F, the projected long-term disturbance is approximately 40 percent more than 

Alternative E, 39 percent more than Alternative B, and 12 percent more than Alternative A. The 

projected long-term disturbance is approximately 57 percent and 3 percent less than alternatives C and 

D, respectively. With the exception of areas in the Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC, the 

reclamation requirements of Alternative F would be the same as Alternative D. Although more shortterm adverse impacts are expected to result from Alternative F than Alternative A, less long-term 

impacts would occur by employing reclamation practices that reduce the opportunity for invasive 

species spread in disturbed areas, especially within the Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC 

where additional reclamation requirements would apply.

Resource Uses

Mineral development would result in 24,720 acres of short-term and 12,528 acres of long-term surface 

disturbance under Alternative F (Appendix T). The mineral development of Alternative F would result in 

a lesser degree of adverse impacts than those under alternatives A, C, and D, but more than alternatives 

B and E.

Approximately 30,000 acres of short-term surface disturbance associated with forests and woodlands

treatments and recovery of forest products are projected to result under Alternative F (Appendix T); less 

than under Alternative A and the same as Alternative D. Impacts from utility corridors, new road 

construction, and linear ROWs, including pipelines and powerlines, would be the same as Alternative D. 

However, the location of these developments under Alternative F may vary due to the additional 

restrictions on anthropogenic disturbances in greater sage-grouse Core Habitat Areas under this 

alternative. The management of ROW avoidance/mitigation or exclusion areas under Alternative F 

would be similar to Alternative D and would result in similar impacts.

The creation of new roads and trails for recreational purposes would involve 5,750 acres of short-term 

and 3,917 acres of long-term surface disturbances under Alternative F, which is similar to Alternative D, 

more than alternatives A, B, and E, and less than Alternative C. Alternative F closes the same acreage to 

motorized vehicle use as Alternative D and limits motorized vehicle use to designated roads and trails in 

the second-largest acreage compared to the other alternatives. The adverse impacts to invasive species

management resulting from travel management practices under Alternative F would be greater than 

alternatives E and B, but less than alternatives A, C, and D.

Under Alternative F, recreational management actions would be the same as Alternative D, except in the 

Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC. As with Alternative E, Alternative F requires that Special 

Recreation Permits in the proposed Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC have neutral or 

beneficial effects to sage-grouse habitat. Therefore, the recreation management actions of Alternative F 
Invasive Species and Pest Management

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS 4-55

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

would result in impacts similar to alternatives D and E, and would have beneficial impacts on invasive 

species management by reducing the amount of recreational travel that could contribute to the spread 

of invasive species.

Impacts resulting from livestock grazing under Alternative F would be the same as Alternative D, except 

in the Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC. Livestock grazing and allotment management in 

the Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC require the incorporation of sage-grouse habitat 

objectives and management considerations in all BLM grazing allotments through AMPs or permit 

renewals. Therefore, greater beneficial impacts to invasive species management would result under 

Alternative F through the management of native sage-grouse habitat within the ACEC.

Special Designations

Special designations under Alternative F are the same as Alternative D, with the exception of an 

additional 1,116,124 acres of BLM-administered land in the Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas 

ACEC. The relative size and additional restrictions on surface-disturbing activities and resource uses in 

special designation areas under Alternative F would result in additional benefits to invasive species 

management in comparison to the other alternatives. Similar to Alternative E, requirements to include a 

full reclamation bond to insure restoration of disturbed areas to their original condition and other 

habitat restoration and vegetation management requirements associated with the Greater Sage-Grouse 

Core Habitat Areas ACEC would reduce adverse impacts from surface-disturbing activities in a larger 

area than alternatives A, D, and C.

Resources

Under Alternative F, fire and fuel management practices would result in the same impacts to invasive 

species and pest management as Alternative D, except in the Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas 

ACEC. In general, fire management within the Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC would be 

conducted with an emphasis on protecting existing sagebrush ecosystems and would promote the 

persistence of native plant communities. Similar to Alternative D, fire and fuels management under 

Alternative F would result in less short-term surface disturbance (Appendix T) than alternatives A and C, 

creating a beneficial impact to invasive species management by reducing the opportunity of 

establishment and spread in recently disturbed areas. Like Alternative E, the additional fuel 

management restrictions within areas of the Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC of 

Alternative F would encourage the long-term establishment of native plant communities. Long-term 

fuel management practices under Alternative F would result in more beneficial impacts to invasive 

species management than would alternatives A, C, and D.

Vegetation management under Alternative F would create the same beneficial impacts as Alternative D, 

but to a greater degree and extent due to additional vegetation management and habitat restoration 

actions within the Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC that would focus on creating landscape 

patterns that most benefit sage-grouse. Similar to Alternative E, these actions would require the use of 

native seeds for restoration activities. Methods for prioritizing and restoring sagebrush steppe invaded 

by nonnative plants would be developed and implemented under Alternative F while also managing 

towards achieving 65 percent or more Historical Climax Plant Community. However, depending on the 

condition plant community, achievement of 65 percent or more Historical Climax Plant Community may 

be impossible or impractical. The additional vegetation and habitat restoration management strategies 

of Alternative F would result in the greatest beneficial impacts by promoting the growth and 

establishment of native plant communities within the largest acreage of all the alternatives.
Invasive Species and Pest Management

4-56 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Proactive Management

Proactive management actions to control the spread of invasive species under Alternative F would be 

the same as Alternative D, except within areas of the Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC. 

Within the Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC, Alternative F would include the development 

and implementation of methods for prioritizing and restoring sagebrush steppe areas invaded by 

nonnative plants. In addition, project vehicles would be washed and required to avoid driving through 

infestations to access sites within the Planning Area. The use of herbicides would be minimized within 

the Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC and flash burners, mowing, and selected hand-cutting 

would be prioritized in these areas. Similar to Alternative E, this management action may restrict 

grazing permit holders to more labor-intensive methods to control weeds when compared to the other 

alternatives. Although the use of herbicides to control invasive species would be minimized under 

Alternative F, the long-term activity restrictions and additional management practices within the 

Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC would result in greater beneficial impacts to the control 

of invasive species than under alternatives A, C, and D.
Invasive Species and Pest Management

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS 4-57

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Fish and Wildlife Resources

NOTE: Replace Table 4-9 of the Draft RMP and Draft EIS (pages 4-157 to 4-158) with the following table.

Table 4-9. Summary of Protective Management by Alternative for Selected Fish, Wildlife, 

and Special Status Species

Alternative

Big Game Crucial 

Winter Range 

(acres)

Big Game 

Parturition 

Habitat (acres)

Fish-bearing 

Streams (miles)

Greater Sagegrouse 

Key/Core1 

Habitat Areas 

(acres)

Locatable Minerals - Closed A 24,755 5,828 64 9,552

B 120,623 45,921 80 80,687

C 10,402 920 11 4,173

D 16,921 2,935 32 8,714

E 647,507 55,838 103 1,226,253

F 16,921 2,935 32 8,714

Oil and Gas Constraints - Closed A 45,855 2,495 35 37,933

B 817,576 73,646 122 1,226,064

C 41,165 551 16 35,435

D 109,768 72,019 47 74,481

E 817,576 73,646 122 1,226,064

F 109,768 72,019 47 74,481

Oil and Gas Constraints - Major A 679,240 71,264 122 534,236

B 487,758 6,815 52 0

C 82,360 4,617 103 46,564

D 46,387 5,435 26 21,789

E 487,748 6,815 52 0

F 88,291 5,435 26 124,155

Oil and Gas Constraints -

Moderate

A 580,238 6,702 16 512,190

B 0 0 2 0

C 683,976 60,671 44 809,855

D 1,622,938 89,373 93 1,423,567

E 0 0 2 0

F 1,107,821 89,373 93 1,031,151

Travel Management - Closed A 15,698 510 5.80 319

B 53,822 3,950 50.58 40,324

C 8,068 1,430 8.32 638

D 16,739 482 7.65 457

E 53,834 3,950 50.45 40,324

F 16,739 482 7.63 457

Travel Management - Seasonal 

Restrictions

A 9,298 398 2.46 1,089

B 55,583 41,184 12.44 11,273

C 59,126 41,875 13.78 12,021

D 31,687 9,526 12.44 8,458

E 55,583 41,184 12.45 11,273

F 31,687 9,526 12.45 8,458
Invasive Species and Pest Management

4-58 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Table 4-9. Summary of Protective Management by Alternative for Selected Fish, Wildlife, 

and Special Status Species

Alternative

Big Game Crucial 

Winter Range 

(acres)

Big Game 

Parturition 

Habitat (acres)

Fish-bearing 

Streams (miles)

Greater Sagegrouse 

Key/Core1 

Habitat Areas 

(acres)

Salable Minerals A 71,833 7,144 63.36 65,107

B 1,142,668 110,589 237.73 965,686

C 135,334 2,937 35.51 104,878

D 68,843 23,728 26.73 42,085

E 1,389,547 113,238 255.40 1,519,859

F 68,843 23,728 26.73 27,939

ROW - Exclusion A 36,161 712 60 20,729

B 109,839 18,359 60 132,248

C 1,007 0 2 0

D 9,961 0 5 264

E 609,196 33,052 94 1,231,383

F 9,961 0 5 264

Lands with Wilderness 

Characteristics2

A N/A N/A N/A N/A

B 246,064 37,900 59 200,959

C N/A N/A N/A N/A

D 39,311 22,772 13 4,414

E 246,064 37,900 59 200,959

F 39,311 22,772 13 4,414

Livestock Grazing - Closed A 1,479 41 3 312

B 1,298,07 65,608 140 1,231,095

C 1,479 41 3 312

D 1,479 41 3 312

E 1,298,07 65,608 140 1,231,095

F 1,479 41 3 312

ACEC A 32,433 12,612 29 20,461

B 144,012 64,929 43 94,399

C 11,241 392 8 5,268

D 51,138 26,242 31 23,144

E 659,756 65,219 71 1,231,383

F 616,965 37,323 69 962,440

Source: BLM 2009b; BLM2013o

1 Core only analyzed for Alternative F 2 Includes only lands LWCs managed to maintain their wilderness characteristics.

ACEC Area of Critical Environmental Concern

N/A not applicable

LWC Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

ROW rights-of-way 

WSA Wilderness Study Area

WSR Wild and Scenic River
Fish and Wildlife Resources – Fish

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS 4-59

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

4.4.5 Fish and Wildlife Resources – Fish

4.4.5.2 Summary of Impacts by Alternative

The principal impacts to fish result from management that increases surface disturbance, resulting in 

sedimentation and other adverse impacts to water quality and quantity in fish-bearing streams. 

Increased sediment in fish habitat (streams, rivers, and reservoirs) decreases the potential for fish to 

naturally reproduce, fills in pools, leads to channel degradation, decreases light penetration and 

productivity, alters fish community composition, and increases stream temperature. Alternative C 

places the fewest restrictions on surface-disturbing activities and has the greatest potential to adversely 

affect fish habitat, followed by alternatives A, D, F, B, and E. Alternatives D and F are projected to result 

in greater surface disturbance than Alternative A, but contain more additional reclamation requirements 

that may limit erosion to a greater degree and, therefore, mitigate adverse impacts to fish habitat. 

Alternatives B and E would result in the greatest direct beneficial impacts to fisheries through proactive 

management (e.g., watershed improvement projects), followed by alternatives A, D and F, and C.

4.4.5.3 Detailed Analysis of Alternatives

Alternative E

Surface Disturbance

Impacts on fish habitat from surface disturbance would be similar to Alternative B, although to a slightly 

lesser degree due to decreased surface disturbance. Management under Alternative E would result in 

less surface disturbance over the short term (71,779 acres) and long term (10,787 acres), resulting in 

approximately 37 percent and 31 percent less erosion than Alternative A, and 3 percent and 1 percent 

less erosion than Alternative B in the short and long term, respectively. Alternative E places the greatest 

restrictions on surface-disturbing activities, including mineral and ROW development in areas that 

contain fish-bearing streams (Table 4-9), and would therefore result in the least sediment-bearing runoff 

and the least adverse impacts to fish habitat, compared to the other alternatives.

Resource Uses

Resource uses under Alternative E would result in the least adverse impacts to fish habitat from 

sedimentation and other potential impacts to water quality. Impacts from resource uses would be 

similar to Alternative B, but less adverse due to closure of the proposed Greater Sage-Grouse Key 

Habitat Areas ACEC to locatable mineral entry, mineral materials disposal, renewable energy 

development, and ROW development. Surface disturbances would be limited to one disturbance per 

640 acres and less than 3 percent of the greater sage-grouse Key Habitat Areas, compared to a larger 

allowable disturbance of 5 percent in these areas under Alternative B. These limitations on surface 

disturbance would reduce erosion rates and sedimentation to adjacent waterways.

Alternative E closes the most miles of fish-bearing streams to locatable mineral entry and ROW 

development (103 miles and 94 miles respectively). In areas where the proposed Greater Sage-Grouse 

Key Habitat Areas ACEC overlaps forest and woodland areas, adverse impacts resulting from forest 

management actions may be reduced due to the greater limitations on surface disturbance. In areas 

outside the proposed Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC, management of resource uses and 

the resulting impacts would be consistent with Alternative B.
Fish and Wildlife Resources – Fish

4-60 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Special Designations

Special designations under Alternative E are the same as Alternative B, with the exception of an 

additional 1,231,383 acres of BLM-administered land within greater sage-grouse Key Habitat Areas that 

would be designated as an ACEC. Additional limitations on surface-disturbing activities associated with 

the proposed Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC would reduce impacts to fish in comparison 

with Alternative B and would result in the most beneficial impacts to fish habitat compared to the other 

alternatives. ACECs designated under Alternative E would encompass 71 miles of fish-bearing streams. 

All other impacts to fish from special designations outside the Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas 

ACEC would be the same as Alternative B.

Resources

Riparian/wetland area management and watershed improvement practices under Alternative E are 

generally the same as Alternative B and would provide the same beneficial impacts to fish habitat as 

Alternative B. Alternative E would also manage the proposed Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas 

ACEC to restore sagebrush steppe habitat using native plants, which may result in indirect beneficial 

impacts for adjacent fish habitats by reducing erosion in the watershed.

Proactive Management

Proactive management of fish habitat under Alternative E is generally the same as Alternative B, and 

beneficial impacts to fish would be the same as Alternative B.

Alternative F

Surface Disturbance

Adverse impacts to fish habitat from surface disturbance would be similar to but less than alternatives D 

and A. Management under Alternative F would result in less surface disturbance over the short term 

(137,568 acres) and long term (17,866 acres), resulting in approximately 2 percent and 3 percent less 

erosion than Alternative D in the short and long term, respectively. Management practices relating to 

surface disturbance would be the same as Alternative D, except within areas of the proposed Greater 

Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC (1,116,124 acres). In this ACEC, the BLM manages the density of 

disturbance to not exceed an average of one disruptive activity location per 640 acres and cover less 

than 3 percent of the greater sage-grouse Core Habitat Areas, compared to a larger allowable 

disturbance of 5 percent in greater sage-grouse Key Habitat Areas (1,231,383 acres) under Alternative D.

Resource Uses

Resource uses under Alternative F would result in slightly less adverse impacts to fish habitat than 

Alternative D and similar adverse impacts as Alternative A, but to a greater degree. This alternative 

closes the same amount of federal mineral estate to oil and gas leasing as Alternative D, but it applies a 

NSO stipulation within 0.6 mile of occupied or undetermined sage-grouse leks within the proposed 

Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC. As a result, Alternative F is anticipated to develop fewer 

new federal wells than alternatives A, C, and D, but more than alternatives B and E with proportional 

adverse impacts to water quantity that may affect fish habitat.

In the Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC, the number of new roads from ROW development 

and user-pioneered roads would be greater under Alternative F than alternatives A, B, and E, but less 

than would occur under alternatives C and D. In areas where the proposed ACEC overlaps forest and 

woodland areas, adverse impacts resulting from forest management actions may be reduced due to the 
Fish and Wildlife Resources – Wildlife

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS 4-61

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

greater limitations on surface disturbance. Overall, Alternative F would result in less adverse impacts 

than alternatives A, C, and D, but more than alternatives B and E. Impacts to fish from resource uses 

outside the ACEC would be the same as Alternative D.

Special Designations

Special designations under Alternative F are the same as Alternative D, with the exception of an 

additional 1,116,124 acres of BLM-administered land in the Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas 

ACEC. Under this alternative, special designations would encompass 69 miles of streams. The relative 

size and additional restrictions on surface-disturbing activities and resource uses in special designation 

areas under Alternative F would result in greater protection for fish habitat than alternatives A, C, and D, 

but fewer than under alternatives B and E.

Resources

Management for riparian/wetland areas and watershed improvement projects under Alternative F 

would be the same as Alternative D, and the benefits to fish habitat would be the same as Alternative D. 

Alternative F would also manage the proposed Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC to restore 

sagebrush steppe habitat to predisturbance conditions using native plants. Restoration of these 

habitats may result in indirect beneficial impacts for adjacent fish habitats by reducing erosion in the 

watershed.

Proactive Management

Proactive management of fish habitat under Alternative F is generally the same as Alternative D, and 

beneficial impacts to fish would be the same as Alternative D.

4.4.6 Fish and Wildlife Resources – Wildlife

4.4.6.2 Summary of Impacts by Alternative

The principal adverse impacts to wildlife result from surface disturbance related habitat loss and 

fragmentation; the principal 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) that can cause the abandonment of nest site or home ranges. Based 

on the actions and uses allowed, alternatives ranked in order of increasing potential adverse impacts 

and decreasing beneficial impacts to the wildlife categories presented in this section are E, B, F, D, A, 

and C. Alternatives B and E include the most management to minimize wildlife habitat loss and 

fragmentation, such as making areas administratively unavailable to oil and gas leasing, followed by F, D, 

A, and C. Alternative C allows the most surface disturbance and resulting habitat degradation and loss, 

followed by alternatives A, D, F, B, and E. With the exception of limiting wind-energy development and 

ROW authorizations to a greater extent than Alternative A, Alternative C has the fewest measures with 

which to control habitat loss and fragmentation, followed by A, D, F, B, and E. Alternative E designates 

the most ACECs, and similar to Alternative B, manages all LWCs to maintain their wilderness 

characteristics (571,288 acres), resulting in beneficial impacts to wildlife over a large area; alternatives D 

and F manage 52,485 acres of LWCs to maintain their wilderness characteristics. Alternative C does not 

restrict surface-disturbing activities in most sensitive areas and has few actions to improve habitat 

quality. Alternatives E and B place the most restrictions on motorized vehicle use during crucial wildlife 

periods, followed by alternatives F, D, A, and C. Under alternatives B and E, restricting motorized vehicle 

use and surface-disturbing activities in the Absaroka Front Management Area provides the greatest

beneficial impacts to wildlife species, especially big game and predators. Less restrictive management is 
Fish and Wildlife Resources – Wildlife

4-62 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

applied to the Absaroka Front Management Area under alternatives C, D, and F. Under Alternative C, 

the area is managed consistent with other resource objectives, with the exception of limiting motorized 

vehicle use to designated roads and trails with seasonal limitations. The area is not managed as a 

Management Area under Alternative A. Alternatives E and F limit motor vehicle use to designated roads 

and trails within the proposed greater sage-grouse ACECs, which are comprised by Key and Core Habitat 

Areas, respectively.

The spread of invasive species adversely affects wildlife by displacing native vegetation and altering 

ecosystem function. Alternative E would slow the spread of invasive species the most because it is 

projected to involve the least amount of surface disturbance and has the most stringent reclamation 

requirements, followed by alternatives B, F, D, A, and C. Vegetation treatments under Alternative C 

would result in the greatest amount of short-term surface disturbance, but if habitat loss and 

displacement of wildlife is temporary, this alternative may result in the greatest long-term benefit to 

wildlife by restoring fire adapted habitat and reducing the risk of catastrophic wildfire, followed by 

Alternative D. Alternatives B and E would result in the least short-term disturbance to wildlife from 

prescribed fire and fuels treatment, but also would result in the greatest risk of large wildfires that 

would alter wildlife habitat, followed by alternatives A, F, D, and C.

Alternative E includes the most improvements to habitat quality, provides for more measures to restrict 

activities that can damage soils and habitats, reserves the most forage for big game on crucial winter 

range, and sets aside the most land for ACECs with emphasis to benefit wildlife resources followed by 

alternatives B, F, D, A, and C (Table 4-9). Alternative C has minimal guidance to protect or improve 

habitat quality, and no ACECs are designated to conserve wildlife habitat. Alternatives D and F would 

result in similar habitat improvement actions in riparian/wetland areas as Alternative C, but these 

alternatives place greater restrictions on surface-disturbing activities in these areas than alternatives A 

and C and apply an NSO restriction on all wetlands greater than 20 acres, limiting potential adverse 

impacts from long-term surface disturbance to a greater extent. In general, alternatives D and F have 

similar measures to protect and improve habitat quality in grassland and shrubland communities as 

under alternatives B and E; however, under alternatives D and F, fewer ACECs are designated that would 

beneficially affect wildlife such as big game (Table 4-9). Forest management under alternatives D and F 

would cause impacts similar to Alternative A, except that allowing larger clear cuts may result in habitat 

loss for some species that prefer closed canopies. Seasonal restrictions on surface-disturbing activities 

around active raptor nests would affect the most forested habitat under alternatives B and E, followed 

by alternatives A, D and F, and C. In addition, alternatives B and E provide year-round CSU stipulations 

to protect approximately 47,731 acres of forested habitat. Alternative E provides the most protection 

from surface-disturbing activities for big game on crucial winter range and parturition habitat, followed 

by alternatives B, F, D, A, and C (Table 4-9).

4.4.6.3 Detailed Analysis of Alternatives

Alternative E

Surface Disturbance

Alternative E would result in approximately 71,799 acres of short-term surface disturbance that may 

degrade wildlife habitat and 10,787 acres of long-term surface disturbance that may result in habitat 

loss (Table 4-1), the least of any alternative. Management practices relating to surface disturbance 

would be the same as Alternative B, except for areas within the Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas 

ACEC (1,231,383 acres). In this ACEC, the BLM manages anthropogenic disturbances (e.g., roads, oil and 
Fish and Wildlife Resources – Wildlife

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS 4-63

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

gas wells, pipelines, etc.) to not exceed one disturbance per 640 acres and cover less than 3 percent of 

the greater sage-grouse Key Habitat Areas, compared to a larger allowable disturbance of 5 percent in 

these areas under Alternative B. When compared to the other alternatives, the potential for short- and 

long-term adverse impacts to wildlife would be the least for the surface-disturbing activities of 

Alternative E.

Resource Uses

Compared to the other alternatives, the restrictions on surface disturbance and conservation measures 

of Alternative E would provide the greatest protection of wildlife by limiting minerals development and 

disposal on the largest acreage. Management for resource uses would be the same as Alternative B, 

except for the Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC, which is closed to mineral materials

disposal and withdrawn from mineral entry under Alternative E. Retention of all lands within the 

proposed Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC would result in beneficial impacts to wildlife by 

allowing for mitigation or restrictions for surface-disturbing and disruptive activities to maintain high 

value habitat. Alternative E identifies the fewest acres for disposal (22,133 acres) of any alternative.

ROW management under Alternative E would result in the fewest adverse impacts to wildlife, relative to 

the other alternatives. Under Alternative E, the BLM would manage more land as ROW exclusion areas 

(1,324,884 acres) than any other alternatives, including 1,231,383 acres in greater sage-grouse Key 

Habitat Areas (Table 4-9). In comparison to Alternative B, the additional ROW exclusion areas identified 

under this alternative would result in a lower risk of raptor electrocutions and greater consolidation of 

ROWs that would cause less habitat fragmentation. Alternative E also identifies the most acres as 

renewable energy exclusion areas (1,953,388 acres) in comparison to the other alternatives, which 

would further reduce habitat fragmentation and loss, as well as collision hazards for avian species.

Management for other resource uses outside of the Greater Sage Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC and 

associated impacts to wildlife would be the same as Alternative B. Alternative E requires that Special 

Recreation Permits in the proposed Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC have neutral or 

beneficial effects to sage-grouse habitat, which would reduce the potential for disruptive activities in 

these areas.

Special Designations

The relative size and additional restrictions on surface-disturbing activities and resource uses in special 

designation areas under Alternative E would result in additional protections for wildlife in comparison to 

the other alternatives. Specifically, the closure of the proposed Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas 

ACEC to locatable mineral entry, mineral materials disposal, renewable energy development, and ROW 

development would result in the greatest beneficial impacts to wildlife compared to the other 

alternatives. Other impacts to wildlife from special designations outside of the Greater Sage-Grouse Key 

Habitat Areas ACEC would be same as Alternative B.

Resources

The BLM would use similar wildland fire and other vegetation treatments to restore fire-adapted 

ecosystems and to reduce hazardous fuels as under Alternative B; however, treatments would be 

designed and implemented with a greater emphasis on protection of sagebrush ecosystems within the 

proposed Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC. Therefore, management actions within these 

areas are likely to be more beneficial for sagebrush obligate species as well as other wildlife, such as 

pronghorn, that rely on sagebrush steppe communities for habitat. Similar beneficial impacts to these 

species would result from habitat restoration and invasive species management actions, which also 
Fish and Wildlife Resources – Wildlife

4-64 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

emphasize sage-grouse habitat objectives within the proposed Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas 

ACEC.

Impacts to wildlife resulting from management actions for resource protection outside the Greater 

Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC would be same as Alternative B. In areas where the proposed 

ACEC overlaps forest and woodland areas, adverse impacts resulting from forest management actions 

may be reduced due to the greater limitations on surface disturbance.

Proactive Management

Wildlife management under Alternative E is generally the same as Alternative B, and the beneficial 

impacts would be the same as Alternative B. However, areas in the Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat 

Areas ACEC would provide the greatest benefits to sage-grouse and other species that use sagebrush 

habitat compared to the other alternatives.

Big Game

Impacts to big game would be the same as Alternative B, except to a lesser extent where big game 

crucial winter range overlaps the proposed Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC due to 

additional constraints on resource uses that create surface disturbance in these areas. Alternative E 

closes the greatest area in big game crucial winter range and parturition habitat to locatable minerals 

development (647,507 acres and 55,838 acres, respectively) and would result in the least surface 

disturbance in comparison to the other alternatives, and would therefore result in the least adverse 

impacts to big game. Designation of the proposed Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC 

excludes renewable energy and ROW development over greater areas of big game crucial winter range 

and parturition habitat than the other alternatives (Table 4-9).

Alternative E would designate the most acres of ACEC that overlap big game crucial winter range 

(659,756 acres) and parturition areas (65,219 acres), resulting in more beneficial impacts than any other 

alternative.

Management of invasive species and fire and fuels under Alternative E would result in more beneficial 

impacts to big game species in the short term from reduced surface-disturbing and disruptive fuels 

treatments in the Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC, but may potentially result in adverse 

long-term impacts from more intense wildfires and reduced ability to treat invasive species due to 

restrictions on fuel management and herbicide use.

As a result of these additional restrictions on resources uses within the proposed Greater Sage-Grouse 

Key Habitat Areas ACEC, Alternative E would result in the least adverse impact to big game of any 

alternative.

Trophy Game

Black bears are most affected by management actions in forest and woodland habitats. Alternative E 

would designate the most acres of ACEC that overlap forest and woodland habitats (128,747 acres), 

resulting in less adverse impacts than any other alternative. Limitations on surface disturbance and 

disruptive activities within the Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC would result in less adverse 

impacts where black bear habitat is overlapped by the ACEC.

Other impacts to trophy game outside of the Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC would be the 

same as Alternative B.
Fish and Wildlife Resources – Wildlife

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS 4-65

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Furbearing Animals

Impacts to furbearing animals would be the same as Alternative B, but with fewer adverse impacts in 

areas where the proposed Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC overlaps the habitats of 

furbearing animals due to greater limitations on surface disturbance and disruptive activities in these 

areas compared to other alternatives. Alternative E would designate the most acres of ACECs that 

overlap forest and woodland habitats (128,747 acres) and riparian/wetland areas (11,112 acres), which 

would benefit the American marten and furbearing mammal species that use riparian/wetland habitats 

(i.e., badger, beaver, mink, and muskrat). Other impacts to furbearing animals outside of the Greater 

Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC would be the same as Alternative B.

Predatory Animals

Impacts to predatory animals would be the same as Alternative B, but with fewer adverse impacts due 

to limitations on surface disturbance and disruptive activities within the Greater Sage-Grouse Key 

Habitat Areas ACEC, which covers 1,231,383 acres and overlaps various habitats used by predatory 

animals, which are typically habitat generalists. Other impacts to predatory animals outside of the 

Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC would be the same as Alternative B.

Small Game

Impacts to small game animals would be the same as Alternative B, but with fewer adverse impacts 

where the Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC overlaps forests, woodlands, riparian/wetland

areas, and other habitat types used by small game habitat generalists due to additional limitations on 

surface disturbance and disruptive activities.

Game Birds

Alternative E would designate the most acres as ACECs (1,436,941 acres), which would benefit habitats 

used by game birds throughout the Planning Area. Under Alternative E, management actions to reduce 

surface disturbance and control invasive species spread in shrub and grassland communities through 

special designations would provide the greatest benefit to greater sage-grouse, chukar, and gray 

partridge, compared to the other alternatives. Impacts to small game birds outside the Greater SageGrouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC would be the same as Alternative B.

Waterfowl

Alternative E would designate the most acres of ACECs that overlap riparian/wetland areas (11,112 

acres), which would result in fewer impacts to waterfowl due to greater restrictions on surface 

disturbance and disruptive activities when compared to the other alternatives. Impacts to waterfowl 

outside of the Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC would be the same as Alternative B.

Nongame (Raptors)

Protective buffers around raptor nest sites would be the same as Alternative B, which would minimize 

adverse impacts to raptors more than any other alternative. However, Alternative E would exclude wind 

energy from the largest area (1,953,388 acres), which would minimize the potential for collision 

mortality and displacement to the greatest extent among the alternatives.

Nongame (Neotropical Migrants)

Impacts to neotropical migrants would be the same as Alternative B across much of the Planning Area, 

except in areas overlapped by the proposed Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC. In the 

Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC, additional limitations on surface disturbance and 
Fish and Wildlife Resources – Wildlife

4-66 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

disruptive activities, as well as management that protects and restores sagebrush habitat, would provide 

additional beneficial impacts to neotropical migrants. Beneficial impacts from ACECs designated under 

Alternative E would affect the greatest proportion of habitats used by neotropical migrants when 

compared to the other alternatives, as indicated by the following acres of overlap with ACECs:

• Forests and woodlands – 128,747 acres

• Grasslands – 19,863 acres

• Nonnative annual brome – 23,950 acres

• Riparian – 11,112 acres

• Sagebrush – 897,566 acres

• Salt desert – 329,604 acres

Nongame (Mammals)

Impacts to nongame mammals would be similar to those discussed for neotropical migrants above, as 

they are found in a variety of habitats and are affected by management actions in the preferred 

vegetation type of each species.

Alternative E would exclude wind-energy development from more acres throughout the Planning Area 

than any other alternative (1,953,488 acres), which would result in the least collision hazards for bats. 

All other impacts to nongame mammals would be consistent with Alternative B.

Nongame (Reptiles and Amphibians)

Alternative E would result in the least surface disturbance of any alternative, and would therefore result 

in the least adverse impacts to reptiles and amphibians. Alternative E would therefore result in less 

adverse impacts to reptiles and amphibians than Alternative A, and similar impacts to Alternative B, but 

to a lesser degree.

Alternative F

Surface Disturbance

Alternative F would result in 137,568 acres of short-term and 17,866 acres of long-term surface 

disturbance. Impacts to wildlife from surface disturbance under Alternative F are projected to be 

greater than under alternatives A, B, and E, but less than under alternatives C and D. Management 

practices relating to surface disturbance would be the same as Alternative D, except within areas of the 

proposed Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC (1,116,124 acres). Additional restrictive 

management actions, including greater erosion prevention measures and reclamation requirements 

provided in a larger area under Alternative F, mitigate impacts to wildlife habitat to a greater extent 

than alternatives A and D.

Resource Uses

Resource uses under Alternative F would result in fewer adverse impacts to wildlife habitat than 

Alternative D and slightly greater adverse impacts than Alternative A. This alternative closes the same 

amount of federal mineral estate to oil and gas leasing as Alternative D, but applies an NSO stipulation 

within 0.6 mile of occupied or undetermined sage-grouse leks within the proposed Greater Sage-Grouse 

Core Habitat Areas ACEC. As a result, Alternative F is anticipated to develop fewer new federal wells 

than alternatives A, C, and D, but more than alternatives B and E with proportional adverse impacts to 

wildlife.
Fish and Wildlife Resources – Wildlife

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS 4-67

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Alternative F would require seasonal restrictions on construction of above-ground powerlines or the use 

of buried powerlines in the proposed Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC, which would 

reduce adverse impacts on wildlife. Alternative F would also limit motorized vehicle use to designated 

roads and trails and exclude renewable energy development over a greater area than Alternative D, 

resulting in less adverse impacts than alternatives A, C, and D, but more than alternatives B and E.

Impacts to wildlife from resource uses outside the proposed Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas 

ACEC would be the same as Alternative D. Similar to Alternative E, Alternative F requires that Special 

Recreation Permits in the proposed Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC have neutral or 

beneficial effects to sage-grouse habitat, which would reduce the potential for disruptive activities in 

these areas.

Special Designations

Special designations under Alternative F are the same as Alternative D, with the exception of an 

additional 1,116,124 acres of BLM-administered land in the Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas 

ACEC. The relative size and additional restrictions on surface-disturbing activities and resource uses in 

special designation areas under Alternative F would result in greater protection for wildlife habitat than 

alternatives A, C, and D, but fewer than under alternatives B and E.

Resources

Impacts to wildlife from management actions to protect resources would be generally the same as 

Alternative D; however, the BLM would apply specific management actions for habitat restoration, 

invasive species management, and fire and fuels management that prioritize the protection of greater 

sage-grouse populations and habitat in the proposed Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC. 

Therefore, management actions within these areas are likely to be more beneficial for sage-grouse and 

other sagebrush obligate species than under Alternative D.

Proactive Management

Wildlife management under Alternative F is generally the same as Alternative D, and the beneficial

impacts to wildlife would be the same as Alternative D. However, areas in the Greater Sage-Grouse 

Core Habitat Areas ACEC would provide greater benefits to sage-grouse and other species that use 

sagebrush habitat than alternatives A, C, and D, but less than alternatives B and E.

Big Game

Impacts to big game would be similar to Alternative D, but with fewer adverse impacts where the 

proposed Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Area ACEC overlaps big game crucial winter range and 

parturition areas due to additional constraints on resource uses in these areas. Specifically, Alternative 

F places greater limitations on ROW development, renewable energy, and motor vehicle use in greater 

sage-grouse Core Habitat Areas, as well as applies an NSO stipulation within 0.6 mile of occupied or 

undetermined sage-grouse leks. In areas where the Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC 

overlaps Oil and Gas Management Areas, the ACEC management would apply, resulting in fewer impacts 

to big game under Alternative F than alternatives A, C, and D.

ACECs designated under Alternative F would protect 616,965 acres and 37,323 acres of big game crucial 

winter range and parturition habitat, respectively, which is more than under alternatives A, C, and D, but 

less than alternatives B and E.

Other impacts to big game outside of the Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC would be the 

same as Alternative D.
Fish and Wildlife Resources – Wildlife

4-68 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Trophy Game

Black bears are most affected by management actions in forest and woodland habitats. Alternative F 

would designate the second-most acres of ACEC that overlap forest and woodland habitats (106,436 

acres), resulting in fewer adverse impacts to black bears than alternatives A, B, C, and D. Alternative F 

would limit motorized vehicles to designated roads and trails on a total of 1,746,579 acres, resulting in 

fewer potential adverse impacts to cougars than under alternatives A, C, and D, but greater than under 

alternatives B and E.

Other impacts to trophy game would be the same as Alternative D.

Furbearing Animals

Impacts to furbearing animals would be the same as Alternative B, but with fewer adverse impacts in 

areas where the proposed Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC overlaps the habitats of 

furbearing animals due to additional limitations on surface disturbance and disruptive activities in these 

areas. Based on projected surface disturbance, reclamation and restoration practices, and vegetation 

management, habitat generalists such as the badger, bobcat, and weasel would be adversely impacted 

under Alternative F more than under alternatives B and E, less than under alternatives A and C, and 

similar to Alternative D. Alternative F would designate the most second-most acres of ACECs that 

overlap forest and woodland habitats (106,436 acres) and riparian/wetland areas (8,535 acres), which 

would benefit the American marten and furbearing mammal species that use riparian/wetland habitats 

(i.e., badger, beaver, mink, and muskrat). Other impacts to furbearing animals would be the same as 

Alternative D.

Predatory Animals

Impacts to predatory animals under Alternative F would be the same as Alternative D except in areas 

where the Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC overlaps various habitats used by predatory 

animals due to additional motorized vehicle use restrictions and projected new road development under 

Alternative F. Therefore, Alternative F would result in fewer adverse impacts to predatory animals than 

alternatives A, C, and D, but more than under alternatives B and E.

Small Game

Impacts to small game animals would be similar to Alternative D, but with fewer adverse impacts due to 

limitations on surface disturbance and disruptive activities where the proposed Greater Sage-Grouse 

Core Habitat Areas ACEC overlaps forests, woodlands, riparian/wetland areas, and other habitat types 

used by small game habitat generalists. Other impacts to small game outside greater sage-grouse Core 

Habitat Areas would be the same as Alternative D.

Game Birds

Alternative F would result in less habitat loss and less potential for invasive species spread in shrubland 

and grassland communities than alternatives A, C, and D (Table 4-9), with correlated impacts to game 

birds. Impacts to game birds would be similar to Alternative D, but with less adverse impacts due to 

limitations on surface disturbance and disruptive activities where the proposed Greater Sage-Grouse 

Core Habitat Areas ACEC overlaps forests, woodlands, riparian/wetland areas, and other habitat types. 

Proportionate impacts would occur on other game birds, such as the ruffed grouse, blue grouse, wild 

turkey, and pheasant that prefer these habitat types. Impacts to these habitats are discussed below 

under Nongame (Neotropical Migrants). Impacts to game birds outside the Greater Sage-Grouse Core 

Habitat Areas ACEC would be the same as Alternative D.
Fish and Wildlife Resources – Wildlife

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS 4-69

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Waterfowl

Impacts to waterfowl would be similar to Alternative D, but with fewer adverse impacts in areas where 

the proposed Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC overlaps riparian/wetland areas. ACECs 

under Alternative F would overlap the second-most acres of riparian/wetland areas (8,535 acres), which 

would result in fewer adverse impacts to waterfowl due to greater restrictions on surface disturbance 

and disruptive activities. Other impacts to waterfowl would be the same as Alternative D.

Nongame (Raptors)

Under Alternative F, impacts to raptors would be the same as Alternative D, except in areas where the 

proposed Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC overlaps habitat used by raptors. In addition to 

providing a protective buffer around nesting sites, Alternative F would implement additional restrictions 

on surface disturbance in the Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC and would provide more 

beneficial impacts to raptors than alternatives A, C, and D, but less than alternatives B and E.

Nongame (Neotropical Migrants)

Impacts to neotropical migrants would be the same as Alternative D, except in areas overlapped by the 

proposed Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC. Additional limitations on surface disturbance 

and disruptive activities, including motorized vehicle use, as well as management that protects and 

restores sagebrush habitat, would provide additional beneficial impacts to neotropical migrants when 

compared to Alternative D. Beneficial impacts from the designation of this ACEC would be similar to 

Alternative D, but to a lesser degree due to the fewer restrictions and protective management actions 

implemented under Alternative F.

Beneficial impacts from ACECs designated under Alternative F would be the greatest in the following 

habitats used by neotropical migrants proportionally, as indicated by the following acres of overlap:

• Forests and woodlands – 106,436 acres

• Grasslands – 16,949 acres

• Nonnative annual brome – 33,710 acres

• Riparian – 8,535 acres

• Sagebrush – 803,002 acres

• Salt desert – 200,239 acres

Nongame (Mammals)

Impacts to nongame mammals would be similar to those discussed for neotropical migrants above, as 

they are found in a variety of habitats and are affected by management actions in the preferred 

vegetation type of each species. Other impacts to nongame mammals would be same as Alternative D.

Nongame (Reptiles and Amphibians)

Impacts to reptiles and amphibians under Alternative F would be similar to alternatives C and D, 

although to a lesser extent due to limitation on surface disturbance and disruptive activities in areas 

where the proposed Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC overlaps riparian/wetland areas. 

Impacts to reptiles and amphibians in areas outside the Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC 

would be consistent with Alternative D.
Special Status Species – Plants

4-70 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Special Status Species

4.4.7 Special Status Species – Plants

4.4.7.2 Summary of Impacts by Alternative

The principal adverse impacts to BLM special status plant species result from management that 

increases surface disturbance and habitat fragmentation; the principal beneficial impacts include 

management that increases restrictions in known or potential BLM special status plant species habitat. 

Based on the acreage of surface disturbance, the potential for habitat fragmentation, and proactive 

management actions and special designations to protect BLM special status plant species, alternatives 

with the least to most potential adverse impacts to BLM special status plant species are alternatives E, B, 

F, D, A, and C. Alternative E would result in the least surface disturbance and habitat fragmentation, 

followed by alternatives B, A, F, D, and C. However, alternatives D and F contain management actions to 

minimize habitat fragmentation that alternatives A and C do not contain. Alternatives B and E include 

the most provisions to protect sensitive soils and riparian/wetland areas for the benefit of BLM special 

status plants, followed by alternatives D and F, A, and C. Restrictions on motorized vehicle use, 

especially restricting motorized cross-country travel, would reduce adverse impacts to BLM special 

status plant species the most under Alternative E, followed by alternatives B, F, D, A, and C.

4.4.7.3 Detailed Analysis of Alternatives

Alternative E

Surface Disturbance

Under Alternative E, BLM actions are projected to result in 71,799 acres of short-term surface 

disturbance to BLM-administered land and 10,787 acres of long-term surface disturbance over the life of 

the plan, the least acreage of all alternatives (Table 4-1). Management practices relating to surface 

disturbance would be the same as Alternative B, except for areas within the Greater Sage-Grouse Key 

Habitat Areas ACEC (1,231,383 acres). In this ACEC, the BLM manages anthropogenic disturbances (e.g., 

roads, oil and gas wells, pipelines, etc.) to not exceed one disturbance per 640 acres and cover less than 

3 percent of the greater sage-grouse Key Habitat Areas, compared to a larger allowable disturbance of 5 

percent in these areas under Alternative B. This additional restriction on anthropogenic disturbances 

would reduce effects from surface disturbance to a greater degree than described under Alternative B. 

Similar to Alternative B, but to a greater degree, Alternative E would reduce the potential for habitat 

fragmentation by maintaining large, contiguous blocks of native plant communities which would 

indirectly benefit BLM special status plant species by protecting potential habitats, minimizing the 

spread of invasive species, and minimizing soil erosion.

Resource Uses

Compared to the other alternatives, Alternative E would close the most acreage to mineral development 

and disposal while also placing additional limitations on surface disturbance within the proposed 

Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC. Therefore, Alternative E would result in the fewest 

adverse impacts to special status species plants from minerals development. Although alternatives B 

and E apply similar management actions to eradicate or control the spread of invasive species, the 

potential for invasive species spread would be reduced under Alternative E due to less surface 

disturbance. Additional management actions to protect sage-grouse habitat from invasive species 
Special Status Species – Plants

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS 4-71

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

under Alternative E would indirectly benefit special status plant species whose habitat overlaps the 

proposed Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC; however, restrictions on herbicide applications 

in the ACEC could reduce the ability to control infestations.

Impacts resulting from travel management under Alternative E would be the same as Alternative B and 

would benefit special status plant species by placing the most limitations on and closures to motorized 

vehicle use of any alternative.

Alternative E designates the greatest acreage (1,324,884 acres) as exclusion areas for ROWs and 

corridors, substantially more than any other alternative due to the designation of the proposed Greater 

Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC as a ROW exclusion area, which would result in the greatest 

beneficial impacts to BLM special status plants by minimizing habitat fragmentation and degradation.

Impacts to special status plant species from other resource uses would be the same as Alternative B.

Special Designations

Special designations under Alternative E are the same as Alternative B, with the exception of an 

additional 1,231,383 acres of BLM-administered land within greater sage-grouse Key Habitat Areas that 

would be designated as an ACEC. The relative size and additional restrictions on surface-disturbing 

activities and resource uses in the proposed Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC would result 

in the most beneficial impacts to special status plant species in comparison to the other alternatives. 

Impacts to special status plant species from special designations in areas outside the proposed Greater 

Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC would be the same as Alternative B.

Resources

The resource management of Alternative E and additional management practices to protect and restore 

sagebrush habitats within the proposed Greater Sage Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC would provide the 

most beneficial impacts to special status plant species by reducing surface disturbance, soil erosion, and 

compaction in the largest area when compared to the other alternatives. Impacts on special status 

species plants from other management actions to protect resources would be the same as Alternative B 

for areas outside of the Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC.

Proactive Management

Proactive management for the protection of special status plant species habitats and known populations 

would be generally the same as Alternative B. However, the greatest indirect beneficial impacts to 

special status plant species may result from the management to protect and restore sagebrush habitats 

within the proposed Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC.

Alternative F

Surface Disturbance

Under Alternative F, BLM actions are projected to result in 137,568 acres of short-term and 17,866 acres 

of long-term surface disturbance, the third most acreage compared to the other alternatives. However, 

similar to alternatives B and E, Alternative F reduces the potential for habitat fragmentation by 

maintaining large, contiguous blocks of native plant communities. Overall, surface disturbance under 

Alternative F would result in impacts similar to Alternative A and slightly less adverse than Alternative D 

due to reduced surface disturbance from additional management practices that would reduce the total 

acreage of surface disturbance in 1,116,124 acres of the Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC.
Special Status Species – Plants

4-72 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Resource Uses

Minerals development under this alternative would result in fewer adverse impacts to special status 

plant species than Alternative D due to greater limitations on surface disturbance and additional 

restrictions placed on minerals development in the Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC. 

Minerals development under Alternative F would therefore result in fewer adverse impacts to BLM 

special status plant species than under alternatives A, C, and D, but more than under alternatives B 

and E.

Adverse impacts from management of invasive species would be slightly less than under Alternative D 

due to management actions within the proposed Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC that 

reduce surface disturbance, place greater restrictions on motorized vehicle travel, and prioritize the 

health and restoration of sagebrush habitats. However, similar to Alternative E, restrictions on herbicide 

applications in the ACEC could reduce the ability to control infestations.

Alternative F manages the same lands as ROW exclusion areas as Alternative D, but requires seasonal 

restrictions on construction of above-ground powerlines or the use of buried powerlines within the 

proposed Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC. Both alternatives D and F manage more acres 

as ROW avoidance/mitigation areas than Alternative A. ROW management under this alternative would 

result in fewer adverse impacts to special status plant species than under alternatives A, C, and D, but 

more than under alternatives B and E.

Under Alternative F, adverse impacts to BLM special status plant species from motorized vehicle use 

would be more than under alternatives B and E, but less than under alternatives A, C, and D, because 

Alternative F limits motorized vehicle use to designated roads and trails over a greater area.

Impacts from livestock grazing would be similar to alternatives A and D, but with greater potential for 

indirect beneficial impacts within the proposed Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC, which 

would be managed to protect and restore native sagebrush habitat.

Special Designations

The relative size and additional restrictions on surface-disturbing activities and resource uses in special 

designations areas under Alternative F would result in greater protections for special status plant 

species in comparison to alternatives A, C, and D, but fewer than under alternatives E and F. Specifically, 

additional constraints on oil and gas leasing, motorized vehicle use, and renewable energy development 

in the proposed Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC would reduce surface disturbances and 

result in fewer adverse impacts to special status plant species than Alternative D. Impacts to special 

status plant species from special designations in areas outside the proposed Greater Sage-Grouse Core 

Habitat Areas ACEC would be the same as Alternative D.

Resources

Decreased surface disturbance under this alternative would reduce soil erosion and compaction to a 

greater extent than Alternative D, increasing less adverse impacts to special status plant species. Similar 

to Alternative E, management actions for habitat restoration, invasive species management, and fire 

and fuels management that emphasize the conservation and restoration of sagebrush habitats would 

provide additional benefits to special status plant species within the proposed Greater Sage-Grouse Core 

Habitat Areas ACEC. Impacts on special status plant species from other management actions to protect 

resources would be the same as Alternative D.
Special Status Species – Fish

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS 4-73

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Proactive Management

Management actions under Alternative F for habitat restoration, invasive species management, fire and 

fuels management, and livestock grazing that prioritize the conservation of native sagebrush habitats 

within the proposed Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC would provide greater protection for 

special status plant species than alternatives A and C, similar impacts to Alternative D, and fewer 

beneficial impacts than alternatives B and E. Management of areas outside of the Greater Sage-Grouse 

Core Habitat Areas ACEC and associated impacts to special status plant species would be the same as 

Alternative D.

4.4.8 Special Status Species – Fish

4.4.8.2 Summary of Impacts by Alternative

Impacts to special status fish species are generally the same as those for fish, although the beneficial 

impacts to these species would tend to be greater because of additional protective management for 

special status species under all alternatives. The principal impacts to fish result from management that 

increases surface disturbance, resulting in sedimentation and other adverse impacts to water quality 

and quantity in waterways containing special status species. Increased sediment in fish habitat 

(streams, rivers, and reservoirs) decreases the potential for fish to naturally reproduce, fills in pools, 

leads to channel degradation, decreases light penetration and productivity, alters fish community 

composition, and increases stream temperature. Alternative C places the fewest restrictions on surfacedisturbing activities and has the greatest potential to contribute sediment to surface waters in the 

Bighorn, Shoshone, and Clarks Fork of the Yellowstone rivers, resulting in the greatest potential adverse 

impact on water quality in Yellowstone cutthroat trout and other special status species fish habitat. 

Alternative C is projected to result in the highest number of new federal wells (Appendix T), which may 

result in the greatest water depletion and, therefore, the greatest adverse impact to water quantity in 

these rivers, followed by alternatives A, D, F, B, and E. Alternatives D and F are projected to result in 

greater surface disturbance than Alternative A, but contain additional reclamation requirements that 

may limit erosion to a greater degree and, therefore, mitigate adverse impacts to fish habitat. 

Alternatives B and E would result in the greatest beneficial impacts to special status fish species habitat 

from more definitive proactive management actions and more stringent reclamation requirements 

relative to the other alternatives. Alternatives B, D, E, and F would provide long-term beneficial impacts 

by pursuing restoration of Yellowstone cutthroat trout to its native waters in the Planning Area.

4.4.8.3 Detailed Analysis of Alternatives

Alternative E

Surface Disturbance

Management practices relating to surface disturbance would be the same as Alternative B, except for 

areas within the Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC (1,231,383 acres). In this ACEC, the BLM 

manages anthropogenic disturbances (e.g., roads, oil and gas wells, pipelines, etc.) to not exceed one 

disturbance per 640 acres and cover less than 3 percent of the greater sage-grouse Key Habitat Areas, 

compared to a larger allowable disturbance of 5 percent in these areas under Alternative B. This 

additional restriction on anthropogenic disturbances would reduce effects from surface disturbance to a 

greater degree than described under Alternative B. Under Alternative E, management actions in the 

Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC would result in the least surface disturbance of any 
Special Status Species – Fish

4-74 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

alternative (Table 4-1). In comparison to alternatives A and B, this alternative would respectively result 

in 33 percent and 1 percent reductions in long-term erosion (Appendix V) and, therefore, the least 

adverse impact to special status fish species.

Resource Uses

Restrictions on resource uses under this alternative would be generally the same as Alternative B, with 

additional restrictions and closures to mineral development, renewable energy development, livestock 

grazing, and ROW development within the proposed Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC. 

Impacts resulting from travel management under Alternative E would be the same as Alternative B and 

would benefit special status fish species by placing the most limitations on and closures to motorized 

vehicle use of any alternative. When compared to the other alternatives, Alternative E has the least 

potential to result in adverse impacts to special status fish species due to management practices for 

resource uses that provide the most improvement to water quality and quantity by increasing 

infiltration rates and reducing future erosion and sedimentation sources.

Special Designations

Special designations under Alternative E are the same as Alternative B, with the exception of an 

additional 1,231,383 acres of BLM-administered land in Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC. 

The relative size and additional restrictions on surface-disturbing activities and resource uses in special 

designation areas under Alternative E would provide the greatest protection for special status fish 

species through additional protection for surface water quality and quantity. Additional designation of 

ACECs under this alternative would result in beneficial impacts to approximately 16 miles of Yellowstone 

cutthroat trout habitat, which would result in greater beneficial impacts than any other alternative.

Resources

Impacts to special status fish species from management actions for resource protection would be similar 

to Alternative B, but with slightly greater beneficial impacts due to reduced surface disturbance and 

erosion within the proposed Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC. Habitat restoration, invasive 

species management, and fire and fuels management within this ACEC would prioritize the conservation 

and restoration of native sagebrush habitats, with potential beneficial indirect effects to adjacent fish 

habitats.

Proactive Management

Impacts to special status fish species from proactive management, including fish habitat restoration 

activities, would be the same as Alternative B.

Alternative F

Surface Disturbance

Impacts to special status fish species from surface disturbance would be similar to Alternative D, 

although to a lesser extent. Management actions associated with the designation of the Greater SageGrouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC would result in slightly less surface disturbance than Alternative D. 

Although Alternative F would result in a 12 percent increase in long-term erosion compared to 

Alternative A (Appendix V), reclamation and restoration practices under alternatives D and F are likely to 

limit erosion and sedimentation more than Alternative A.
Special Status Species – Wildlife

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS 4-75

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Resource Uses

Impacts from resource uses under Alternative F would be generally the same as Alternative D, except in 

the proposed Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC. Alternative F would place additional 

restrictions on renewable energy development, ROW development, and motorized vehicle use in the 

proposed Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC, reducing surface disturbance and associated 

runoff and sedimentation to nearby waterways, compared to Alternative D. Overall, Alternative F has 

more potential to result in adverse impacts to special status fish species than alternatives B and E, but 

less than alternatives A, C, and D.

Special Designations

Special designations under Alternative F are the same as Alternative D, with the exception of an 

additional 1,116,124 acres of BLM-administered land in Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC. 

Additional restrictions on renewable energy development, ROW development, and motorized vehicle 

travel within the proposed Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC would result in slightly lower 

impacts to special status fish species in comparison with Alternative D due to reduced impacts from 

erosion. Designation of ACECs under this alternative would result in beneficial impacts to Yellowstone 

cutthroat trout habitat. Overall, special designations under Alternative F would result in more adverse 

impacts to special status fish species than alternatives B and E, but less adverse impacts than 

alternatives A, C, and D.

Resources

Management actions for resource protection and related impacts to special status fish species would be 

the same as Alternative D, with slightly greater beneficial impacts in the proposed Greater Sage-Grouse 

Core Habitat Areas ACEC due to reduced surface disturbance and erosion rates. Similar to Alternative E, 

habitat restoration, invasive species management, and fire and fuels management within this ACEC 

would prioritize the conservation and restoration of native sagebrush habitats, with potential beneficial 

indirect effects to adjacent fish habitats.

Proactive Management

Impacts to special status fish species from proactive management would be the same as Alternative D.

4.4.9 Special Status Species – Wildlife

4.4.9.2 Summary of Impacts by Alternative

Impacts to special status wildlife species are generally the same as those for wildlife and include habitat 

loss and fragmentation (adverse impacts) from surface disturbances and protection of habitat through 

management that increases restrictions in known or potential habitat (beneficial impacts). Overall, 

Alternative E is projected to result in the least surface disturbance and would have the least potential to 

cause habitat loss and fragmentation in the short- and long-term, followed by alternatives B, A, F, D, 

and C. Alternatives B and E provide the greatest beneficial impacts to special status wildlife habitats by 

including the most proactive actions to restore and enhance habitats. Except for seasonal motorized 

vehicle restrictions in the Absaroka Front Management Area, Alternative C would have the greatest 

adverse impacts to wildlife habitats and, therefore, the fewest beneficial impacts for special status 

wildlife species. Alternatives A, D, and F would be similar in terms of surface disturbance, though the 

mitigation and reclamation requirements under alternatives D and F may lead to fewer impacts than 

Alternative A. Alternatives B and E, and to a lesser extent alternatives D and F, benefit special status 
Special Status Species – Wildlife

4-76 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

wildlife species by protecting large areas of contiguous native habitats in the Absaroka Front 

Management Area, ACECs, and LWCs managed to maintain their wilderness characteristics; alternatives 

A and C would protect fewer large blocks of contiguous habitat. Alternatives C, D, and F exempt Oil and 

Gas Management Areas (568,164 acres under Alternative C and 134,214 acres under alternatives D and 

F) from seasonal wildlife restrictions (with the exception of the areas overlapped by the proposed 

Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC under Alternative F), resulting in adverse impacts to 

special status wildlife species.

Livestock grazing management under Alternative C would adversely affect grizzly bears and gray wolves 

the most, followed by alternatives A, D and F, and B and E. Gray wolves would benefit more from forest, 

woodland, and forest products management under alternatives A, D, and F, and less under alternatives 

B, C, and E. Timber harvesting practices, old-growth stand retention, surface-disturbance restrictions 

around raptor nests, and snag retention under alternatives B and E would result in the most beneficial 

impacts to Canada lynx, followed by alternatives D and F, A, and C.

Alternative E protects the largest area of greater sage-grouse leks, nesting and early brood-rearing 

habitats, and winter concentration areas, followed by alternatives B, F, D, A, and C. Alternative E, and to 

a lesser extent alternatives B and D, places comparatively greater restrictions on resource uses and 

activities in greater sage-grouse Key Habitat Areas. Alternative F also applies protective management 

for greater sage-grouse, although to a lesser extent than Alternative E, in Core Habitat Areas. Although 

livestock grazing in greater sage-grouse habitat can have both adverse and beneficial impacts (e.g., 

alternatives D and F allow livestock grazing to improve greater sage-grouse habitat), the more restrictive 

management under alternatives B and E would be the most beneficial to this species. Other sagebrushdependent species (e.g., Brewer’s sparrow, sage sparrow, and sage thrasher) are anticipated to benefit 

the most from protective management actions for greater sage-grouse under Alternative E, followed by 

alternatives B, F, D, A, and C.

Alternatives B and E protect the largest area around active raptor nests (including a year-round CSU 

stipulation around all nests) and would be the most beneficial to these species, followed by alternatives 

A; D and F; and C. Alternative C restricts activities that may potentially disturb raptor nesting sites 

(including a TLS stipulation of 0.25-mile around nests). Adverse impacts to bald eagles from livestock 

grazing and surface disturbance would be greatest under Alternative C, followed by alternatives A, D and 

F, and B and E. Impacts from recreation in riparian/wetland areas to this species would be greatest 

under Alternative A, followed by alternatives B and E, D and F, and C. Proactive management actions in 

the Chapman Bench area under alternatives B, D, E, and F would beneficially affect the mountain plover 

and long-billed curlew. Livestock grazing and vegetation management under Alternative C is most 

beneficial to the mountain plover when compared to the other alternatives, while adverse impacts to 

prairie dogs under this alternative would result in adverse impacts to the mountain plover as well.

4.4.9.3 Detailed Analysis of Alternatives

Alternative E

Surface Disturbance

Estimated short- and long-term surface disturbance from BLM actions in the Planning Area (Table 4-1) 

would result in the least loss, degradation, and fragmentation of sagebrush habitat under Alternative E. 

Surface disturbances under this alternative would be the same as Alternative B, except in the Greater 

Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC, where fewer acres of surface disturbance would result from 

mineral development, renewable energy development, and ROW development. Surface disturbance 
Special Status Species – Wildlife

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS 4-77

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

from roads would total 1,229 acres in the short term and 614 acres in the long term under Alternative E 

(Appendix T), forming fewer barriers to fragment habitat than Alternative A, and slightly less than 

Alternative B. Similar to Alternative B, reclamation requirements under Alternative E would likely 

mitigate surface disturbance to a greater degree than the other alternatives.

Resource Uses

Impacts to special status wildlife species from minerals development would generally be the same as 

Alternative B, except in the Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC, which would be closed to 

locatable mineral entry and mineral materials disposal under Alternative E. Alternative E would also 

include management that limits disturbances to one per 640 acres and 3 percent or less of the greater 

sage-grouse Key Habitat Areas in this ACEC, compared to a larger allowable disturbance of 5 percent

under Alternative B. Alternative E would therefore result in the least adverse impacts to wildlife from 

minerals development relative to the other alternatives. Similar to Alternative B, Alternative E is 

projected to result in 2,680 new federal oil and gas wells that would result in fewer adverse impacts 

from less habitat loss and noise disturbance than alternatives A and B.

Alternative E would close the greatest portion of the Planning Area to wind-energy development 

(1,953,388 acres) and ROW development (1,324,884 acres) of any alternative, resulting in the least 

potential risk of raptor electrocution and the least adverse impacts to greater sage-grouse nesting, 

brood-rearing, and winter habitat. Powerline and wind-energy development would therefore impact 

special status species the least under Alternative E.

Impacts resulting from travel management under Alternative E would be the same as Alternative B and 

would benefit special status wildlife species by placing the most limitations on and closures to motorized 

vehicle use of any alternative.

Special Designations

The relative size and additional restrictions on surface-disturbing activities and resource uses in special 

designation areas under Alternative E would result in additional protections to special status species 

wildlife in comparison to the other alternatives. Specifically, the closure of the proposed Greater SageGrouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC to locatable mineral entry, mineral materials disposal, renewable energy 

development, and ROW development would result in the greatest beneficial impacts to special status 

wildlife species compared to the other alternatives. Other impacts to special status wildlife species from 

special designations outside of the Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC would be same as 

Alternative B.

Resources

The BLM would use similar wildland fire and other vegetation treatments to restore fire-adapted 

ecosystems and to reduce hazardous fuels as Alternative B; however, treatments would be designed and 

implemented with a greater emphasis on protection of sagebrush ecosystems within the proposed 

Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC. Management of these areas would be beneficial to sagegrouse and other sagebrush obligate species. However, the build-up of fuels from fire management 

activities under Alternative E also increases the potential for long-term adverse impacts on special status 

wildlife species resulting from catastrophic fire.

Impacts from invasive species would be the same as Alternative B, except in the proposed Greater SageGrouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC, where additional protections against the spread of invasive species 

would result from reduced surface disturbance and the emphasis on restoring and maintaining native 

sagebrush ecosystems. Conversely, restrictions on herbicide applications in the Greater Sage-Grouse 
Special Status Species – Wildlife

4-78 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Key Habitat Areas ACEC could reduce the ability to control infestations, which would have an adverse 

impact on special status wildlife species.

Surface disturbance limitations under Alternative E would augment protective measures for 

forest/woodland, grassland/shrubland, and riparian/wetland communities where these areas overlap 

the proposed Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC, decreasing adverse impacts to special status 

wildlife species that use these habitats.

Proactive Management

Management for special status wildlife species under Alternative E is generally the same as Alternative B 

(Map SEIS-14), and the beneficial impacts would be the same as Alternative B. However, Alternative E 

would result in the greatest overall beneficial impacts to greater sage-grouse and other special status 

wildlife species when compared against the other alternatives due to additional management actions 

limiting impacts from resource uses within the Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC. Oil and gas 

leases occur on approximately 53 percent (634,416 acres) of the Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas 

ACEC. Under all alternatives, the BLM would not violate the lease rights, but would apply restrictions, 

including NSO to protect important habitats. Alternative E expounds upon this by imposing an NSO 

condition of approval within the Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC.

Indirect beneficial impacts would occur where this ACEC overlaps the ranges of special status wildlife 

species, as discussed in detail below.

Trophy Game

Impacts to grizzly bears would be similar to Alternative B, but with fewer adverse impacts where forest 

and woodland areas are subject to protective actions associated with the proposed Greater Sage-Grouse 

Key Habitat Areas ACEC, as discussed in Section 4.4.6 Fish and Wildlife Resources - Wildlife.

Predatory Animals

Impacts to gray wolves would be similar to Alternative B, but with fewer adverse impacts where habitats 

are subject to protective actions associated with the proposed Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas 

ACEC, as discussed in Section 4.4.6 Fish and Wildlife Resources - Wildlife.

Game Birds (Greater Sage-Grouse)

Under Alternative E, estimated short- and long-term surface disturbance from BLM actions in the 

Planning Area would result in the least amount of loss, degradation, and fragmentation of sagebrush 

habitats than any alternative due to the relative size and additional surface-disturbance limitations 

associated with the proposed Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC. Impacts from minerals 

development would be the same as Alternative B, except within the Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat 

Areas ACEC, which would be closed to locatable mineral entry and mineral materials disposal. Lands 

and realty actions under Alternative E would result in beneficial impacts to sage-grouse by retaining all 

lands within the proposed Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC, allowing for mitigation or 

restrictions for surface-disturbing and disruptive activities to maintain high value habitat. Under 

Alternative E, the BLM would manage all greater sage-grouse Key Habitat Areas as ROW and renewable 

energy exclusion areas (Table 4-9), resulting in more beneficial impacts to greater sage-grouse than any 

other alternative.

Alternative E requires that Special Recreation Permits in the proposed Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat 

Areas ACEC have neutral or beneficial effects to sage-grouse habitat, which would reduce the potential 

for disruptive activities in these areas.
Special Status Species – Wildlife

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS 4-79

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Special designations under Alternative E would provide the greatest benefit to greater sage-grouse by 

encompassing all 1,231,383 acres of greater sage-grouse Key Habitat Areas located within the Planning 

Area (Table 4-9).

The BLM would use similar wildland fire and other vegetation treatments to restore fire-adapted 

ecosystems and to reduce hazardous fuels as under Alternative B; however, treatments would be 

designed and implemented with a greater emphasis on protection of sagebrush ecosystems within the 

proposed Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC. Therefore, management actions within these 

areas are likely to be more beneficial for greater sage-grouse. Similar beneficial impacts to these species 

would result from habitat restoration and invasive species management actions, which also emphasize 

sage-grouse habitat objectives within the proposed Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC.

Impacts to game birds in areas located outside the Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC would 

be the same as Alternative B.

Nongame (Raptors)

Impacts to special status raptor species would be the same as Alternative B, except where habitats are 

subject to protective actions associated with the proposed Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas 

ACEC, as discussed in Section 4.4.6 Fish and Wildlife Resources - Wildlife.

Nongame (Neotropical Migrants)

Impacts to special status neotropical migrant species would be the same as Alternative B, except where 

habitats are subject to protective actions associated with the proposed Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat 

Areas ACEC, as discussed in Section 4.4.6 Fish and Wildlife Resources - Wildlife.

Nongame (Mammals)

Impacts to special status mammals would be the same as Alternative B, except where habitats are 

subject to protective actions associated with the proposed Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas 

ACEC, as discussed in Section 4.4.6 Fish and Wildlife Resources - Wildlife.

Nongame (Amphibians)

Impacts to special status amphibians would be the same as Alternative B, except where habitats are 

subject to protective actions associated with the proposed Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas 

ACEC, as discussed in Section 4.4.6 Fish and Wildlife Resources - Wildlife.

Alternative F

Surface Disturbance

Alternative F would result in 137,568 acres of short-term and 17,866 acres of long-term surface 

disturbance. Impacts to wildlife from surface disturbance under Alternative F are projected to be 

greater than under alternatives A, B, and E, but less than under alternatives C and D. Similar to 

Alternative D, greater erosion prevention measures and reclamation requirements under Alternative F 

may mitigate impacts to wildlife habitat to a greater extent than Alternative A.

Resource Uses

Resource uses under Alternative F would result in fewer adverse impacts to wildlife habitat than 

Alternative D and slightly greater impacts than Alternative A. Alternative F closes the same amount of 

federal mineral estate to oil and gas leasing as Alternative D, but applies an NSO stipulation within 0.6 

mile of occupied or undetermined sage-grouse leks within the proposed Greater Sage-Grouse Core 
Special Status Species – Wildlife

4-80 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Habitat Areas ACEC, whereas Alternative D applies a CSU stipulation. These NSO stipulations and 

additional restrictions limiting surface disturbances to one per 640 acres and 3 percent or less of the 

Wyoming Density and Disturbance Calculation Tool (DDCT) analysis area, compared to 5 percent under 

Alternative D, would afford greater protection for greater sage-grouse and other special status wildlife 

species that use habitats within the ACEC. Overall, fewer new federal wells are anticipated under 

Alternative F than alternatives A, C, and D, but more than alternatives B and E, with proportional 

adverse impacts to special status species.

Powerline development would be similar to alternatives A and D, but with additional restrictions within 

the proposed Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC that would impose seasonal restrictions on 

powerline development, encourage the use of buried lines, and consider upgrades to enhance sagegrouse habitat security.

Alternative F would also limit motorized vehicle use to designated roads and trails and exclude 

renewable energy development over a greater area than Alternative D, resulting in fewer adverse 

impacts than alternatives A, C, and D, but more than alternatives B and E. Impacts from livestock 

grazing management would be the same as Alternative D across much of the Planning Area, but would 

incorporate greater sage-grouse habitat objectives within the proposed Greater Sage-Grouse Core 

Habitat Areas ACEC that would result in beneficial impacts to greater sage-grouse and other special 

status species that use sagebrush habitats.

Special Designations

Special designations under Alternative F are the same as Alternative D, with the exception of an 

additional 1,116,124 acres of BLM-administered land in the Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas 

ACEC. The additional restrictions (discussed under Resource Uses and Resources) on surface 

disturbance, oil and gas leasing, motorized vehicle use, and renewable energy development in the 

proposed Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC would result in fewer adverse impacts to 

wildlife habitat than Alternative D. Beneficial impacts would be similar to Alternative E, but to a lesser 

extent due to the designation of less area as ACECs and fewer restrictions on resource uses and activities 

in special designation areas to protect special status wildlife species habitat and WSR eligible waterway 

segments.

Resources

Impacts to special status wildlife species from management actions to protect resources would be 

generally the same as Alternative D, except in the proposed Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas 

ACEC, where specific management actions for habitat restoration, invasive species management, fire 

and fuels management, and livestock grazing that prioritize the protection of greater sage-grouse 

populations and sagebrush habitat would apply (Map SEIS-15). Therefore, management actions within 

these areas are likely to be more beneficial for sage-grouse and other special status wildlife species that 

use sagebrush habitats than under Alternative D.

Surface disturbance limitations under Alternative F would lower the potential for disturbance in 

forest/woodland, grassland/shrubland, and riparian/wetland communities where these areas overlap 

the proposed Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC, decreasing adverse impacts to special 

status wildlife species that use these habitat areas.

Proactive Management

In general, proactive management actions under Alternative F (Map SEIS-15) provide more benefits and 

mitigate adverse impacts to special status wildlife species to a greater extent than alternatives A and C; 
Special Status Species – Wildlife

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS 4-81

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

slightly more than Alternative D due to the designation of the Greater-Sage Grouse Core Habitat Areas 

ACEC; and less than alternatives B and E. Oil and gas leases occur on approximately 50 percent (554,048 

acres) of the Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC. Under all alternatives, the BLM would not 

violate the lease rights, but would apply restrictions, including NSO conditions of approval to protect 

important habitats. Impacts due to proactive management and other impacts are described in detail 

under each special status wildlife species category below.

Trophy Game

Impacts to grizzly bears would be similar to Alternative D, but with fewer adverse impacts where forest 

and woodland areas are subject to protective actions associated with the proposed Greater Sage-Grouse 

Core Habitat Areas ACEC, as discussed in Section 4.4.6 Fish and Wildlife Resources - Wildlife.

Predatory Animals

Impacts to gray wolves would be similar to Alternative D, but with fewer adverse impacts where habitats 

are subject to protective actions associated with the proposed Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas 

ACEC, as discussed in Section 4.4.6 Fish and Wildlife Resources - Wildlife.

Game Birds (Greater Sage-Grouse)

Estimated short- and long-term surface disturbance from BLM actions under Alternative F are similar to 

alternatives A and D, with greater restrictions on oil and gas development in sagebrush habitat (Table 4-

8). This alternative closes the same amount of federal mineral estate to oil and gas leasing as 

Alternative D, but applies an NSO stipulation within 0.6 mile of occupied or undetermined sage-grouse 

leks within the proposed Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC, whereas Alternative D applies a 

CSU stipulation. These NSO stipulations and additional restrictions limiting surface disturbances to one 

per 640 acres and 3 percent or less of the DDCT analysis area, compared to 5 percent under Alternative 

D, would afford protections for sage-grouse similar to alternatives B and E, but to a lesser extent.

Under Alternative F, greater sage-grouse would benefit from specific management actions for habitat 

restoration, invasive species management, fire and fuels management, and livestock grazing that 

prioritize the protection of greater sage-grouse populations and sagebrush habitat within the proposed 

Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC.

Similar to Alternative E, Alternative F requires that Special Recreation Permits in the proposed Greater 

Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC have neutral or beneficial effects to sage-grouse habitat, which

would reduce the potential for disruptive activities in these areas.

Special designations under Alternative F would provide the second greatest benefit to greater sagegrouse by encompassing all 1,161,234 acres of greater sage-grouse Core Habitat Areas located within 

the Planning Area.

Overall, proactive management actions under Alternative F provide more benefits and mitigate adverse 

impacts to greater sage-grouse to a greater extent than under alternatives A, C, and D; similar to 

Alternative B; and less than under Alternative E.

Nongame (Raptors)

Impacts to special status raptor species would be similar to Alternative D, but with fewer adverse 

impacts where habitats are subject to protective actions associated with the proposed Greater SageGrouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC, as discussed in Section 4.4.6 Fish and Wildlife Resources - Wildlife.
Special Status Species – Wildlife

4-82 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Nongame (Neotropical Migrants)

Impacts to special status neotropical migrant species would be similar to Alternative D, but with fewer 

adverse impacts where habitats are subject to protective actions associated with the proposed Greater 

Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC, as discussed in Section 4.4.6 Fish and Wildlife Resources -

Wildlife.

Nongame (Mammals)

Impacts to special status mammals would be similar to Alternative D, but with fewer adverse impacts 

where habitats are subject to protective actions associated with the proposed Greater Sage-Grouse Core 

Habitat Areas ACEC, as discussed in Section 4.4.6 Fish and Wildlife Resources - Wildlife.

Nongame (Amphibians)

Impacts to special status amphibians would be similar to Alternative D, but with fewer adverse impacts 

where habitats are subject to protective actions associated with the proposed Greater Sage-Grouse Core 

Habitat Areas ACEC, as discussed in Section 4.4.6 Fish and Wildlife Resources - Wildlife.
Wild Horses

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS 4-83

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

4.4.10 Wild Horses

NOTE: Replace Table 4-10 of the Draft RMP and Draft EIS (page 4-525) with the following table.

Table 4-10. Land Use Allocations (acres) within Herd Management Areas by Alternative

McCullough Peaks HMA Fifteenmile HMA

Management Alternative 

A

Alternative 

B

Alternative 

C

Alternative 

D

Alternative 

E

Alternative 

F

Alternative 

A

Alternative 

B

Alternative 

C

Alternative

D

Alternative 

E

Alternative 

F

Total Acreage in HMA 103,863 113,938 103,863 113,938 113,938 113,938 70,524 70,524 70,524 70,524 70,524 70,524

Travel 

Management 

Designation

Open/Play 

Area 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Limited to 

Designated 

Roads and 

Trails

48,487 113,937 103,680 58,422 113,937 77,679 0 54,576 16,604 54,576 54,576 54,703

Limited to 

Existing 

Roads and 

Trails

55,376 1 183 55,516 1 36,259 54,704 0 54,576 127 0 0

Closed 0 0 0 0 0 0 15,820 15,948 0 15,820 15,948 15,820

Seasonal 

Restriction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

ROW Avoidance/

Mitigation 26,776 107,778 62,483 90,231 53,491 66,418 18,157 69,517 27,445 70,399 57,053 70,524

Exclusion 2,733 6,160 0 0 60,447 0 4,507 1,007 0 0 13,470 0

Open 74,375 0 41,380 23,707 0 47,520 47,860 0 43,079 125 0 0

Livestock 

Grazing Closed 22 60,361 22 22 60,361 22 0 34,603 0 0 34,603 0

Open 103,841 55,731 103,841 113,916 53,577 113,916 70,524 35,921 70,524 70,524 35,921 70,524
Wild Horses

4-84 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Table 4-10. Land Use Allocations (acres) within Herd Management Areas by Alternative (Continued)

McCullough Peaks HMA Fifteenmile HMA

Management Alternative 

A

Alternative 

B

Alternative 

C

Alternative 

D

Alternative 

E

Alternative 

F

Alternative 

A

Alternative 

B

Alternative 

C

Alternative 

D

Alternative 

E

Alternative 

F

Oil and Gas 

Constraints Closed 12,444 96,366 12,444 21,691 96,366 21,691 15,948 63,594 15,948 15,820 63,594 15,820

Major 10,232 16,933 6,744 1,644 16,933 5,770 12,466 6,929 3,978 2,607 6,929 3,615

Moderate 77,013 0 73,658 89,964 0 85,838 26,062 0 13,434 52,096 0 51,089

Open 4,174 639 11,017 639 639 639 16,048 0 37,164 0 0 0

Salable

Minerals Closed 15,608 113,299 22,972 21,691 113,299 21,691 15,951 70,524 16,486 15,948 70,524 15,948

Open 88,255 513 80,891 92,247 513 92,247 54,573 0 54,038 54,576 0 54,576

Locatable 

Minerals Withdrawn 0 0 0 0 60,339 0 0 0 0 0 13,470 0

Open 103,863 113,938 103,863 113,938 53,599 113,938 70,524 70,524 70,524 70,524 57,054 0

Source: BLM 2009b; BLM2013o

HMA Herd Management Area

ROW rights-of-way
Wild Horses

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS 4-85

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

4.4.10.2 Summary of Impacts by Alternative

Adverse impacts to wild horses primarily result from management that reduces the forage, health, and 

free-roaming nature of wild horses. The expansion of the McCullough Peaks Herd Management Area 

(HMA) under alternatives B, E, D, and F would result in beneficial impacts to wild horses by adjusting the 

HMA boundary to more accurately correspond to the range the resident herd uses, rather than 

continued attempts to recapture and move horses. No changes would be made to the Fifteenmile HMA.

Alternatives B and E, and to a lesser extent alternatives D and F, implement proactive management and 

constrain resource uses and disruptions (e.g., restrictions on organized special recreation permits [SRPs] 

in HMAs) in ways beneficial to wild horse forage and health. Limitations on surface disturbance and 

resource uses within proposed greater sage-grouse ACECs under alternatives E and F would augment 

protective management actions applied within the HMAs and provide additional protection for wild 

horses where these areas overlap. Alternatives A and C would result in similar impacts to wild horses, 

with the implementation of Alternative C causing more adverse impacts to wild horses than Alternative 

A, especially in the short term. Under all alternatives, wild horse populations may be brought into 

balance with available habitat and resources needed to sustain genetically viable herds.

4.4.10.3 Detailed Analysis of Alternatives

Alternative E

Surface Disturbance

Impacts from surface disturbance on wild horses under this alternative would be the same as Alternative 

B, except in the Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC. Under Alternative E, greater restrictions 

on locatable mineral entry, mineral materials disposal, renewable energy development, and ROW 

development would apply in the proposed Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC. 

Implementation of Alternative E would result in the least amount of short- and long-term surface 

disturbance compared to the other alternatives, and would therefore have the fewest adverse impacts 

to wild horses.

Resource Uses

Impacts to wild horses from minerals development would be the same as Alternative B, except within 

the proposed Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC. Alternative E would have additional 

restrictions on surface-disturbing activities and mineral development within the proposed Greater SageGrouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC. Alternative E would therefore result in the least adverse impacts to 

wild horses from mineral development relative to the other alternatives and would close the most 

acreage in HMAs to mineral activity (Table 4-10).

Management of ROWs under Alternative E would result in the same impacts to wild horses as 

Alternative B, although to a greater extent due to the larger area of ROW exclusion in the proposed 

Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC. Alternative E includes the most area in HMAs managed as 

ROW exclusion areas (Table 4-10).

Alternative E requires that Special Recreation Permits in the proposed Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat 

Areas ACEC have neutral or beneficial effects to sage-grouse habitat, which would reduce the potential 

for disruptive activities in areas of the HMAs that overlap the ACEC.
Wild Horses

4-86 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Special Designations

Under Alternative E, restrictions on surface-disturbing activities, including locatable mineral entry, 

mineral materials disposal, renewable energy development, and ROW development, would be the same 

as Alternative B, except within the Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC. Alternative E would 

reduce impacts to wild horses relative to Alternative B in areas of overlap between the proposed ACEC 

and HMAs. Reduced surface disturbance and associated disruptive activities would augment the 

protective management actions for wild horses under Alternative E, resulting in the greatest beneficial 

indirect impacts to wild horses compared to the other alternatives. All other impacts to wild horses 

from special designations would be consistent with Alternative B.

Resources

Impacts from the management of resources under Alternative E would be the same as Alternative B, 

except in the proposed Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC. Management actions for habitat 

restoration/vegetation, invasive species, and fire and fuels within the proposed Greater Sage-Grouse 

Core Habitat Areas ACEC may indirectly improve wild horse forage and health by incorporating 

objectives for the conservation and restoration of sagebrush habitats. Conversely, additional 

restrictions on fuels treatments in these areas also may increase the potential for larger, more intense 

fires in the long-term and associated adverse impacts to wild horses. However, as under Alternative A, 

such fires would likely remain uncommon due to the historical absence of wildfires in the HMAs.

Proactive Management

Under Alternative E, proactive management actions that limit surface disturbance and disruptive 

activities within the proposed Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC would augment protection 

provided by seasonal restrictions in HMAs under Alternative B. Proactive management actions outside 

the proposed Greater Sage Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC would be the same as Alternative B.

Alternative F

Surface Disturbance

Impacts from surface disturbance on wild horses under this alternative would be the same as Alternative 

D, except in the proposed Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC. Alternative F would place 

greater restrictions on oil and gas development and motorized vehicle use in the proposed Greater 

Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC when compared to Alternative D. Impacts of surface disturbance 

on wild horses would be similar to Alternative A, although to a slightly greater extent because the 

projected short- and long-term surface disturbance in the Planning Area is greater under Alternative F.

Resource Uses

Resource uses under Alternative F would result in fewer adverse impacts to wild horses than Alternative 

D and greater adverse impacts than Alternative A. This alternative closes the same amount of federal 

mineral estate to oil and gas leasing as Alternative D, but applies an NSO stipulation within 0.6 mile of 

occupied or undetermined sage-grouse leks within the proposed Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat 

Areas ACEC, which may reduce the projected number of oil and gas wells developed in HMAs.

ROW development would be similar to alternatives A and D across much of the Planning Area but would 

be subject to additional restrictions within the proposed Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC. 

Additional management in these areas may indirectly benefit wild horses where they overlap HMAs by 

imposing seasonal restrictions on powerline development and encouraging the use of buried lines.
Wild Horses

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS 4-87

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Alternative F would also limit motorized vehicle use to designated roads and trails over a greater area 

within HMAs than Alternative D, resulting in fewer adverse impacts than alternatives A, C, and D, but 

more adverse impacts than alternatives B and E. Where these limitations on motorized travel overlap 

HMAs, they would benefit wild horses by minimizing surface disturbance and stress to wild horses 

associated with motorized vehicle use.

Impacts from livestock grazing management would be consistent with Alternative D across much of the 

Planning Area but would incorporate greater sage-grouse habitat objectives within the proposed 

Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC, which may have beneficial indirect impacts on wild horse 

forage and habitat.

Impacts from all other resources uses would be the same as Alternative D.

Special Designations

Under Alternative F, impacts to wild horses from special designations would be the same as Alternative 

D, except within the proposed Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC. Additional constraints on 

oil and gas leasing and motorized vehicle use in the proposed Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas 

ACEC under Alternative F would result in fewer adverse impacts to wild horses than Alternative D in 

areas of overlap with HMAs. Similarly, beneficial indirect impacts to wild horses may result from 

management actions that conserve or restore greater sage-grouse habitat within these areas of overlap.

Resources

Management designed to protect resources such as soil, water, and vegetation would benefit wild 

horses by limiting surface-disturbing activities and minimizing impacts to forage and habitat. These 

benefits would be slightly greater under this alternative than under Alternative D due to additional 

management actions that require avoidance of surface-disturbing activities for the protection of 

resources within the proposed Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC. In areas that require 

avoidance, surface-disturbing activities would be prohibited unless the impacts could be mitigated, 

thereby limiting long-term adverse impacts to wild horses.

Prescribed fire and mechanical fuels treatments are projected to disturb the same acreage as 

alternatives A and D, therefore causing similar impacts. Although fuels buildup within the ACEC would 

be greater than under Alternative D, adverse impacts from wildfires are unlikely given the historical 

absence of wildfires in the HMAs.

Proactive Management

Proactive management actions that limit specific surface disturbances and disruptive activities within 

the proposed Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC would augment protection provided by

seasonal restrictions in HMAs under Alternative D. All other proactive management actions outside of 

the proposed Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC would be consistent with Alternative D.
Cultural Resources

4-88 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

4.5 Heritage and Visual Resources

4.5.1 Cultural Resources

4.5.1.2 Summary of Impacts by Alternative

Because cultural resources are fragile, often unique, nonrenewable resources that occupy relatively 

small areas, almost any management action has the potential to affect them. Principal impacts to 

cultural resources result directly from surface disturbance or visual intrusions, and indirectly from 

increased access related to management of other resources. The BLM anticipates impacts to cultural 

resources from the alternatives to be similar in type, but different in intensity. Proactive cultural 

resource management actions result in beneficial impacts across all alternatives. Overall, Alternative C 

allows the most resource use; therefore, it may result in the most direct and indirect impacts, adverse 

and beneficial, to cultural resources. However, despite the most use and the most potential impact, 

Alternative C incorporates a contemporary understanding of cultural resources management, in contrast 

to current management (Alternative A), which reflects the status of cultural resource management from 

the 1980s. While the BLM instituted current management in good faith and in compliance with Section 

106 and BLM regulations, improved approaches and increased knowledge of options allow for more 

protection, even with more resource use. Potential impacts are likely to be the least adverse under 

alternatives B and E because of more restrictions on resource uses for the protection of other resources. 

However, with less use of other resources, there also is likely to be less Section 106 compliance and 

associated inventory, so that the knowledge base would not grow at the same rate as it would under 

Alternative C. Alternatives D and F reflect a balanced approach overall, in some cases mirroring the 

active management recommendations of Alternative A, providing less specific protection than 

Alternative B, but acknowledging and specifying situations in which more protective measures would be 

needed than under alternatives A or C.

Under all alternatives, the BLM continues its obligation to engage in government-to-government 

consultations with interested tribes. Actions required by the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) 

and the Wyoming State Protocol will form the foundation of all project-specific decisions regarding 

cultural resources. The Wyoming State Protocol and NHPA provisions will resolve conflicts between 

cultural resources and other resource uses not addressed in the RMP.

4.5.1.3 Detailed Analysis of Alternatives

Alternative E

Surface Disturbance

Any action resulting in the disturbance of culture-bearing strata from surface or subsurface disturbances 

may impact cultural resources. Among all the alternatives, Alternative E would result in a similar, 

though slightly reduced, amount of surface and subsurface disturbances to Alternative B; the type of 

impacts would be the same as Alternative A, and the magnitude of adverse impacts would be similar to 

Alternative B.

Alternative E provides the same restrictions on surface-disturbing activities as Alternative B, except in 

greater sage-grouse Key Habitat Areas, where Alternative E further restricts allowable disturbances 

compared to that alternative. Alternative E provides the overall greatest protection for cultural 
Cultural Resources

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS 4-89

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

resources. Conversely, because less surface disturbance would occur under Alternative E, fewer cultural 

resource surveys would occur during Section 106 consultation and the benefits gained from additional 

surveys in the Planning Area would be lowest under this alternative.

Resource Uses

Management of activities associated with mineral resource exploration, development, and extraction 

that could result in long-term impacts to cultural resources under Alternative E would be similar to 

Alternative B. Impacts from mineral resource exploitation under Alternative E would therefore be 

similar to Alternative B, except within the Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC (1,231,383 

acres), where locatable withdrawals and closure to mineral materials disposal would reduce the area 

available for mineral exploitation to a greater extent than under any other alternative.

Alternative E identifies the smallest area for disposal (including special disposal and disposal for specific 

uses) of any alternative (22,133 acres); adverse impacts from land tenure adjustments would be the 

same as Alternative A, but to a lesser extent due to the reduced area available for exchange or disposal. 

As with alternatives B, C, and D, the BLM expects that most adverse impacts associated with land tenure 

adjustments would be mitigated through Section 106 compliance and because disposal in areas 

available for special disposal (Zones 1B and 1C, most of the area available for disposal under Alternative 

B) would occur only rarely and only under special circumstances.

The types of impacts associated with ROWs and renewable energy development under Alternative E 

would be the same as Alternative A, but to a lesser extent. Alternative E includes the largest ROW and 

renewable energy exclusion areas (1,324,884 acres and 1,953,388 acres, respectively) of any alternative, 

which limits the potential for impacts on cultural resources from ROW development across a large 

portion of the Planning Area. However, the BLM anticipates that even with these additional restrictions, 

ROWs across BLM-administered land would be approved at the same rate as Alternative B, and impacts 

would be similar to Alternative B.

CTTM, recreation, and livestock grazing management outside greater sage-grouse Key Habitat Areas 

under Alternative E are the same as Alternative B, and therefore, potential impacts to cultural resources 

would be the same as Alternative B in these areas.

Special Designations

Management of special designations under Alternative E, except in the Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat 

Areas ACEC (1,231,383 acres), is the same as Alternative B, and impacts would be similar to Alternative 

B. Due to the size and additional restrictions on surface-disturbing activities and resource uses (e.g., the 

mineral development and CTTM management described under Resource Uses above) applied for the 

Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC, special designation management under Alternative E 

would result in additional protection for cultural resources compared to the other alternatives.

Resources

As described for Alternative A, management actions for resources have the potential to result in both 

adverse and beneficial impacts to cultural resources. Measures that protect other resources and that 

may, in turn, protect cultural resources are similar under all alternatives, with slightly more protection 

under Alternative E than under the other alternatives. In particular, management actions restricting 

resource use in the Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC would provide additional protection 

for cultural resources compared to the other alternatives.

Fire and fuels management under Alternative E would result in similar, though slightly reduced, surface 

disturbance from prescribed fire as Alternative B. Impacts from fire and fuels management and 
Cultural Resources

4-90 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

silvicultural and other vegetation treatments would be similar to Alternative A, and the magnitude of 

impacts would be similar to Alternative B.

Wild horse management under Alternative E is the same as Alternative B, and impacts to cultural 

resources would be the same as Alternative B.

Proactive Management

Under Alternative E, cultural resources would be managed in the same manner as Alternative B and 

would result in the same beneficial impacts as Alternative B.

Alternative F

Surface Disturbance

Any action resulting in the disturbance of culture-bearing strata from surface or subsurface disturbances 

may impact cultural resources. Alternative F would result in a similar, though slightly reduced, amount 

of surface and subsurface disturbances as Alternative D. The type of impacts would be the same as 

Alternative A, and the magnitude of adverse impacts would be similar to Alternative D, less than under 

Alternative C, and more than under alternatives A, B, and E.

Under Alternative F, restrictions on surface-disturbing activities for the protection of other resources 

(such as soil, water, biological resources, and special designations) are the same as Alternative D, except 

for areas within the Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC, where additional restrictions to 

protect greater sage-grouse would apply. Impacts to cultural resources from surface-disturbing 

activities would be the same as Alternative A, but to a lesser extent due to these additional restrictions 

on surface disturbance.

Resource Uses

Management for activities associated with mineral resource exploration, development, and extraction 

that could result in long-term impacts to cultural resources would be similar to Alternative D. Impacts 

from mineral exploitation would therefore be similar in type and magnitude to Alternative D, except 

within greater sage-grouse Core Habitat Areas (1,231,383 acres), where an NSO restriction around 

occupied or undetermined greater sage-grouse leks would provide additional protection from surface 

disturbance for cultural resources.

Under Alternative F, areas available for land tenure adjustments, recreational management, and 

livestock grazing management are the same as Alternative D, and the impacts on cultural resources 

would be the same as Alternative D.

CTTM practices under Alternative F would be the same as Alternative D, except within the Greater SageGrouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC, where motorized vehicle use would be limited to designated roads and 

trails. CTTM and recreation management under Alternative F would provide greater protections for 

cultural resources than under alternatives A, C, and D, but fewer protections than under alternatives B 

and E.

Special Designations

Management of special designations under Alternative F, except in the Greater Sage-Grouse Core 

Habitat Areas ACEC (1,116,124 acres), is the same as Alternative D, and impacts would be similar to 

Alternative D. Due to the relative size and additional restrictions on surface-disturbing activities and 

resource uses (e.g., the mineral development and CTTM management described under Resource Uses 

above) applied for the Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC under Alternative F, special 
Paleontological Resources

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS 4-91

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

designation management would result in greater protections for cultural resources in comparison to 

alternatives A, C, and D, but fewer than under alternatives B and E.

Resources

Management actions for managing other resources have the potential to result in both adverse and 

beneficial impacts to cultural resources. Measures that protect other resources and that may, in turn, 

protect cultural resources are similar under all alternatives; effects from these protections under 

Alternative F would be similar to Alternative D.

Disturbance from fire and fuels management, and silvicultural and other vegetation treatments under 

Alternative F would be similar to Alternative D, and effects on cultural resources would be similar to 

Alternative D.

Wild horse management under Alternative F is the same as Alternative D, and impacts to cultural 

resources would be the same as Alternative D.

Proactive Management

Under Alternative F, cultural resources would be managed in the same manner as Alternative D and 

would result in the same beneficial impacts as described in Alternative D.

4.5.2 Paleontological Resources

4.5.2.2 Summary of Impacts by Alternative

The principal direct impacts to paleontological resources would result from surface-disturbing activities, 

while indirect adverse impacts would result from increased access to important paleontological 

locations that lead to overuse, increased legal and illegal collecting, and vandalism. Conversely, all of 

these adverse impacts may also lead to beneficial impacts as new deposits are located, educational 

opportunities arise, and research programs are instituted. Proactive paleontological resource 

management actions result in beneficial impacts across all alternatives. Furthermore, compliance with 

the Paleontological Resources Preservation Act (PRPA) and BLM PRPA guidance would limit adverse 

impacts and maximize beneficial impacts. The PRPA provides for criminal and civil penalties for theft 

and vandalism of fossils on public land. Other resource uses are, by law, required to minimize impacts 

to paleontological resources from vandalism and theft and maintain the confidentiality of resource 

locations.

Alternative E, by designating nine ACECs (116,116 acres) for paleontological values and subjecting the 

least total acreage to surface-disturbing activities, would have the least adverse impacts and most 

resource protection compared to the other alternatives. Alternative C provides the least protection and 

the greatest exposure to direct impacts from surface-disturbing activities, but may result in more 

identification of paleontological localities due to increased resource use. In terms of potential impacts, 

management under alternatives D and F fall between management under alternatives A and B, in that 

alternatives D and F employ a less proactive management approach than Alternative B, but a similar 

approach to casual use and education.
Paleontological Resources

4-92 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

4.5.2.3 Detailed Analysis of Alternatives

Alternative E

Surface Disturbance

Among all the alternatives, Alternative E would result in a similar, though slightly reduced, amount of 

surface and subsurface disturbances to Alternative B; the type of impacts would be the same as 

Alternative A, and the magnitude of adverse impacts would be similar to Alternative B. When compared 

to the other alternatives, Alternative E provides the most restrictions on surface-disturbing activities and 

allows for the greatest protection of other resources, which may subsequently provide additional 

protection from disturbance for paleontological resources. In particular, Alternative E manages greater 

sage-grouse Key Habitat Areas to minimize anthropogenic disturbances, resulting in the fewest acres of 

disturbance and fewest impacts to paleontological resources.

Resource Uses

Management of activities associated with mineral resource exploration, development, and extraction 

that could result in impacts to paleontological resources under Alternative E would be similar to 

Alternative B. Impacts from mineral resource exploitation under Alternative E would therefore be 

similar in type and magnitude to Alternative B, except within the Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas 

ACEC (1,231,383 acres) where locatable withdrawals and closure to mineral materials disposal would 

reduce mineral exploitation to a greater extent than under any other alternative.

Under Alternative E, management actions associated with lands and realty would result in the same 

adverse and beneficial impacts as Alternative B, except in the Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas 

ACEC. Due to the additional lands and realty restrictions of Alternative E (e.g., retain public ownership 

of Key Habitat Areas), the greatest benefit to paleontological resources would result when compared to 

the other alternatives. The least benefit would be under Alternative A, under which acquisition and 

retention of lands with significant paleontological resources is only considered and, lastly, under 

Alternative C, under which no acquisition of private lands is planned.

Impacts from ROW-related actions and renewable-energy resource development would be fewer under 

Alternative E than the other alternatives. Under Alternative E, the Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat 

Areas ACEC would be managed as a ROW and renewable energy exclusion area, resulting in less surface 

disturbance from potential renewable developments when compared to Alternative B. However, the 

BLM anticipates that even with these additional restrictions, ROWs across BLM-administered land would

be approved at the same rate as Alternative B, and impacts would be similar to Alternative B.

CTTM under Alternative E would be the same as Alternative B, and therefore, potential impacts to 

paleontological resources would be the same as Alternative B. As with the other alternatives, the 

potential for beneficial impacts through discovery and subsequent research and educational 

opportunities would remain.

Special Designations

Management of special designations under Alternative E, except in the Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat 

Areas ACEC (1,231,383 acres), would be the same as Alternative B, and impacts would be similar to 

Alternative B. Due to the relative size and additional restrictions on surface-disturbing activities and 

resource uses (e.g., the mineral development and CTTM management described under Resource Uses

above) applied for the Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC, special designation management 
Paleontological Resources

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS 4-93

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

under Alternative E would result in additional protection for paleontological resources in comparison to 

the other alternatives.

Resources

Fire and fuels management under Alternative E is projected to result in similar, though slightly reduced, 

surface disturbance from fuels treatment and prescribed fire as Alternative B; impacts would be similar 

to Alternative A, and the magnitude of impacts would be similar to Alternative B.

Proactive Management

The management of paleontological resources under Alternative E is the same as Alternative B, and the 

type and magnitude of impacts to paleontological resources would be the same as Alternative B.

Alternative F

Surface Disturbance

Surface disturbances and associated adverse impacts to paleontological resources under Alternative F 

would be similar, though slightly reduced, to Alternative D. Under Alternative F, restrictions on surfacedisturbing activities for the protection of other resources (such as soil, water, biological resources, and 

special designations) are the same as Alternative D, except for areas within the Greater Sage-Grouse 

Core Habitat Areas ACEC, where additional restrictions to protect greater sage-grouse would apply. 

Impacts to paleontological resources from surface-disturbing activities would be the same as Alternative 

A, but to a lesser extent due to these additional restrictions on surface disturbance.

Resource Uses

Management for activities associated with mineral resource exploration, development, and extraction 

that could result in long-term impacts to cultural resources is similar to Alternative D. Impacts from 

mineral exploitation would be the same as Alternative D, except within the Greater Sage-Grouse Core 

Habitat Areas ACEC (1,231,383 acres), where an NSO restriction around occupied or undetermined 

greater sage-grouse leks would provide additional protection from surface disturbance for 

paleontological resources.

Under Alternative F, areas available for land tenure adjustments, recreational management, and 

livestock grazing management are the same as Alternative D, and the impacts on paleontological 

resources would be the same as Alternative D.

CTTM practices under Alternative F would be the same as Alternative D, except within the Greater SageGrouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC, where motorized vehicle use would be limited to designated roads 

within priority sage-grouse habitat. CTTM and recreation management under Alternative F would 

provide greater protections for paleontological resources than under alternatives A, C, and D, but fewer 

protections than under alternatives B and E.

Special Designations

Management of special designations under Alternative F, except in the Greater Sage-Grouse Core 

Habitat Areas ACEC (1,116,124 acres), is the same as Alternative D, and impacts would be similar to 

Alternative D. Due to the relative size and additional restrictions on surface-disturbing activities and 

resource uses (e.g., the mineral development and CTTM management described under Resource Uses

above) applied for the Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC under Alternative F, special 

designation management would result in greater protections for paleontological resources in 

comparison to alternatives A, C, and D, but fewer than under alternatives B and E.
Visual Resources

4-94 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Resources

Disturbance from fire and fuels management and prescribed fire under Alternative F would be similar to 

Alternative D, and effects on paleontological resources would be similar to Alternative D.

Proactive Management

The management of paleontological resources under Alternative F is the same as Alternative D, and the 

type and magnitude of impacts to paleontological resources would be the same as Alternative D.

4.5.3 Visual Resources

4.5.3.2 Summary of Impacts by Alternative

To manage visual values, each alternative applies VRM Classes (I, II, III, IV) to the Planning Area; adverse 

impacts would primarily result where an area’s VRM Class is less protective than warranted by its visual 

inventory class (e.g., a visual inventory Class II, a highly visually valuable area, is managed as VRM Class 

IV, which allows for a major modification of the landscape), and beneficial impacts would result from 

areas where the VRM Class applied is consistent with or more restrictive than the area’s visual inventory 

class (e.g., a visual inventory Class III area managed as VRM Class III or Class II). Under all alternatives, 

traditional resource uses and development would continue, allowing varying degrees of development 

and resulting in new visual contrast. Alternatives A and C would be the least protective of visual values 

because both alternatives manage substantial portions of the Planning Area below their visual inventory 

class, including substantial areas of visual inventory Class II managed as VRM Classes III and IV (see Table 

4-11 in the Draft RMP and Draft EIS). However, compared to Alternative C, Alternative A manages a 

larger portion of lower visual value visual inventory Class IV areas as a more restrictive VRM Class III, 

which would result in greater beneficial impacts in those areas. Alternatives B and E are the most 

protective of visual values, as they would manage almost the entire Planning Area consistent with or 

more restrictive than the classification determined from the visual inventory (see Table 4-12 in the Draft 

RMP and Draft EIS). Alternatives B and E would therefore be the most effective at maintaining the 

existing, primarily undeveloped, character of the landscape; managing areas of lower visual value under 

more restrictive management may also lead to an enhancement of these areas, primarily over the long 

term. Under alternatives D and F, VRM closely matches the Visual Resource Inventory Classes (i.e., most 

visual inventory Class II areas are managed as VRM Class II); this management would thereby be aimed 

at retaining the visual values identified during the visual inventory.

4.5.3.3 Detailed Analysis of Alternatives

Alternative E

Under Alternative E, the BLM manages the same acreages of VRM Class I, II, III, and IV areas as 

Alternative B (Map SEIS-16), and the resulting benefits to visual values would be the same as Alternative 

B. The same beneficial impacts to visual resources described under Alternative B would result under 

Alternative E, except to a greater extent. Under Alternative E, greater sage-grouse Key Habitat Areas are 

managed so that anthropogenic disturbances (e.g., roads, oil and gas wells, pipelines, etc.) do not 

exceed one disturbance per 640 acres and cover less than 3 percent of the total sage-grouse habitat, 

compared to a larger allowable disturbance of 5 percent in these areas under Alternative B. Therefore, 

Alternative E would reduce development affecting visual values to the greatest extent of any alternative.
Visual Resources

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS 4-95

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Surface Disturbance

Alternative E places the most restrictions on surface-disturbing activities for the protection of resources, 

and would therefore result in the fewest visual impacts from surface disturbance. In comparison to the 

other alternatives, large-scale disturbances, high-profile intrusions, and concentrated development are 

the most limited under Alternative E. In particular, Alternative E includes management in greater sagegrouse Key Habitat Areas (1,231,383 acres) that would exclude or limit new above ground ROWs and 

renewable energy developments and prohibit most mineral development activities.

Resource Uses

Mineral resource development under Alternative E would result in the least surface disturbance of any 

alternative. Relatively fewer disturbances from well pad development, road, and pipeline construction 

would limit new visual contrast that would disrupt the natural form, line, color, and texture of the 

landscape.

Renewable energy and ROW development are more restricted under Alternative E than the other 

alternatives, reducing the potential adverse impacts to visual values from such developments. Despite 

this larger area of exclusion that results from the management of the Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat 

Areas ACEC, the BLM projects that under Alternative E, renewable energy and ROW projects (e.g., roads, 

powerlines and pipelines) would result in similar surface disturbances and impacts to visual values as 

Alternative B (Appendix T).

Restrictions on motorized vehicle use under Alternative E are the same as Alternative B, such as 

designating and implementing the seasonal closures to motorized use within greater sage-grouse Key 

Habitat Areas. However, impacts from the CTTM under Alternative E would be slightly less adverse than 

those described under Alternative B due to limitations on the construction of new roads and a focus on 

closing roads not serving a public function in the Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC.

Special Designations

Management of special designations under Alternative E, except in the Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat 

Areas ACEC (1,231,383 acres), is the same as Alternative B, and impacts would be similar to Alternative 

B. Due to the size and additional restrictions on surface-disturbing activities and resource uses (e.g., the 

mineral development and CTTM management described under Resource Uses above) applied for the 

Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC, special designation management under Alternative E 

would reduce contrast and resulting adverse impacts to visual values compared to the other 

alternatives.

Proactive Management

Alternative E manages the Planning Area under the same VRM Classes as Alternative B; beneficial 

impacts from this management under Alternative E would be the same as Alternative B.

Alternative F

Under Alternative F, the BLM manages the same acreage of VRM Class I, II, III, and IV areas as 

Alternative D, and the impacts to visual values would be the same as Alternative D, but to a greater 

extent. Greater sage-grouse Core Habitat Areas (1,116,124 acres) are managed so that anthropogenic 

disturbances (e.g., roads, oil and gas wells, pipelines, etc.) do not exceed one disturbance per 640 acres 

and cover less than 3 percent of the total sage-grouse habitat.
Visual Resources

4-96 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Surface Disturbance

Under Alternative F, adverse impacts to visual values from surface disturbance would be the same as 

Alternative D (Map SEIS-17), but to a lesser extent. Compared to Alternative D, additional restrictions 

on surface-disturbing activities for the protection of resources would provide greater protection from 

new visual contrast, especially where they overlap areas of less-restrictive VRM. In particular, 

Alternative F is projected to result in less surface disturbance associated with mineral development due 

to restrictive management for lands in the Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC. These 

restrictions would provide a beneficial impact to visual values by reducing the amount of visual contrast 

on the landscape resulting from mineral development.

Resource Uses

Management of mineral exploration and development under Alternative F would result in similar 

adverse impacts on visual resources as Alternative D, but to a lesser extent due to additional restrictions 

on leasable mineral development in greater sage-grouse Core Habitat Areas under Alternative F.

Alternative F manages ROW grants and renewable energy development similar to Alternative D, and a 

similar amount of surface disturbance is projected under Alternative F, as under alternatives A and D. 

However, management for these developments in the Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC 

that requires the use of existing roads to the extent practicable and limits the potential to develop wind 

developments for the protection of greater sage-grouse would reduce adverse impacts compared to 

Alternative D.

Alternative F CTTM is the same as Alternative D, except that travel in greater sage-grouse Core Habitat 

Areas is limited to designated roads and trails, which would reduce adverse impacts to visual resources 

in these areas.

Special designations under Alternative F are the same as Alternative D, with the exception of an 

additional 1,116,124 acres of BLM-administered land within greater sage-grouse Core Habitat Areas that 

would be designated as an ACEC under Alternative F. The relative size and additional restrictions on 

surface-disturbing activities and resource uses in special designation areas under Alternative F would 

further reduce contrast and resulting adverse impacts to visual values in comparison to alternatives A, C, 

and D.

Proactive Management

Under Alternative F, the use of VRM contrast rating worksheets and visual simulations are the same as 

described for alternatives A and D and would allow the identification of potential adverse impacts as 

described under those alternatives. VRM Class would be managed in the same manner as Alternative D, 

and the beneficial impacts would be the same as Alternative D. However, Alternative F would result in 

greater overall beneficial impacts to visual resources when compared to alternatives A and D due to the 

additional management actions in the Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC.
Lands and Realty

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS 4‐97

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

4.6 Land Resources

4.6.1 Lands and Realty

4.6.1.2 Summary of Impacts by Alternative

Impacts to the lands and realty program from implementing the alternatives include land disposal,

acquisition, and withdrawal, and management that makes realty actions more difficult to complete.  

Alternative E includes the most area for standard acquisition (1,391,865 acres), followed by Alternative

B (228,164), alternatives D and F (228,148 acres), and Alternative C (87,068).  Alternative A does not

consider lands for acquisition.  Alternative C includes the largest area available for disposal (117,961

acres), followed by Alternative A (116,800 acres), alternatives D and F (66,022 acres), Alternative B

(24,267 acres), and Alternative E (22,133).  In the past, there has been an overall net decrease of BLM‐

administered land in the Planning Area, and this trend is expected to continue under all the alternatives.  

Land would continue to be available for community expansion under all alternatives, with Alternative C

providing more opportunities for small‐scale property boundary adjustments and agricultural expansion

for private land owners.  Long‐term impacts associated with the withdrawal and segregation of lands

would be the greatest under Alternative E, because the BLM would recommend withdrawal of the

largest area, followed by alternatives B, A, D and F, and C, respectively.

4.6.1.3 Detailed Analysis of Alternatives

NOTE:  Replace Table 4‐13 (pages 4‐299 to 4‐301) and Table 4‐14 (page 4‐303) of the Draft RMP and

Draft EIS with the following tables.

Table 4‐13. Withdrawals, Classifications, and Other Segregations

in the Planning Area

Field

Office Name

Acres by Alternative Segregates/

Withdraws from

Alternative

A

Alternative

B

Alternative

C

Alternative

D

Alternative

E

Alternative

F

Land

Disposal

Locatable

Mineral

Entry

Resource Protection

CYFO Stock Driveway 33,781 33,781 33,781 33,781 33,781 33,781    

WFO Stock Driveway 59,063 59,063 59,063 59,063 59,063 59,063 

CYFO Cave and Karst

Areas 0 270 270 270 270 270    

WFO Cave and Karst

Areas1 8,560 8,560 8,560 8,560 8,560 8,560    

CYFO Spirit (Cedar)

Mountain Cave 234 234 234 234 234 234  

CYFO

Horsethief/

Natural Trap

Caves

519 566 566 381 566 381  

WFO

Big Cedar Ridge

Paleontological

Area

264 264 0 264 264 264  
Lands and Realty

4‐98 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Table 4‐13. Withdrawals, Classifications, and Other Segregations

in the Planning Area (Continued)

Field  

Office Name

Acres by Alternative Segregates/

Withdraws from

Alternative

A

Alternative

B

Alternative

C

Alternative

D

Alternative

E

Alternative

F Disposal Locatables

WFO

Red Gulch

Dinosaur

Tracksite

1,798 1,798 0 1,798 1,798 1,798  

WFO Castle Gardens

Recreation Site 110 110 110 110 110 110  

CYFO

Beck Lake

Scenic Area

(Proposed)

708 708 0 708 708 708  

CYFO

National

Historic

Landmark

72 72 72 72 72 72    

Management Areas

CYFO ACECs 11,947 252,133 0 16,689 582,952 16,689    

WFO ACECs1 20,538 21,798 8,560 8,689 803,614 8,689    

CYFO WSRs 4,863 6,752 0 0 6,752 0    

WFO WSRs 12,208 15,401 0 0 15,401 0    

Other Segregations

CYFO Cody Industrial

Park 0 208 0 209 208 209    

CYFO

Restored U.S.

BOR lands not

open to entry2

0 0 0 0 0 0  

WFO

Restored U.S.

BOR lands not

open to entry2

0 0 0 0 0 0  

WFO

BLM‐WSO

Public Water

Reserve

2,138

Existing 2,138 0 2,138 2,138 2,138  

CYFO

BLM‐WSO

Public Water

Reserve

625 625 0 625 625 625  

WFO

BLM‐WSO

Power Site

Reservation

159 159 159 159 159 159  

CYFO BLM Power Site

Reservation 3,309 3,786 3,309 2,094 3,786 2,094  
Lands and Realty

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS 4‐99

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Table 4‐13. Withdrawals, Classifications, and Other Segregations

in the Planning Area (Continued)

Field  

Office Name

Acres by Alternative Segregates/

Withdraws from

Alternative

A

Alternative

B

Alternative

C

Alternative

D

Alternative

E

Alternative

F Disposal Locatables

Other Federal Agency Withdrawals

WFO

Power Site

Classification

(FERC)

1,197 1,197 1,197 1,197 1,197 1,197  

CYFO

Power Site

Classification

(FERC) (Clarks

Fork of the

Yellowstone

and Bighorn

rivers)

15,698 15,698 15,698 14,841 15,698 14,841  

CYFO

Department of

Defense (Lovell

Military

Training Area)

3,543 3,543 3,543 3,543 3,543 3,543  

CYFO

National Park

Service ‐ Big

Horn

Recreation

Area

15,634 15,635 15,635 15,635 15,635 15,635  

WFO

U.S. BOR

(Irrigation

Projects)

1,419 0 0 0 0 0  

CYFO

U.S. BOR

(Irrigation

Projects)

83,521 0 0 0 0 0  

CYFO

U.S. Forest

Service – Wood

River Guard

Station

40 40 40 40 40 40  

Source:  BLM 2009b; BLM2013o

Note:  Due to overlapping resources, numbers are not additive.

1

Withdrawals for cave and karst areas that overlap the Spanish Point Karst ACEC are counted in both locations. 2

Lands restored to the BLM by the U.S. BOR are closed to locatable mineral entry and disposal, not withdrawn.  These lands are included under

“segregations” because the closure has a segregating effect.

ACEC Area of Critical Environmental Concern

BLM Bureau of Land Management

BOR Bureau of Reclamation

CYFO Cody Field Office

FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

U.S. United States

WFO Worland Field Office

WSO Wyoming State Office

WSRs Wild and Scenic Rivers
Lands and Realty

4-100 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Table 4-14. Land Tenure Adjustment Zones by Alternative

Zone

Acreage

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Alternative F

Zone 1 – Retention 4,375 146,231 5,151 4,375 5,151

Zone 1A – Retention, Acquisition 228,164 87,068 228,148 1,391,865 228,148

Zone 1B – Retention, Acquisition, 

Special Disposal1 2,773,260 793,529 800,798 1,643,975 800,798

Zone 1C – Retention, Special 

Disposal1 161,182 2,045,022 2,089,781 128,419 2,089,781

Zone 2 – Disposal 3,844 88,452 41,315 2,317 41,315

Zone 2A – Disposal for 

Community Expansion 3,951 8,986 5,033 3,512 5,033

Zone 2B – Disposal for 

Agricultural Expansion/Property 

Boundary Adjustment

350 4,036 3,240 182 3,240

Zone W – Disposal for the 

Westside Irrigation Project 16,122 16,122 16,122 16,122 16,122

Source: BLM 2009b; BLM2013o

1 Disposals in these zones would occur only in special situations, so the acreage from this zone actually disposed of would likely be a small 

percentage of the total acreage listed.

Alternative E

Land Tenure Adjustments

Similar to alternatives B, C, and D, Alternative E identifies areas for land tenure adjustments by type of 

zone for acquisition, retention, and disposal (Map SEIS-18), subject to the criteria for each zone 

(Appendix M). Table 4-14 lists the acreages associated with each type of zone. Impacts of disposal and 

retention would be similar to Alternative A, except that Alternative E identifies the smallest area for 

disposal (including areas with restrictions and disposal for specific uses) of any alternative, and less 

acreage for standard disposal (with 22,133 acres in Zones 2, 2A, 2B, and W) than alternatives A, B, C, 

or D. Impacts from designating land tenure adjustment zones for Alternative E would be the same as 

Alternative B.

Alternative E identifies the greatest amount of acreage (1,391,865) for standard acquisition of any 

alternative; impacts from acquisition would be similar to alternatives A and B, although to a greater 

extent because of the substantially greater area identified for acquisition under Alternative E. The areas 

identified for acquisition under Alternative E are the same as Alternative B, but also include lands and 

interests to conserve, enhance, or restore greater sage-grouse habitat in the Greater Sage-Grouse Key 

Habitat Areas ACEC (1,231,383 acres).

Under Alternative E, the effects of terminating the existing Desert Land Entry (DLE) classifications and 

disposing of the federal mineral estate under the Cody Industrial Park would be the same as 

Alternative B.

In addition to the conservation easements pursued under Alternative B, Alternative E also pursues 

conservation easements on lands for the benefit of greater sage-grouse habitat. This would result in 
Lands and Realty

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS 4-101

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

long-term benefits to the lands and realty program by increasing the land base available for realty 

actions and increasing management effectiveness in these areas.

Land Use Authorizations

Under Alternative E, the BLM considers land use authorizations on a case-by-case basis consistent with 

other resource objectives. Impacts to lands and realty from land use authorizations would result 

primarily from management actions associated with ROWs, communications sites, and renewable 

energy, which are discussed in their respective sections.

Withdrawals, Classifications, and Segregations

Under Alternative E, the BLM pursues withdrawals on a total of 1,764,621 acres in the Planning Area 

(Map SEIS - 3), including withdrawals in priority greater sage-grouse habitat from mineral entry. Table 4-

13 summarizes withdrawals by area and type of segregation. Impacts from withdrawals that close areas 

to operation of the public land laws would be similar to Alternative A, but to a greater extent because 

Alternative E pursues withdrawals on the largest area of any alternatives.

Alternative F

Land Tenure Adjustments

Similar to alternatives B through E, Alternative F identifies areas for land tenure adjustments by type of 

zone for acquisition, retention, and disposal (Map SEIS-19), subject to the criteria for each zone 

(Appendix M). Table 4-14 lists acreages associated with each type of zone. Impacts from disposal and 

retention of lands would be similar to Alternative A. Land tenure adjustment zones under Alternative F 

are the same as Alternative D, and impacts to the lands and realty program would be the same as 

Alternative D.

Management of DLE applications, as well as land tenure adjustments for the Cody Industrial Park, under 

Alternative F would be the same as Alternative D, and impacts to the lands and realty program would be 

the same as Alternative D.

Alternative F pursues the same conservation easements associated with areas managed as VRM Class I 

and II as Alternative D, and impacts to the lands and realty program would be the same as Alternative D. 

Similar to Alternative E, Alternative F pursues conservations easements to benefit greater sage-grouse 

habitat, and effects would be similar to those described under Alternative E.

Land Use Authorizations

Under Alternative F, the BLM would consider land use authorizations on a case-by-case basis, consistent 

with other resource objectives. Impacts to lands and realty from land use authorizations would result 

primarily from management actions associated with ROWs, communications sites, and renewable 

energy, which are discussed in their respective sections in this chapter.

Withdrawals, Classifications, and Segregations

Withdrawals, classifications, and segregations under Alternative F are the same as Alternative D, and 

impacts would be the same as Alternative D (see Table 4-13).
Renewable Energy

4-102 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

4.6.2 Renewable Energy

4.6.2.2 Summary of Impacts by Alternative

Impacts to renewable energy development would result from restrictions that limit or prohibit 

renewable energy development, including the designation of renewable energy avoidance/mitigation 

and exclusion areas. Each alternative proposes restrictions on renewable energy development to a 

varying degree of intensity.

Under Alternative A, no specific renewable energy avoidance/mitigation or exclusion areas are 

identified. Alternative E includes the most restrictions and constraints to renewable energy 

development, with 1,953,388 acres managed as exclusion areas and 991,023 acres managed as 

avoidance/mitigation areas. Alternative E also includes the most constraints to renewable energy 

development in ACEC areas, followed by alternatives B, F, D, and C, respectively. Alternative B is the 

second most constraining alternative, with 1,251,869 acres managed as renewable energy exclusion 

areas and 1,691,497 acres managed as avoidance/mitigation areas. Alternative C is the least 

constraining to renewable energy development, with 151,506 acres managed as renewable energy 

exclusion areas and 1,612,547 acres managed as avoidance/mitigation areas. Management under all 

alternatives would seek to minimize impacts to other resources from renewable energy development, 

which may result in adverse impacts through siting and design requirements and mitigation that could 

limit development (such as limits on allowable surface disturbance in priority greater sage-grouse 

habitat under alternatives D, E, and F).

4.6.2.3 Detailed Analysis of Alternatives

Alternative E

Under Alternative E, areas open to renewable energy development (areas not included in renewable 

energy avoidance/mitigation or exclusion areas) are the same as Alternative B (246,448 acres), and 

impacts to renewable energy development would be the same as described under Alternative B.

Under Alternative E, a total of 991,023 acres are managed as renewable energy avoidance/mitigation 

areas and 1,953,388 acres are managed as renewable energy exclusion areas (Map SEIS-20). Alternative 

E allocates additional acreage (701,519 acres) as renewable energy exclusion areas in comparison to 

Alternative B. The single largest contributing factor to the increase in renewable energy exclusion areas 

under Alternative E, compared to Alternative B, is the management of the Greater Sage-Grouse Key 

Habitat Areas ACEC (1,231,383 acres). The amount of renewable energy exclusion areas (61 percent of 

the BLM-administered surface in the Planning Area) may affect the ability of project proponents to site 

renewable energy on BLM-administered surface lands. In addition, Alternative E manages 42 percent of 

BLM-administered surface lands as a ROW exclusion area, potentially adversely affecting the ability of 

proponents to develop on inholdings and other non-BLM administered lands that would require a BLM 

ROW for access or new electrical transmission to move generated power off-site. However, windenergy potential is generally low across the Planning Area (66 percent is classified as “poor” and 25 

percent “marginal”), and the BLM anticipates that even with these additional restrictions, renewable 

energy development on BLM-administered land would be approved at the same rate as Alternative B, 

and impacts would be similar to Alternative B.

Management for cultural sites, VRM, and other considerations that could affect the development of 

renewable energy under Alternative E is the same as Alternative B, and impacts to renewable energy 

would be the same as Alternative B.
Rights-of-Way and Corridors

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS 4-103

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Alternative F

Under Alternative F, 380,097 acres are open to renewable energy development (areas not included in 

renewable energy avoidance/mitigation or exclusion areas). Identifying areas open to renewable energy 

development would reduce the potential for adverse impacts associated with case-by-case permitting 

described under Alternative A. Implementation of Alternative F would result in a similar area open for 

renewable energy development as Alternative D, a larger area than alternatives B and E, and 

substantially less area than Alternative C.

Under Alternative F, a total of 2,515,372 acres are managed as renewable energy avoidance/mitigation 

areas, and 294,345 acres are managed as renewable energy exclusion areas (Map SEIS-21). Alternative F 

manages habitat (including big game winter ranges, big game parturition habitation, and raptor 

concentration areas) consistent with Alternative D, except that Alternative F manages greater sagegrouse Core Habitat Areas as renewable energy avoidance/mitigation areas, while Alternative D 

manages key habitat areas as renewable energy avoidance/mitigation areas. Within the Greater SageGrouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC, the BLM only authorizes new applications for wind power 

development where a proponent could demonstrate that no declines in greater sage-grouse Core 

Habitat Area populations would occur. In addition, proponents are not permitted to exceed one 

disturbance per 640 acres or disturb more than 3 percent of sagebrush habitat in Core Habitat Areas. 

Long-term impacts under Alternative F would be similar to Alternative D, except that additional “no 

decline” requirements and stricter surface disturbance restrictions in priority greater sage-grouse 

habitat would place additional limitations on the ability to develop renewable energy resources. Unlike 

Alternative E, Alternative F allows new ROWs, subject to applicable surface disturbance restrictions, to 

access private and state inholdings, reducing potential adverse effect on renewable energy development 

in these non-BLM administered lands. However, as noted under Alternative E, because wind-energy 

potential is generally low across the Planning Area, the effects of additional restrictions on renewable 

energy may be limited.

Management for cultural sites, VRM, and other considerations that could affect the development of 

renewable energy under Alternative F are the same as Alternative D, and impacts to renewable energy 

would be the same as Alternative D.

4.6.3 Rights-of-Way and Corridors

4.6.3.2 Summary of Impacts by Alternative

Impacts to ROWs and corridors would result from management actions that limit, prohibit, or increase 

the potential for ROWs and include the management of ROW avoidance/mitigation and exclusion areas, 

ROW corridors, and resource specific restrictions and stipulations on surface-disturbing activities and 

ROW authorizations. ROW avoidance/mitigation and exclusion areas would both result in adverse 

impacts by prohibiting or limiting the development of ROWs and potentially resulting in additional 

constraints, mitigation, and other stipulations. ROW avoidance/mitigation and exclusion areas are the 

greatest under alternatives E (2,943,655 acres) and B (2,943,367 acres) followed by Alternative D 

(2,551,205 acres), Alternative F (2,437,486 acres), Alternative C (1,182,097 acres), and Alternative A 

(1,003,194 acres). Alternative A includes the most area allocated for ROW corridors (788,275 acres) 

which would reduce the potential for resource conflict and additional mitigation or modification of ROW 

facilities, followed by Alternative C (133,284 acres), alternatives D and F (132,219 acres), and 

alternatives B and E allocating the least (90,458 acres). Overall, Alternative C has the lowest level of 

constraints applied to ROW authorizations and may result in the greatest number of new ROWs and 
Rights-of-Way and Corridors

4-104 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

communication sites. Alternative E includes the most constraints that would limit or prohibit ROW 

authorizations and would result in the fewest new ROWs and communication sites.

4.6.3.3 Detailed Analysis of Alternatives

Alternative E

Resource Uses

Alternative E includes the same ROW corridors Alternative B (a total of 90,458 acres of BLMadministered surface), and impacts would be similar to Alternative B. However, under Alternative E, in 

greater sage-grouse Key Habitat Areas the BLM only allows below ground ROWs in designated ROW 

corridors and only allows new ROWs in corridors containing existing authorizations if the entire footprint 

of the new ROW is within the existing ROW footprint. These additional requirements may require 

modification of the location, size, or design of facilities associated with ROW corridors, which could 

affect the ability of proponents to use these areas for new ROW placement compared to alternatives A 

or B. In addition, the BLM relocates existing designated ROW corridors crossing greater sage-grouse Key 

Habitat Areas without authorized ROWs or undesignates the entire corridor. Undesignating corridors 

would limit future potential routes for ROWs and could limit the ability to access renewable energy or 

other resources to a greater extent than under other alternatives.

Alternative E manages a total of 1,618,771 acres as ROW avoidance/mitigation areas and 1,324,884 

acres as ROW exclusion areas (Map SEIS-22). Impacts from managing ROW avoidance/mitigation and 

exclusion areas would be similar to Alternative A, although to a greater extent because Alternative E 

includes the largest area of ROW exclusion area of any alternative. The single largest contributing factor 

to the increase in ROW exclusion areas under Alternative E, compared to Alternative B, is the 

management of the Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC (1,231,383 acres). The size of ROW 

exclusion areas under this alternative (42 percent of the BLM-administered surface in the Planning Area) 

may affect the ability of project proponents to site future ROWs across BLM-administered lands for 

projects such as CO2 pipelines for enhanced oil recovery operations or new transmission lines outside of 

existing corridors. The extensive exclusion areas under Alternative E may also increase the 

concentration of linear ROWs on and through private lands compared to the other alternatives. Where 

such exclusion areas occur in large, contiguous blocks (such as the Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat 

Areas ACEC), finding practicable alternate routes that avoid BLM-administered land may be difficult. 

However, Alternative E would allow new ROWs where needed to access valid existing rights, with a 

preference toward the re-use of existing access routes, thus decreasing adverse effects on valid existing 

rights. Any new access routes would be subject to the 3 percent cap on disturbance, and reclamation to 

remediate other existing disturbance would be implemented before new ROW-related disturbances 

would be permitted in areas that exceed that cap.

Communication site management under Alternative E is the same as Alternative B, and impacts would 

be the same as Alternative B.

Management for above ground facilities, night skies evaluations, and other resource use considerations 

that could affect ROW development under Alternative E would be the same as Alternative B, and 

impacts would be the same as Alternative B.
Rights-of-Way and Corridors

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS 4-105

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Special Designations

Management of ROWs in special designations under Alternative E, except in the Greater Sage-Grouse 

Key Habitat Areas ACEC, would be the same as Alternative B, and impacts would be similar to those 

described under Alternative B. In the Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC, the BLM would 

pursue opportunities to remove, bury, or modify existing powerlines and would amend existing ROW 

grants during the ROW renewal process to require features that enhance sage-grouse habitat security. 

This ACEC-specific management would place additional constraints and mitigation stipulations on 

existing ROW grants, which would produce adverse impacts.

Resources

Alternative E would manage wildlife habitat, cultural sites, and other resource considerations consistent 

with Alternative B, except that Alternative E would manage the Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas 

ACEC (1,231,383 acres) as a ROW energy exclusion area.

Alternative F

Resource Uses

Alternative F includes the same ROW corridors as Alternative D (a total of 132,219 acres of BLMadministered surface), and impacts would be similar to Alternative D. However, in Core Habitat Areas, 

the BLM places timing restrictions on the construction or new transmission line ROWs in ROW corridors. 

These additional requirements may require modification of facility construction timing that could affect 

ROW development in those corridors. In addition, the BLM relocates existing designated ROW corridors 

crossing greater sage-grouse Key Habitat Areas without authorized ROWs or undesignates the entire 

corridor. Undesignating corridors would limit future potential routes for ROWs and could limit the 

ability to access renewable energy or other resources. Under Alternative F, the BLM manages a total of 

2,398,483 acres as ROW avoidance/mitigation areas and 39,003 acres as ROW exclusion areas (Map 

SEIS-23). Impacts from managing ROW avoidance/mitigation and exclusion areas would be similar to 

Alternative D because the alternatives designate similar amounts of area for ROW corridors.

However, Alternative E would allow new ROWs where needed to access valid existing rights, with a 

preference toward the re-use of existing access routes, thus decreasing adverse effects on valid existing 

rights. Any new access routes would be subject to the 3 percent cap on disturbance.

Management for above ground facilities, night skies evaluations, and other resource use considerations 

that could affect ROW development under Alternative F are the same as Alternative D, and impacts 

would be the same as described under Alternative D.

Special Designations

Management of ROWs in special designations under Alternative F, except in the Greater Sage-Grouse 

Core Habitat Areas ACEC, is the same as Alternative D, and impacts would be similar to Alternative D. In 

the Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC, the BLM allows the maintenance and continued 

operation of existing communications towers and other structures but could stipulate additional 

upgrades (e.g., installing anti-perching devices, minimizing wires and other collision hazards, and 

retrofitting existing towers to discourage use by raptors) where needed to protect greater sage-grouse. 

Such requirements could increase costs for ROW grantees but would not preclude continued use of the 

ROW.
Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management

4-106 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Resources

Alternative F manages wildlife habitat, cultural sites, and other resource considerations consistent with 

Alternative D within greater sage-grouse priority habitat managed as part of the Greater Sage-Grouse 

Core Habitat Areas ACEC (1,116,124 acres). In the Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC, 

proponents are not permitted to exceed one disturbance per 640 acres or disturb more than 3 percent 

of sagebrush habitat in Core Habitat Areas; reclamation to remediate existing disturbance would need 

to be implemented before new ROW-related disturbances would be permitted in areas that exceed the 

disturbance cap. Long-term impacts under Alternative F would be similar to Alternative D, except that 

these stricter surface disturbance restrictions in greater sage-grouse Core Habitat Areas (35 percent of 

BLM-administered surface lands) would limit the ability to develop, or increase the cost and difficulty of 

siting new ROWs compared to alternatives A and D through a large portion of the Planning Area.

4.6.4 Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management

4.6.4.2 Summary of Impacts by Alternative

Impacts to CTTM would result from travel designations that open, limit, or close areas to travel. 

Additional impacts would result from management that affects the number or quality of roads and trails, 

or management that affects opportunities for access on- or off-road using motorized, mechanized, 

equestrian, or foot travel.

Alternative C would result in the most new road and trail development, primarily due to the larger 

acreage open to cross-country motorized travel, followed by alternatives D and F, B, A, and E. Under 

alternatives D and F, the BLM specifically establishes the most new trails and roads for motorized, 

mechanized, and primitive recreational uses, but it does not manage as many acres as open to crosscountry motorized travel as under Alternative C.

ROW exclusion areas would prohibit all ROW actions including the construction of new roads that could 

be used for motorized vehicle use under Alternative E, unless they can be co-located with existing ROWs 

only to access valid existing rights. ROW exclusion areas would restrict the development of new travel 

routes most under alternatives B and E, followed by alternatives A, D and F, and C.

Alternatives B and E include the most limitations on and closures to motorized and mechanized vehicle 

use for resource protection. Therefore, these alternatives would cause the greatest adverse impacts to 

access opportunities for motorized vehicle use, followed by alternatives F, D, A, and C. Alternatives B 

and E limit the most acreage to designated roads and trails in the Planning Area (2,054,228 acres), 

followed by alternatives F, (1,746,579 acres), D (1,055,257 acres), C (951,992 acres), and A (787,626 

acres). The area limited to existing roads and trails is greatest under Alternative A (2,332,355 acres) 

followed by alternatives C (2,144,623 acres), D (2,028,620 acres), F (1,341,784 acres), and B and E 

(931,803 acres). Alternatives B and E close the greatest acreage to motorized vehicle use (136,474 

acres), followed by alternatives D and F (60,681 acres), A (59,192 acres) and C (10,636 acres). Due to the 

size of the Planning Area and the limited number of new projected roads, restrictions on motorized 

and/or mechanized travel on existing routes may have a greater effect on travel and transportation 

management than the miles or location of new road development.

Overall, Alternative C would cause the fewest adverse impacts (and the most benefits) to CTTM, 

followed by alternatives A, D, F, and B and E.
Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS 4-107

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

4.6.4.3 Detailed Analysis of Alternatives

Alternative E

Resource Uses

Alternative E would result in a similar number of new roads from ROW authorizations and new roads in 

locales open to cross-country motorized travel or from BLM road and trail creation as anticipated under 

Alternative B (734 miles [1,068 acres] of new road and trail creation due to user-pioneered routes and 

422 miles [615 acres] from ROW authorizations in the long term) (Appendix T). However, unlike 

Alternative B, Alternative E contains a Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC (1,231,383) that 

applies additional restrictions on new road and trail development. Management in that ACEC that limits 

the allowable surface disturbance, prohibits construction within 4 miles of leks, and restricts the types of 

routes that can be constructed could limit the BLM’s ability maintain a transportation system that meets 

certain user needs where those needs conflict with the predominant management objective (i.e., the 

protection of greater sage-grouse habitat).

Management of new recreational road and trail development under Alternative E is the same as 

Alternative B, and impacts to CTTM would be the same as Alternative B.

Impacts to CTTM from ROW management would be similar to Alternative A, although to a greater extent 

because Alternative E manages more area as ROW avoidance/mitigation and exclusion areas. 

Alternative E includes the largest ROW exclusion area (1,324,884 acres) compared to the other 

alternatives. As a result, Alternative E would result in the greatest adverse impacts to CTTM from 

restrictions and limitations on new roads and routes authorized through ROWs. Alternative E prohibits 

new roads and routes authorized through a ROW permit unless they can be co-located with existing 

ROWs only to access valid existing rights.

Alternative E limits motorized vehicle use to designated roads and trails in the same areas and imposes 

the same seasonal closures (February 1 through July 31) as Alternative B (Map SEIS-24), and impacts to 

CTTM would be the same as Alternative B.

Special Designations

Special designations under Alternative E are the same as Alternative B, with the exception of the 

additional Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC. Managing special designations under 

Alternative E would result in the greatest adverse impacts to CTTM compared to the other alternatives. 

Although the types of impacts would be similar to those under Alternative B, Alternative E places more 

restrictions on motorized travel to protect resources in areas with special designations than any other 

alternative. Overall, motorized travel restrictions in special designations under Alternative E would 

result in the greatest adverse impacts to access opportunities.

Resources

Management of wildlife habitat, forest products, harvest and vegetation treatments, cultural sites, and 

other resource considerations under Alternative E is the same as Alternative B, and impacts to CTTM 

from restrictions to protect resources would be the same as Alternative B. Like Alternative B, the 

emphasis of resource protection over resource use would result in more restrictions on motorized 

vehicle use under Alternative E, compared to the other alternatives. Restrictions of Alternative E that 

limit or close motorized travel would result in proportional adverse impacts to CTTM.
Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management

4-108 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Proactive Management

Beneficial impacts to CTTM under Alternative E would result from allowing open cross-country 

motorized vehicle use on 3,169 acres and limiting motorized vehicle use to existing roads and trails 

(593,448 acres). Overall, Alternative E management is similar to Alternative B, except that it includes 

additional restrictions and fewer beneficial proactive management actions for motorized vehicle use.

Similar to Alternative B, Alternative E would implement and maintain the current travel management 

plans identified under Impacts Common to All Alternatives and would implement new travel 

management plans that cover the remaining areas managed as Designated Roads and Trails. Under all 

alternatives, the BLM would designate routes on all BLM-administered land within the Planning Area. 

Alternatives B and E limit motorized vehicle use to designated roads and trails on 2,392,584 acres. 

Notably, Alternative E prioritizes the conservation of greater-sage grouse Key Habitat Areas (1,231,383 

acres) above other uses, potentially leading to greater route limitations in this area than under other 

alternatives. However, authorized or permitted uses that specify allowable access would not be 

affected by travel management designations.

Alternative F

Resource Uses

Alternative F would result in a greater amount of new roads from ROW authorizations (461 miles [672 

acres]) than alternatives B and E, but fewer than alternatives A, C, and D. Alternative F also allows the 

third-most new roads in locales open to cross-country motorized travel or from BLM road and trail 

creation. Based on projected surface disturbance, Alternative F would result in 2,693 miles (3,917 acres) 

of new road and trail creation due to user-pioneered routes in areas open to cross-country motorized 

travel and new BLM-created routes (Appendix T).

Management of new recreational road and trail development, areas open to off-road motorized vehicle 

use (OHV play areas), and motorized vehicle use in recreation management areas (Special Recreation 

Management Areas [SRMAs], Resource Management Zones [RMZs], and Extensive Recreation 

Management Areas [ERMAs]) under Alternative F is the same as under Alternative D, and impacts to 

CTTM would be the same as Alternative D.

ROW management under Alternative F is similar to Alternative D, and impacts to CTTM would be the 

same as Alternative D.

Special Designations

Special designations under Alternative F are the same as Alternative D, with the exception of the 

Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC (1,116,124 acres). The types of impacts to CTTM from 

special designations management under Alternative F would be similar to Alternative D. However, due 

to additional limitations on motorized vehicle use in the Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC 

from limiting travel to designated roads and trails, Alternative F would result in a greater adverse impact 

to CTTM than alternatives A, C, and D, but less than alternatives B and E.

Resources

Management of wildlife habitat, forest products, vegetation treatments, cultural sites, and other 

resource considerations under Alternative F are the same as Alternative D, and impacts to CTTM from 

restrictions to protect resources would be the same as Alternative D. Like Alternative D, Alternative F 
Recreation

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS 4-109

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

emphasizes resource protection more than alternatives A and C, but less than alternatives B and E, 

resulting in proportional access restrictions and adverse impacts to CTTM.

Proactive Management

Alternative F allows open cross-country motorized vehicle use on the same amount of acreage as 

Alternative D, and the resulting beneficial impacts to CTTM would be the same as Alternative D. 

Alternative F also closes the same amount of acreage to motorized vehicle use as Alternative D, and 

adverse impacts to CTTM would be the same as Alternative D.

Under all alternatives, the BLM would designate routes on all BLM-administered land within the 

Planning Area. Alternative F would limit motorized vehicle use to designated roads and trails on more 

acreage (1,746,579 acres) of the Planning Area than alternatives A, C, and D (Map SEIS-25), and 

subsequently would result in greater overall adverse impacts to CTTM than alternatives A, C, and D. 

Alternative F would limit motorized vehicle use to existing roads and trails on less acreage (1,341,784 

acres) of the Planning Area than Alternative D (2,144,623 acres). However, authorized or permitted uses 

that specify allowable access would not be affected by travel management designations.

4.6.5 Recreation

4.6.5.2 Summary of Impacts by Alternative

Management for surface disturbance, land tenure adjustments, areas closed or administratively 

unavailable for mineral development, special designations, proactive recreation management actions, 

and other resource management actions form the basis for comparing impacts to recreation among the 

alternatives. Proactive management under alternatives B and E would most enhance facilities and 

amenities to meet niche demands for recreation while minimizing potential user conflict, followed by 

alternatives F, D, A, and C. Alternatives B and E would enhance the recreational experience of users 

expecting a more primitive recreational experience and opportunities for solitude the most, followed by 

alternatives F, D, A, and C. Dispersed motorized recreation opportunities would be limited to 

designated areas the most under alternatives B and E, which may result in the greatest adverse impacts 

to motorized recreation use compared to other the alternatives, followed by alternatives F, D, A, and C. 

Alternative C would result in the most opportunities for dispersed motorized recreation, but primitive 

forms of recreation and opportunities for solitude would not be a priority and may diminish as OHV use 

increases over the planning cycle. Alternative F manages the second-most area for off-road motorized 

vehicle use, but also restricts motorized vehicle use to designated roads and trails in the second-most 

acreage that would limit recreation opportunities for motorized travel.

Special designations and management for resource protection in ACECs and WSRs that maintain their 

recreation settings for scenery and wildlife viewing would result in the greatest benefit to recreationists 

under Alternative E, followed by alternatives B, F, A, D, and C.

Alternatives E and B would result in the least amount of surface disturbance, minerals development, 

ROW authorizations, and other conflicting resource uses that would displace recreation and potentially 

degrade the recreation setting, followed by alternatives F, D, A, and C. Alternatives B and E would 

benefit recreational settings the most because these alternatives manage the most areas as SRMAs for 

desired recreation settings to benefit outcome objectives, activities, experiences, and benefits, followed 

by alternatives F, D, A, and C. However, alternatives B and E would also result in the greatest impacts to 

desired experiences and beneficial outcomes through seasonal closures on the greatest acreage among 

the alternatives; seasonal restrictions on travel could limit the ability of certain recreational users to 
Recreation

4-110 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

access some desired recreation areas and sites (e.g., recreation sites in greater sage-grouse Key Habitat 

Areas) during certain times of the year.

Alternative C manages the fewest areas as SRMAs and would result in the greatest adverse impacts to 

the desired settings, opportunities, activities, experiences, and beneficial outcomes in areas with 

substantial recreation values. Although alternatives F and D manage less acreage in SRMAs than 

Alternative A, managing these areas for the realization of benefits by maintaining the desired 

recreational setting character condition (RSCC), SRMAs would result in more beneficial impacts to 

recreation experiences than under Alternative A.

4.6.5.3 Detailed Analysis of Alternatives

Alternative E

Under Alternative E, the BLM would designate the same recreation management areas (SRMAs, ERMAs, 

and RMZs) as Alternative B (see Map SEIS-26 and Table 4-15 in the Draft RMP and Draft EIS). 

Management actions to maintain or enhance recreation settings, experiences, and opportunities in 

these areas and impacts on other resources and resource uses under Alternative E would be the same as 

Alternative B.

Surface Disturbance

Under Alternative E, a total of 71,799 acres of short-term and 10,787 acres of long-term surface 

disturbance is projected (Appendix T), most of which would result in adverse impacts to recreation. The 

intensity of impacts to recreation would depend on the location of the surface disturbance in relation to 

the desired RSCC in the area being disturbed (see Impacts Common to All Alternatives). Surface 

disturbing activities and total surface disturbance acreage under Alternative E would be similar to 

Alternative B, and impacts to recreational experiences would be the similar to Alternative B. However, 

in greater sage-grouse Key Habitat Areas under Alternative E, disturbances would not be permitted to 

exceed one disturbance per 640 acres or disturb more than 3 percent of sagebrush habitat, compared to 

5 percent under Alternative B. This additional restriction would reduce potential adverse impacts from 

surface disturbance to recreational experiences, particularly in areas managed for back country desired

RSCC, compared to Alternative B.

Resource Uses

Overall, the management of minerals development under Alternative E would result in the least impacts 

to recreation compared to the other alternatives. Adverse impacts on recreation from locatable mineral 

development would be similar to Alternative A, but to a lesser extent because Alternative E would 

withdraw a larger area from locatable mineral entry (1,764,621 acres, the largest area of any 

alternative). Alternative E would manage leasable minerals development the same as Alternative B, and 

impacts to recreation would be the same as Alternative B.

Alternative E manages acquisitions and land tenure adjustments for public access similar to Alternative 

B, and impacts to recreation and public access would be the same as Alternative B.

Alternative E manages a total of 1,618,771 acres as ROW avoidance/mitigation and 1,324,884 acres as 

ROW exclusion areas (the most of any alternative), resulting in impacts similar to alternatives A and B, 

but to a greater extent due to the consolidation of ROWs that would preserve the RSCC more than 

under those alternatives. Alternative E would also restrict renewable energy development the most of 

any alternative, resulting in reduced recreation displacement and visual impacts to recreation settings 

compared to the other alternatives.
Recreation

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS 4-111

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Alternative E limits motorized vehicle travel to designated roads and trails in the same areas as 

Alternative B, and impacts to recreation would be the same as Alternative B. Seasonal travel closures 

within greater sage-grouse Key Habitat Areas under alternatives B and E may impact recreation from the 

restriction of motorized access to areas either within Key Habitat Areas, or reached by access through 

Key Habitat Areas. These seasonal closures may impact desired recreational opportunities, experiences, 

and beneficial outcomes by repudiating motorized access within Key Habitat Areas, which provide 

access to many areas within the Bighorn Basin and recreational experiences that require motorized 

access. Such activities that may be delayed include antler shed hunting, hiking, motorized touring and 

OHV use, caving, camping, sightseeing and wildlife viewing, rock hounding, environmental education, 

and general touring throughout the Bighorn Basin. Certain activities, such as cougar and bear hunting in 

areas within greater sage-grouse Key Habitat Areas would only be available during fall hunting periods, 

and unavailable during the spring. Desirable recreational areas affected by certain seasonal closures 

include, but are not limited to, portions of the McCullough Peaks, public lands south of Cody, Wyoming, 

portions of the West Slope of the Big Horn Mountains, the Red Gulch/Alkali Back Country Byway, Castle 

Gardens Scenic Area, and portions of the Absaroka Front and the foothills.

Under Alternative E, management of and effects from areas open to cross-country motorized travel, 

OHV use for big game retrieval and dispersed campsite access, and other “necessary tasks” would be 

similar to Alternative B.

Effects of closing areas to livestock grazing for the benefit of wildlife, including the Greater Sage-Grouse 

Key Habitat Areas ACEC, would be the same as Alternative B.

Special Designations

Management of special designations under Alternative E, except in the Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat 

Areas ACEC (1,231,383 acres), is the same as Alternative B. The impacts of these designations would be 

similar to alternatives A and B, but to a greater extent because Alternative E includes more special 

designations that cover a greater area. In the Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC, the BLM 

would only issue SRPs with neutral or beneficial effects to priority sage-grouse habitat. That ACEC also 

restricts surface-disturbing activities and certain resource uses and activities (e.g., minerals 

development) to protect greater sage-grouse habitat that may benefit recreational wildlife viewing 

opportunities, especially bird watching. Beneficial impacts would accrue to recreation experiences in 

areas managed for back country desired RSCCs. Restrictions on motorized travel and new road and trail 

development under Alternative E would result in similar adverse impacts to motorized recreation use 

from special designations management as described for Alternative B.

Resources

Beneficial impacts from soils, water quality, and watershed management under Alternative E would be 

similar to alternatives A and B, although to a greater extent due to the smaller area of surface 

disturbance allowed, which is the least of any alternative. Reclamation of closed routes in the Greater 

Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC would provide additional benefits to water quality for recreational 

uses and primitive recreation opportunities. Management of the discharge of produced water under 

Alternative E is the same as Alternative B and effects would be similar.

Alternative E manages cave and karst, cultural, and visual resources the same as Alternative B, and 

impacts would be the same as Alternative B.

Fire and fuels management and vegetation and silvicultural treatments under Alternative E are similar to 

Alternative B, and impacts to recreation would be similar to Alternative B. Within the Greater SageGrouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC, additional vegetation management designed to enhance greater sage-
Recreation

4-112 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

grouse habitat could result in indirect benefits to recreationists by improving wildlife habitat to a greater 

extent than under alternatives A and B.

Under Alternative E, management actions that would benefit fish and wildlife while also enhancing 

recreational activities such as fishing, hunting, bird watching, and general wildlife viewing would be the 

same as Alternative B. However, additional restrictions within the Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat 

Areas ACEC would restrict public access and limit opportunities for motorized recreational travel more 

than management under Alternative B or the other alternatives.

Cultural resources management and VRM under Alternative E are the same as Alternative B, and 

impacts would be the same as Alternative B.

Proactive Management

Under Alternative E, recreation management areas and recreation sites are the same as Alternative B, 

and impacts would be the same as Alternative B.

Alternative F

Under Alternative F, the BLM designates the same recreation management areas (SRMAs, ERMAs, and 

RMZs) as Alternative D (see Map SEIS-27 and Table 4-15 in the Draft RMP and Draft EIS). Management 

actions to maintain or enhance recreation settings, experiences, and opportunities in these areas and 

impacts on other resources and resource uses under Alternative F would be the same as Alternative B.

Surface Disturbance

Under Alternative F, a total of 137,568 acres of short-term and 17,866 acres of long-term surface 

disturbance is projected (Appendix T), most of which would result in adverse impacts to recreation. The 

intensity of impacts to recreation would depend on the location of the surface disturbance in relation to 

the desired RSCC in the area being disturbed (see Impacts Common to All Alternatives). Surface 

disturbing activities and total surface disturbance acreage under Alternative F would be similar to 

Alternative D, and impacts to recreational experiences would be similar to Alternative D. However, in 

greater sage-grouse Core Habitat Areas under Alternative F, disturbances would not be permitted to 

exceed one disturbance per 640 acres or disturb more than 3 percent of sagebrush habitat. This 

additional restriction would reduce potential adverse impacts from surface disturbance to recreational 

experiences, particularly in areas managed for back country desired RSCC, compared to Alternative D.

Resource Uses

The management of minerals development under Alternative F is similar to Alternative D, and impacts 

to recreational experiences and settings would be similar to Alternative D. Unlike Alternative D, 

Alternative F includes an NSO stipulation within 0.6 mile of occupied or undetermined sage-grouse leks 

in the proposed Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC; however, this additional stipulation 

would not change the projected oil and gas development (see Appendix T) to an extent that would alter 

the projected impacts from Alternative F compared to those under Alternative D.

Management of acquisitions and land tenure adjustments for public access under Alternative F is the 

same as Alternative D, and impacts to recreation and public access would be the same as Alternative D.

Renewable energy development and ROW development under Alternative F are similar to Alternative D, 

and impacts would be similar to Alternative D.

Travel and transportation management restrictions under Alternative F would result in impacts similar 

to Alternative A, but to a greater extent. Alternative F restricts motorized vehicle use in the Greater 
Recreation

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS 4-113

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC to designated roads and trails but does not impose seasonal 

closures like those under Alternative E. Travel and transportation management under Alternative F 

would result in impacts similar to Alternative A; however, Alternative F restrictions on motorized vehicle 

use would have greater benefits to recreation opportunities for solitude, natural settings, and primitive 

forms of travel than under alternatives D, C, and A, but less than alternatives B and E. Alternative F 

manages the same acreage as open to cross-country motorized travel as Alternative D, and impacts 

would be the same as Alternative D.

Livestock grazing management under Alternative F is the same as Alternative D, and impacts to 

recreational experiences would be the same as Alternative D.

Special Designations

Management of special designations in the Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC (1,116,124 

acres) under Alternative F is the same as Alternative D. Special designations under Alternative F would 

result in impacts similar to alternatives A and D, but to a larger extent because Alternative F includes 

more special designations that cover a greater area. In the Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas 

ACEC, the BLM would only issue SRPs with neutral or beneficial effects to priority sage-grouse habitat. 

This management action may preclude or defer some commercial recreational activities (e.g., OHV race 

events) currently taking place within the Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC. This ACEC also 

places restrictions on surface-disturbing and resource use activities for the protection of greater sagegrouse that could in turn have beneficial impacts on recreational wildlife viewing opportunities, 

especially bird watching.

Resources

Beneficial impacts from soils, water quality, and watershed management under Alternative F would be 

similar to alternatives A and D, although to a greater extent due to the smaller area of surface 

disturbance allowed under Alternative F in greater sage-grouse Core Habitat Areas. Watershed 

management practices under Alternative F would be the same as Alternative D, and the associated 

beneficial impacts on recreation would be the same as Alternative D.

Alternative F manages cave and karst, cultural, and visual resources the same way as Alternative D, and 

impacts would be the same as Alternative D.

Fire and fuels management and vegetation and silvicultural treatments under Alternative F are similar to 

Alternative D, and impacts to recreation would be similar to Alternative D. Within the Greater SageGrouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC, additional vegetation management designed to enhance greater sagegrouse habitat could result in indirect benefits to recreationists by improving wildlife habitat to a greater 

extent than under alternatives A and D.

Under Alternative F, management actions that would benefit fish and wildlife while also enhancing 

recreational activities such as fishing, hunting, bird watching, and general wildlife viewing are the same 

as Alternative D. However, greater sage-grouse protective management applied to the Greater SageGrouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC would restrict public access and limit opportunities for motorized 

recreational travel to a greater extent than under alternatives A, C, and D, but less so than under 

alternatives B and E.

Cultural resources management and VRM under Alternative F are the same as Alternative D, and 

impacts would be the same as Alternative D.
Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

4-114 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Proactive Management

Under Alternative F, recreation management areas and recreation sites would be the same as 

Alternative D, and impacts would be the same as Alternative D.

4.6.6 Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

4.6.6.2 Summary of Impacts by Alternative

Under alternatives A and C, no LWCs are managed to maintain wilderness characteristics. Therefore, 

the preservation of wilderness characteristics (e.g., sufficient size, a high degree of naturalness, 

outstanding opportunities for solitude, or outstanding opportunities for primitive and unconfined 

recreation) in LWCs would be least effective under these alternatives. In contrast, LWCs under 

alternatives B and E (571,288 acres) would be specifically managed to maintain naturalness, outstanding 

opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined recreation. Although many LWCs in the 

Planning Area contain potential resource conflicts that may be inconsistent with retention of wilderness 

characteristics (see Table 3-46 in the Draft RMP and Draft EIS), under alternatives B and E the BLM 

would apply management to maintain these characteristics to the extent practicable. Such 

management would be a beneficial impact for wilderness characteristics. Under alternatives D and F,

52,485 acres would be managed to maintain wilderness characteristics. Both alternatives manage nine 

areas to maintain their wilderness characteristics; the remaining LWCs under alternatives D and F would 

not be specifically managed to maintain their wilderness characteristics.

Alternatives A and C include the least restrictive management of resource uses that involve surface 

disturbance or degrade the natural character of the landscape in LWCs. Alternative C would result in the 

greatest adverse impacts to these lands due to the greater intensity of resource uses and the amount of 

surface disturbance under this alternative. Overlapping special designations under alternatives A, D, 

and F also provide some maintenance for wilderness characteristics in LWCs. No special designations 

under Alternative C overlap LWCs. Under Alternative A, 10,778 acres of WSR eligible waterway 

segments and 29,794 acres of ACEC designations would overlap LWCs. Under Alternative F, 228,755 

acres of LWCs are overlapped by ACECs, of which 182,102 acres overlap LWCs not specifically managed 

to maintain their wilderness characteristics.

Alternatives E, B, F, and D, respectively, would result in the greatest beneficial impacts to wilderness 

characteristics in LWCs by restricting or limiting resource uses and activities that could degrade 

wilderness characteristics. Management actions under alternatives that maintain wilderness 

characteristics would restrict, and thereby adversely affect, resource uses and certain activities (e.g., 

motorized vehicle use) to maintain the naturalness and opportunities for solitude and primitive, 

unconfined recreation in these areas. However, the comparatively more restrictive management of 

mineral resources and ROW development under alternatives B, D, E, and F would benefit other

resources in areas with wilderness characteristics, such as soils, primitive and back country recreation, 

and visual resources.

4.6.6.3 Detailed Analysis of Alternatives

NOTE: Replace Table 4-16 of the Draft RMP and Draft EIS (page 4-358) with the following table.
Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS 4-115

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Table 4-16. Acres of Management in Lands with Wilderness Characteristics by Alternative

Alternative Mineral Closures

(acres)

Rights-of-Way

(acres)

Visual Resource Management Class

(acres)

Travel Management

(acres)

Minerals Material

Closure

Administratively 

Unavailable

for Mineral Leasing

Exclusion

Avoidance/Mitigation

Open

Class I

Class II

Class III

Class IV

Closed

Limited to Designated

Limited to Existing

Open

Seasonal Restrictions

Alternative A2 17,108 6,099 14,901 150,888 405,499 <1 137,496 137,709 295,962 3,095 176,691 386,703 0 4,798

Alternative B3 (LWCs 

managed to maintain

wilderness 

characteristics)

565,867 570,821 51,166 520,122 0 6,3061 564,513 160 1 10,563 517,160 0 0 43,565

Alternative C2 7,920 3,295 757 132,834 437,697 1 121,605 125,530 323,845 3,365 178,802 345,264 0 43,858

Alternative D3 (LWCs 

not managed/LWCs 

managed)

22,697/

13,167

47,574/

47,574

6,103/

5,018

452,047/

47,467

113,138/

0 4/0 198,094/52,438

169,527/

47

203,638/

0

3,365/

3,294

321,363/

32,019

221,908/

0 0/0 24,648/16,958

Alternative E3 (LWCs 

managed to maintain

wilderness 

characteristics)

565,867 570,821 236,100 335,188 0 6,3061 564,513 160 1 10,563 517,160 0 0 43,565

Alternative F3 (LWCs 

not managed/LWCs 

managed)

22,697/

13,167

47,574/

47,574

6,103/

5,018

422,204/

47,467

142,981/

0 4/0 198,094/52,438

169,527/

47

203,638/

0

3,365/

3,294

427,583/

32,019

115,687/

0 0/0 24,648/16,958

Source: BLM 2009b; BLM2013o

1 Due to differing scales of analysis, numbers do not add to the total acreage for LWCs in the Planning Area.

2 Alternatives A and C do not contain specific management for any identified LWCs; however, the areas identified as LWCs during the inventory conducted for this Resource Management Plan Revision Project

would retain that classification unless subsequent reviews or inventories indicate they no longer contain wilderness characteristics. 3 The numbers presented for alternatives B, D, E, and F reflect the management of LWCs based on geographic information system data; due to other resource considerations, the management of certain areas 

in these lands may be more restrictive than the overall management for wilderness characteristics. The term “LWCs not managed” refers to LWCs not specifically managed to maintain their wilderness 

characteristics, while “LWCs managed” indicates those that are managed to maintain wilderness characteristics.

< Less than

LWC Lands with wilderness characteristics
Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

4-116 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Alternative E

Under Alternative E, the BLM would specifically manage all LWCs to maintain their wilderness 

characteristics (571,288 acres), the same as Alternative B. Management actions to maintain wilderness 

characteristics in LWCs and impacts on other resources and resource uses under Alternative E would be 

the same as Alternative B. Table 4-16 shows acres of management in LWCs under this alternative.

Surface Disturbance

Under Alternative E, surface disturbance in LWCs would be less than under any alternative. 

Management actions under this alternative are projected to result in approximately 47 percent less 

short-term and 31 percent less long-term surface disturbance on BLM-administered land than 

Alternative A. Restrictions on minerals, ROWs, vegetative treatments, and other resource uses in LWCs 

for the protection of other resource values under Alternative E would further reduce the potential for 

surface disturbance in these areas more than any other alternative. As a result, there would be greater 

benefits to the wilderness characteristics in these lands because these areas would be left in a more 

natural, unmodified state.

Resource Uses

Management of mineral development, timber harvest practices, mechanical vegetation treatments, 

motorized vehicle use, ROWs, and rangeland improvements for the maintenance of wilderness 

characteristics under Alternative E are the same as Alternative B; impacts to wilderness characteristics, 

as well as impacts on other resources use from the management of these areas, would be the same as 

Alternative B.

Special Designations

Management of special designations under Alternative E, except in the Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat 

Areas ACEC (1,231,383 acres), is the same as Alternative B. Special designations could benefit 

wilderness characteristics by restricting resource uses that adversely affect naturalness and outstanding 

opportunities for solitude and primitive and unconfined recreation. Special designations cover a larger 

percentage of the Planning Area under Alternative E compared to the other alternatives. Under 

Alternative E, the area of ACEC overlapping LWCs managed to maintain their wilderness characteristics 

would be substantially greater than under alternatives A or B (293,958 acres). However, because the 

characteristics of these areas are already protected, the impacts from these overlapping special 

designations would be the same as Alternative B.

Resources

Alternative E management to maintain wilderness characteristics in LWCs is the same as Alternative B; 

beneficial impacts to soil, water, wildlife and special status species, and cultural and visual resources 

would be the same as Alternative B.

Under Alternative E, the management of fire and fuels in LWCs managed to maintain wilderness 

characteristics is similar to Alternative B, and impacts to fire and fuels management from managing 

LWCs would be the similar to Alternative B.
Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS 4-117

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Alternative F

Under Alternative F, the same LWCs would be managed to maintain their wilderness characteristics as 

Alternative D (52,485 acres); these areas would be managed for naturalness, outstanding opportunities 

for solitude, and primitive and unconfined recreation. Management actions to maintain wilderness 

characteristics in LWCs and impacts on other resources and resource uses under Alternative F would be 

the same as Alternative D. Table 4-16 shows acres of management in LWCs under this alternative. 

Similar to alternatives A, C, and D, the same acreage of LWCs would not be specifically managed to 

maintain their wilderness characteristics under Alternative F.

Surface Disturbance

Surface disturbance under Alternative F would be similar to Alternative A and would result in adverse 

impacts to wilderness characteristics in LWCs, although to a slightly greater extent because Alternative F 

involves additional projected surface disturbance. Under this alternative, management actions are 

projected to result in an approximately 1 percent increase in short-term and a 14 percent increase in 

long-term surface disturbance on BLM-administered land than Alternative A. Adverse impacts under 

Alternative F would be similar to Alternative D and would be likely to increase with the amount of total 

surface disturbance because the majority of LWCs do not have any special management prescriptions 

under Alternative F.

Resource Uses

Management of minerals, ROWs, vegetative treatments, and other resource uses in the nine LWCs 

managed to maintain wilderness characteristics under Alternative F is the same as Alternative D; 

impacts to wilderness characteristics, as well as impacts on other resource uses from the management 

of these areas, would be the same as Alternative D. LWCs not specifically managed to maintain

wilderness characteristics under Alternative F do not include specific management to constrain resource 

uses, potentially allowing for adverse impacts to wilderness characteristics in these lands. Table 4-16 

summarizes acreages and allocations associated with resources and resource uses in LWCs that have the 

potential to affect these characteristics. Generally, LWCs not specifically managed to maintain

wilderness characteristics are the same as Alternative D, and impacts under Alternative F would be the 

same as Alternative D. However, Alternative F includes a larger area where motorized vehicle use is 

limited to designated roads and trails, potentially beneficially affecting wilderness characteristics by 

preserving the back country RSCCs in these areas to a greater extent than under alternatives D, C, and A, 

but less than alternatives B and E.

Special Designations

Management of special designations under Alternative F, except in the Greater Sage-Grouse Core 

Habitat Areas ACEC (1,116,124 acres), would be the same as Alternative D. Beneficial impacts to LWCs 

not specially managed to maintain wilderness characteristics from restrictions on surface disturbance 

and constraints on resource uses from overlapping special designations would limit adverse impacts to 

wilderness characteristics, similar to Alternative A, but to greater extent because of the larger area of 

overlapping ACECs (176,270 acres) under Alternative F.

Resources

Under Alternative F, the management of fire and fuels for LWCs managed to maintain wilderness 

characteristics would be similar to Alternative D, and impacts to fire and fuels management from 

managing LWCs would be the similar to Alternative D.
Livestock Grazing Management

4-118 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

4.6.7 Livestock Grazing Management

4.6.7.2 Summary of Impacts by Alternative

Principal impacts to livestock grazing would result from actions that limit the area available to livestock 

grazing and reduce the number of AUMs in the Planning Area. Overall, AUM reductions under 

Alternative B would result in the greatest adverse impacts to livestock grazing, followed by alternatives 

E, C, D, F, and A. Alternative C, under which the BLM would manage resources in the Planning Area to 

increase commodity production, would result in the greatest beneficial impacts to livestock grazing. 

Alternatives B and E would place the most restrictions on the utilization of forage by livestock and the 

placement and construction of range improvements. In addition, alternatives B and E would close large 

portions of the Planning Area to livestock grazing, including elk and bighorn sheep winter range areas 

and within Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC.

Alternative C places the fewest restrictions on livestock grazing management and livestock forage and 

utilization. Livestock grazing management under alternatives A, D, and F—the alternatives most likely to 

apply management actions on a case-by-case basis—would generally result in a continuance of current 

grazing practices. Impacts to livestock grazing from the protection of other resources, such as wildlife 

and cultural resources, are generally less adverse under Alternative C than under the other alternatives. 

Proactive management under Alternative C would benefit livestock grazing the most because it focuses 

on maximizing livestock forage use. Because there are fewer restrictions on other resource uses such as 

mineral development, Alternative C would result in the greatest loss in AUMs from surface-disturbing 

activities, with a short-term loss of 1,170 AUMs per year, followed by alternatives D, F, A, B, and E with 

short-term losses of 669, 655, 650, 352, and 342 AUMs per year, respectively. Over the long term, 

closing areas to livestock grazing and long-term surface disturbance would result in the greatest loss of 

active AUMs per year under alternatives B and E (163,927 AUMs and 163,917 AUMs, respectively), 

followed by Alternative C (4,130 AUMs), Alternative D (1,930 AUMs), Alternative F (1,875 AUMs), and 

Alternative A (1,670 AUMs).

4.6.7.3 Detailed Analysis of Alternatives

NOTE: Replace Table 4-17 of the Draft RMP and Draft EIS (page 4-368) with the following table.

Table 4-17. Change in Active Animal Unit Months (AUMs) per Year by Alternative

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Alternative F

Acres Closed to 

Livestock Grazing 5,172 1,988,927 5,171 5,172 1,988,927 5,172

AUMs Lost1 173 162,890 173 173 162,890 173

Acres of Long-Term 

Disturbance 15,710 10,882 41,545 18,443 10,787 17,866

AUMs Lost2 1,496 1,036 3,957 1,756 1,027 1,702

Total Loss of AUMs 

(long term) 1,670 163,927 4,130 1,930 163,917 1,875

Source: BLM 2009b; BLM2013o

1 AUMs lost due livestock grazing closure were calculated by analyzing areas closed to livestock grazing versus active AUMs in grazing allotments. 2 Because it is not possible to determine the exact allotments where there would be surface disturbance, AUMs lost to long-term surface 

disturbance were calculated using the Planning Area average of 10.5 acres per AUM.
Livestock Grazing Management

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS 4-119

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Alternative E

Surface Disturbance

Management actions under Alternative E are projected to result in approximately 71,799 acres of 

surface disturbance on BLM-administered land over the life of the plan; this disturbance would result in 

the short-term loss of approximately 6,838 AUMs, or roughly 342 AUMs per year. Most of this acreage 

(61,993 acres) would be reclaimed in the short term, reducing the long-term loss of AUMs. The total 

long-term loss of AUMs under Alternative E due to surface disturbance and the loss of active AUMs due 

to livestock grazing closures (Map SEIS-29) would be 163,917 AUMs (an approximately 53 percent 

reduction from the baseline active AUMs for the Planning Area; see Table 4-17). The projected surface 

disturbance and closure-related effects on AUMs would be similar to Alternative B, and the type and 

magnitude of impacts would be the same as Alternative B.

Resource Uses

The management of resource uses under Alternative E is the same as Alternative B in all areas available 

for livestock grazing, and the type and magnitude of impacts under Alternative E would be the same as 

Alternative B. However, the use of herbicides to control invasive species would be minimized within the 

Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC under Alternative E. Flash burners, mowing, and selected 

hand-cutting would be prioritized in these areas. Therefore, Alternative E may restrict grazing permit 

holders to more labor-intensive methods to control weeds when compared to Alternative B.

Special Designations

Management of special designations under Alternative E, except in the Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat 

Areas ACEC (1,231,383 acres), is the same as Alternative B. Because greater sage-grouse Key Habitat 

Areas are closed under Alternative B, no additional adverse impacts on livestock grazing management 

are anticipated from restrictions for this ACEC in Alternative E.

Resources

The management of resources under Alternative E is the same as Alternative B in all areas available for 

livestock grazing, and the type and magnitude of impacts under Alternative E would be the same as 

Alternative B.

Proactive Management

Livestock grazing management is the same as Alternative B and places higher consideration on other 

resources, rather than maximizing forage or benefits for livestock. Therefore, the beneficial and adverse 

impacts under Alternative E would be the same as Alternative B.

Alternative F

Surface Disturbance

Management actions under Alternative F are projected to result in approximately 137,568 acres of 

surface disturbance on BLM-administered land over the life of the plan; this disturbance would result in 

the short-term loss of approximately 13,102 AUMs, or roughly 655 AUMs per year. Most of this 

acreage, 119,684 acres, would be reclaimed in the short term, meaning that the long-term loss of AUMs 

would be reduced. The total long-term loss of AUMs under Alternative F due to surface disturbance and 

closing areas to livestock grazing would be slightly more than under Alternative A, representing a loss of 

less than 1 percent of the baseline 305,887 AUMs (Table 4-17; Map SEIS-28). The projected surface 
Livestock Grazing Management

4-120 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

disturbance and closure-related effects on AUMs would be similar to Alternative D, and the type and 

magnitude of impacts would be the same as Alternative D.

Resource Uses

The silvicultural management actions prescribed under Alternative F are the same as Alternative D, and 

the associated beneficial impacts would be the same as Alternative D.

Under Alternative F, livestock flushing practices and associated impacts are similar to Alternative A.

The acreage of BLM-administered land closed to motorized vehicle use under Alternative F is the same 

as Alternative D. Impacts to rangeland health, forage palatability, and permittee access would be similar 

to Alternative A. As stated under Alternative A, authorized or permitted uses that specify allowable 

access are not affected by travel management designations.

The use of herbicides to control invasive species would be minimized within the Greater Sage-Grouse 

Core Habitat Areas ACEC under Alternative F. Flash burners, mowing, and selected hand-cutting would 

be prioritized in these areas. Therefore, Alternative E may restrict grazing permit holders to more laborintensive methods to control weeds when compared to Alternative D.

Special Designations

Alternative F designates 1,116,124 acres as the Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC in 

addition to the same ACECs designated under Alternative D. Management of and effects from ACECs to 

the construction of range improvements would be similar to Alternative D, but to a greater extent 

because of the restrictions on surface-disturbing activities in the Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat 

Areas ACEC (similar to Alternative E). Adverse impacts would be greater under Alternative F than 

alternatives A, C, and D, but less than alternatives E and B.

Resources

Habitat restoration and vegetation management under Alternative F is the same as Alternative D, except 

within greater sage-grouse Core Habitat Areas where restoration and maintenance of greater sagegrouse habitat is the priority consideration for all vegetation management decisions. Reclamation 

practices under Alternative F require forage restoration in disturbed areas similar to Alternative D but to 

a greater extent, and more effectively than under alternatives A and C. Under Alternative F, vegetation 

treatments that reduce sagebrush for the purpose of increasing livestock forage are avoided within 

greater sage-grouse Core Habitat Areas. In Core Habitat Areas, any vegetation treatment plan under 

Alternative F must include pretreatment data on wildlife and habitat condition, establish non-grazing 

exclosures, and include long-term monitoring for at least three years post-treatment before livestock 

grazing returns. Monitoring would continue for five years after livestock are returned to the area. 

Current management for livestock grazing would continue as permitted until the vegetation treatment is 

implemented. Compared to alternatives A and D, Alternative F would remove the ability of grazing 

permitees to perform vegetation treatments to improve forage quality for livestock, and could limit the 

ability to access new forage following reclamation and treatment.

Alternative F would result in the same acreage of prescribed fire treatment as alternatives A and D, 

although the emphasis of protecting and enhancing greater sage-grouse habitat for treatments in Core 

Habitat Areas under Alternative F could reduce the benefits to livestock grazing forage availability 

compared to those alternatives. In particular, Alternative F excludes livestock grazing in burned Core 

Habitat Areas (35 percent of BLM-administered surface lands) until woody and herbaceous plants 

achieve sage-grouse habitat objectives; such a requirement could adversely affect livestock grazing in a 

substantial portion of the Planning Area since sagebrush may take multiple years to reestablish (Manier 
Livestock Grazing Management

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS 4-121

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

et al. 2013). Similar to Alternative E, the fire and fuels management of Alternative F may also result in 

an increased risk of forage loss due to catastrophic fire.

Alternative F allows the use of produced water by livestock, and the beneficial impacts associated with 

produced water disposals would be the same as Alternative D.

The management of surface-disturbing activities and livestock grazing near surface water and 

riparian/wetland areas under Alternative F is the same as Alternative D, except in the Greater SageGrouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC. In these areas surface disturbance limitations would result in 

beneficial impacts to vegetation health and forage productivity compared to alternatives A, C, and D, 

but would limit the ability of permittees to implement surface-disturbing rangeland improvement 

projects. Alternative F manages grazing use of riparian/wetland and wet meadow areas consistent with 

Alternative D, except in the greater sage-grouse Core Habitat Areas where closures to hot-season 

grazing and adjustments to the seasonal distribution of livestock may apply.

Alternative F applies the same wildlife and special status species management action as Alternative D, 

except in greater sage-grouse Core Habitat Areas. Under Alternative F, grazing in lekking, nesting, 

brood-rearing, and winter habitats would be seasonally avoided. These restrictions on location and 

season of use would have adverse impacts on forage availability for livestock grazing compared to 

alternatives A and D, where these restrictions do not apply.

Alternative F applies the same VRM and cultural and paleontological management actions as Alternative 

D, and impacts to livestock grazing would be the same as described under Alternative D.

Proactive Management

As with alternatives A and D, most of the Planning Area would be open to livestock grazing under 

Alternative F. Specific closures under Alternative F would be the same as under alternatives A and D 

(Table 4-17). Similarly, livestock grazing management practices and associated impacts of Alternative F

would be the same as Alternative D, with the exception of lands within the Greater Sage-Grouse Core 

Habitat Areas ACEC. In general, the livestock grazing management practices of Alternative F focus on 

the conservation, enhancement, and restoration of greater sage-grouse habitat within the Greater SageGrouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC.

Within priority sage-grouse habitat, objectives and management considerations that benefit greater 

sage-grouse are incorporated into all BLM grazing allotments through AMPs or permit renewals, and 

additional restrictions would be placed on riparian/wetland and wet meadow areas to promote recovery 

or maintenance of appropriate vegetation and water quality. Under Alternative F, grazing and trailing 

would also be avoided within lekking, nesting, brood-rearing, and winter habitats of priority sage-grouse 

habitat during periods of the year when sage-grouse are utilizing such areas. A focus on greater sagegrouse habitat considerations in the Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC, over consideration 

that would provide greater benefits to livestock grazing management, would result in adverse impacts 

from seasonal and other closures and a reduced ability to perform vegetation treatments.

Management considerations under Alternative F would result in similar beneficial impacts to forage 

availability as alternatives A and D, except within the Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC. 

Additional vegetation management restrictions within priority sage-grouse habitat would reduce the 

availability of livestock forage over a larger acreage than alternatives A and D. In addition, Alternative F 

would create seasonal and spatial limitations on grazing activities within the Greater Sage-Grouse Core 

Habitat Areas ACEC.
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

4-122 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

4.7 Special Designations and Other Management Areas

4.7.1 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

NOTE: Insert a new section entitled “Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas and Greater Sage-Grouse 

Key Habitat Areas” following the “Sheep Mountain ACEC” section in the Draft RMP and Draft EIS. This 

new section describes the direct and indirect effects of ACEC management for both the Greater SageGrouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC (Alternative E) and the Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC 

(Alternative F).

For all ACECs that were included in alternatives A through D, the Draft RMP and Draft EIS impact 

analysis for Alternative B is representative of the impacts anticipated under Alternative E, and the 

impact analysis under Alternative D is representative of the impacts anticipated under Alternative F. 

Please refer to the Draft RMP and Draft EIS for a discussion of impacts to these designations.

Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas and Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas

The greater sage-grouse is a United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) federal candidate species 

for listing and protection under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The proposed Greater Sage-Grouse 

Key Habitat Areas and Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACECs were developed in response to 

the greater sage-grouse habitat management policy guidance set forth in WY BLM Instruction 

Memorandum (IM) No. WY-2012-019 (BLM 2012a), and in accordance with the BLM Washington Office 

IM No. 2012-44 (BLM 2012b), BLM National Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Planning Strategy. Proposal 

and consideration of these ACECs represent proactive conservation measures that reduce or eliminate 

threats to greater sage-grouse to minimize the likelihood of and need for listing of this species under the 

ESA.

Alternative E would designate the greater sage-grouse Key Habitat Areas as an ACEC (1,231,383 acres); 

the other alternatives would not. Alternative F would designate the Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat 

Areas as an ACEC (1,116,234 acres); the other alternatives would not. The values of concern for both 

proposed ACECs are sagebrush steppe vegetation communities that provide habitat for special status 

wildlife species, including areas designated as greater sage-grouse Key and Core Habitat Areas. The 

boundaries of the greater sage-grouse Key Habitat Areas under Alternative E (also analyzed in the Draft 

RMP and Draft EIS) are based on Version 2 of the State of Wyoming EO Greater Sage-grouse Core Area 

of Protection (WY EO 2008-2) (Wyoming Office of the Governor 2008), however, the boundaries were 

modified by the Wyoming BLM to remove large portions of private lands and developed oil fields. In 

addition, the boundaries of the Key Habitat Areas are generally consistent with greater sage-grouse Core 

Habitat Areas, with the inclusion of additional productive habitats identified by the BLM as important to 

greater sage-grouse in the Planning Area. The boundaries of the Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat 

Areas ACEC are based on Version 3 of WY EO Greater Sage-grouse Core Area of Protection (WY EO 2010-

4) (Wyoming Office of the Governor 2010), which was delineated by the Wyoming Governor’s 

Implementation Team and Local Working Groups through a collaborative mapping process and includes 

breeding, later brood-rearing, and winter concentration areas that have been identified as highly 

important to the health and viability of greater sage-grouse populations. Portions of these Key and Core 

Habitat Areas (referred to generally as priority habitat areas) are also designated as important bird areas 

by the Audubon Society, and many other BLM sensitive animal species are also dependent upon this 

ecosystem for grazing, pollination, winter range, nesting areas, and parturition habitat (i.e., mountain 
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS 4-123

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

plover, burrowing owl, white-tailed prairie dog, black-tailed prairie dog, long-billed curlew, and Baird’s 

sparrow).

The proposed ACECs are located within portions of the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife 

Agencies (WAFWA) Sage-Grouse Management Zone I (Northern Great Plains) and Management Zone II 

(Wyoming Basin). Major threats to sage-grouse habitats and populations in Management Zone I include 

oil and gas developments and conversion of native rangeland to crops (Manier et al. 2013). Within 

Management Zone II, the primary threats include energy development and supporting infrastructure, 

prolonged drought, and bush eradication programs (Manier et al. 2013; USFWS 2013). In southern 

portions of Management Zone II, loss of habitat from subdivision and housing development and 

associated infrastructure is the primary threat to sage-grouse populations (Manier et al. 2013). 

Additional threats to the proposed ACECs and greater-sage grouse populations in the Planning Area 

include livestock grazing, mining and associated activities, fire risk, invasive species, urban development, 

powerlines, vertical structures, and railroads. Management planning for the protection of greater sagegrouse within the Planning Area would be most effective where the impacts of energy and mineral 

development, primarily oil and gas, bentonite mining, and sand and gravel extraction, have been 

accounted for and large, intact sage-grouse priority habitats are delineated prior to the onset of 

widespread development (Taylor et al. 2012).

4.7.1.37 Summary of Impacts by Alternative

Alternative E would most effectively protect the values of concern for the greater sage-grouse ACECs. 

Alternative F would provide similar beneficial impacts for the values of concern, but to a lesser degree 

since it allows more resource use activity in greater sage-grouse priority habitat than Alternative E. 

Alternatives B and E would result in the greatest restrictions on mineral development, ROW 

authorizations, and other surface-disturbing activities; motorized travel; and livestock grazing 

management. Alternatives D and F both allow livestock grazing, mineral development, and ROWs in 

greater sage-grouse priority habitats, but would manage resources with seasonal restrictions and 

avoidance/mitigation objectives that would have beneficial impacts on ACEC values of concern. Impacts 

under alternatives A and C would be similar and would provide the most opportunities for mineral 

development and open the most routes to motorized travel; these alternatives apply the fewest 

restrictions to ROW authorization and surface disturbance, and would provide the least protection for 

greater sage-grouse priority habitats.

4.7.1.38 Detailed Analysis of Alternatives

Alternatives A-D

The greater sage-grouse Key and Core Habitat Areas are not proposed as ACECs under alternatives A, B, 

C, or D. SEIS Table-1 details the management of those Key and Core Habitat Areas under these 

alternatives absent ACEC designation.
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

4-124 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

SEIS Table-1. Summary of Management by Alternative in the Greater Sage-Grouse Key and Core Habitat Areas ACECs

Description Alternative A

(acres)

Alternative B

(acres)

Alternative C

(acres)

Alternative D

(acres)

Alternative E

(acres)

Alternative F

(acres)

Greater-Sage Grouse Key Habitat Area Proposed ACEC (Managed under Alternative E)

Mineral Materials Disposal - Open 1,168,219 408,055 1,142,213 1,189,430 0 1,189,430

Mineral Materials Disposal- Closed 63,164 823,328 89,170 41,953 1,226,253 41,953

Mineral Leasing - Administratively Unavailable 37,933 1,226,253 35,435 67,094 1,226,253 67,094

Mineral Leasing - Major Constraints 534,393 0 46,564 18,976 0 124,155

Mineral Leasing - Moderate Constraints 512,220 0 810,056 1,140,183 0 1,031,151

Mineral Leasing - Standard Constraints 146,837 5,130 339,328 5,130 0 8,983

Locatable Mineral Entry - Open 1,222,528 1,151,050 1,227,210 1,222,669 5,130 1,222,669

Locatable Mineral Entry - Withdrawn 8,855 80,333 4,173 8,714 1,226,253 8,714

Bentonite Potential (Known/Potential) 97,023 97,023 97,023 97,023 97,023 97,023

Gypsum Potential (Known/Potential) 24,354 24,354 24,354 24,354 24,354 24,354

Sand & Gravel Potential (Known/Potential) 913 913 913 913 913 913

Renewable Energy - Avoidance/Mitigation Not Designated 701,323 883,929 1,150,828 0 1,151,096

Renewable Energy - Exclusion Not Designated 529,772 35,673 80,284 1,231,383 80,284

Renewable Energy - Open Not Designated 288 311,781 271 0 271

ROW Management – Avoidance/Mitigation 358,336 1,098,846 769,834 1,230,849 0 1,108,310

ROW Management - Exclusion 20,729 132,248 0 265 1,231,383 264

ROW Management - Open 852,318 289 461,549 269 0 122,809

Travel Management - Limited to Designated 279,011 841,431 427,703 379,002 1,179,786 1,026,716

Travel Management - Limited to Existing 951,374 338,356 790,615 843,431 0 195,733

Travel Management - Closed 319 40,324 638 457 40,324 457

Travel Management Open/Play Area 0 0 406 0 0 0

Livestock Grazing - Closed 312 1,231,380 312 312 1,231,383 0

Livestock Grazing - Open 1,231,071 3 1,231,071 1,231,071 0 1,231,383
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS 4-125

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

SEIS Table-1. Summary of Impacts by Alternative in the Greater Sage-Grouse Key and Core Habitat Areas ACECs (Continued)

Description Alternative A

(acres)

Alternative B

(acres)

Alternative C

(acres)

Alternative D

(acres)

Alternative E

(acres)

Alternative F

(acres)

Greater-Sage Grouse Core Habitat Area Proposed ACEC (Managed under Alternative F)

Mineral Materials Disposal - Open 1,065,718 353,749 1,047,237 1,088,214 46,566 1,088,214

Mineral Materials Disposal- Closed 50,406 762,375 68,887 27,910 1,067,423 25,775

Mineral Leasing - Administratively Unavailable 27,024 999,036 23,019 58,944 999,036 58,944

Mineral Leasing - Major Constraints 536,432 108,791 45,019 17,342 108,791 133,928

Mineral Leasing - Moderate Constraints 450,286 4,962 761,810 1,036,283 4,962 920,528

Mineral Leasing - Standard Constraints 102,382 3,335 286,276 3,555 1,200 589

Locatable Mineral Entry - Open 1,109,108 1,049,949 1,115,056 1,108,729 147,989 1,108,729

Locatable Mineral Entry - Withdrawn 7,016 66,175 1,068 7,395 966,000 7,395

Bentonite Potential (Known/Potential) 54,530 54,530 54,530 54,530 54,530 54,530

Gypsum Potential (Known/Potential) 29,311 29,311 29,311 29,311 29,311 29,311

Sand & Gravel Potential (Known/Potential) 657 657 657 657 657 657

Renewable Energy - Avoidance/Mitigation Not Designated 618,704 842,757 1,029,121 82,217 1,029,121

Renewable Energy - Exclusion Not Designated 494,154 23,085 77,336 1,025,641 77,336

Renewable Energy - Open Not Designated 3,266 250,282 9,667 3,266 9,667

ROW Management – Avoidance/Mitigation 349,957 980,087 733,086 1,106,156 138,400 115,243

ROW Management - Exclusion 20,934 132,771 0 288 974,743 289

ROW Management - Open 745,233 3,266 383,038 9,680 2,981 592

Travel Management - Limited to Designated 323,204 794,243 332,539 420,093 1,057,224 1,106,946

Travel Management - Limited to Existing 789,401 281,781 771,571 686,836 18,800 0

Travel Management - Closed 2,165 29,518 1,029 2,471 29,518 2,471

Travel Management Open/Play Area 0 0 0 0 0 0

Livestock Grazing - Closed 322 1,056,607 322 322 1,161,234 322

Livestock Grazing - Open 1,115,802 59,517 1,115,802 1,115,802 0 1,115,802

Source: BLM 2009b; BLM 2013o
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

4-126 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Alternative E

Under Alternative E, the BLM designates greater sage-grouse Key Habitat Areas as an ACEC. 

Management of the Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC under Alternative E would reduce 

adverse impacts to the values of concern in the area by reducing the potential for surface-disturbing and 

disrupting activities to a greater extent than any other alternative. Specifically, Key Habitat Areas would 

be managed so anthropogenic disturbances (e.g., roads, oil and gas wells, pipelines, etc.) do not exceed 

one disturbance per 640 acres and cover less than 3 percent of the total sage-grouse habitat. Under 

Alternative E, vegetative and silviculture treatments, invasive and nonnative pest species control, fuels 

management, and maintenance of existing facilities in the Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC 

are subject to additional constraints and seasonal stipulations to protect greater sage-grouse during 

sensitive times of the year.

Withdrawing the majority of the Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC from appropriation under 

the mining laws (1,226,253 acres), managing the entire area (1,231,383 acres) as administratively 

unavailable to mineral leasing, and closing the entire area to mineral materials disposal and geophysical 

exploration would result in the greatest adverse impacts to minerals development when compared to 

the other alternatives. Designating greater sage-grouse Key Habitat Areas as an ACEC would require any 

new notice level activity related to locatable minerals exploration be submitted as a Plan of Operations 

and subject to analysis under National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Conversely, restricting minerals 

development would result in greater beneficial impacts to the ACEC values of concern than any other 

alternative.

Alternative E would limit potential adverse effects from resource uses to greater sage-grouse and other 

sensitive wildlife species and habitats during important mating and nesting time periods to the greatest 

extent of any alternative. Restrictions on ROWs, renewable energy, livestock grazing, and motorized 

vehicle use under Alternative E are greater than Alternative A and similar to Alternative B. The entire 

Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC is managed as a ROW and renewable energy exclusion 

area, which would result in more beneficial impacts to greater sage-grouse priority habitats than any 

other alternative. Livestock grazing management and CTTM in the ACEC would be the same as 

Alternative B, which closes greater sage-grouse Key Habitat Areas to livestock grazing and limits 

motorized vehicle use to designated roads and trails with seasonal closures from February 1 to July 31. 

Closure of the ACEC to livestock grazing would eliminate potential adverse effects from concentrated 

livestock grazing on sagebrush steppe habitats, reducing the potential for overgrazing or trampling 

effects by domestic animals. Conversely, these restrictions on resource uses under Alternative E would 

result in greater adverse impacts to availability of public lands for resource uses than any other 

alternative. In particular, adverse impacts to locatable minerals development under Alternative E would 

be greater than any other alternative, due to the withdrawal of 97,023 acres with bentonite potential 

and 24,354 acres with gypsum potential from mineral entry within the ACEC.

Overall, the relative size and additional restrictions on surface-disturbing activities and resource uses in 

the proposed Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC under Alternative E would provide the 

greatest beneficial impacts to greater sage-grouse and other special status species habitat by reducing 

fragmentation, the potential for invasive species infestation, and the disturbance of sensitive status 

species or their habitat during sensitive times of the year.
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS 4-127

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Alternative F

Under Alternative F, the BLM designates greater sage-grouse Core Habitat Areas as an ACEC. In this 

ACEC, the BLM manages the density of disturbance (e.g., roads, oil and gas wells, pipelines, etc.) to not 

exceed one disturbance per 640 acres and cover less than 3 percent of existing sagebrush habitat. As a 

whole, management of surface-disturbing activities within this ACEC would provide greater protection 

for values of concern than alternatives A, C, and D, but fewer than alternatives B and E.

Adverse impacts to this proposed ACEC from mineral resource activities would be slightly greater than 

under Alternative A and the same as Alternative D, with the exception of additional constraints on oil 

and gas development. Under Alternative F, the Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Area ACEC is 

managed as open to locatable mineral entry (1,108,729 acres), open to mineral leasing (with major 

constraints on 133,928 acres, moderate constraints on 920,528 acres, and standard constraints on 2,724 

acres), and open to mineral materials disposal subject to density of disturbance limitations. Designating 

Core Habitat Areas as an ACEC would require any new Notice level activity related to locatable minerals 

exploration be submitted as a Plan of Operations and subject to analysis under NEPA. Mineral 

development is one of the primary threats to the values in this area, and allowing this type of 

development may result in adverse impacts from surface disturbance and disruption, as well as 

increased fragmentation and invasive species infestation. Conversely, this ACEC could adversely affect 

mineral development through additional restrictions on the number and size of potential leasable or 

salable minerals developments that make it more difficult to develop these resources. Unlike 

Alternative E (and to a lesser extent Alternative B), the Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC 

would not preclude mineral development.

Impacts to the values of concern under Alternative F from management of ROW and renewable energy 

would be similar to Alternative D, and would reduce potential adverse impacts compared to Alternative 

A, but to a lesser extent than Alternative E. Similar to minerals development, surface disturbance from 

ROW and renewable energy development would result in adverse impacts from increased habitat 

fragmentation and other factors; in addition, these types of developments may provide perches for 

raptors and create permanent disruptions that also adversely affect greater sage-grouse and other 

sagebrush obligates. The development of wind energy would result in adverse impacts to the values of 

concern in this ACEC due to large wind turbines, construction activities, and required infrastructure (e.g., 

roads, transmission lines, and facilities). Conversely, restrictions and required mitigation for ROW 

development in the ACEC may result in adverse impacts to project proponents through increases in 

project costs and development timeframes.

Alternative F limits motorized vehicle use to designated roads and trails (1,106,946 acres) in the ACEC 

over a greater area than alternatives A, C, and D, which would reduce the potential for habitat 

fragmentation in greater sage-grouse and other sensitive species habitats in comparison to these 

alternatives.
National Back Country Byways

4-128 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

4.7.2 National Back Country Byways

NOTE: The Draft RMP and Draft EIS impact analysis for National Back Country Byways under Alternative 

B is representative of the impacts anticipated under Alternative E, and the impact analysis for National 

Back Country Byways under Alternative D is representative of the impacts anticipated under 

Alternative F. Please refer to the Draft RMP and Draft EIS for a discussion of impacts to this designation.

4.7.3 National Historic Landmarks

NOTE: The Draft RMP and Draft EIS impact analysis for National Historic Landmarks under Alternative B 

is representative of the impacts anticipated under Alternative E, and the impact analysis for National 

Historic Landmarks under Alternative D is representative of the impacts anticipated under Alternative F. 

Please refer to the Draft RMP and Draft EIS for a discussion of impacts to this designation.

4.7.4 National Historic Trails and Other Historic Trails

4.7.4.2 Summary of Impacts by Alternative

Principal impacts to the Nez Perce (Neeme-poo or Nimi’ipuu) NHT, the only NHT in the Planning Area, 

and Other Historic Trails arise directly from development activities and intrusions into the viewshed that 

alter the environment that contributes to the trail’s significance. These development activities and 

intrusions may impact other resources, qualities, values, and associated settings, and the primary use or 

uses of the NHT, including loss of trail-related recreation opportunities, and a decline in the visual, 

recreation, and natural trail settings. Alternative E provides the greatest protection for these trails 

through the application of a larger management corridor for surface-disturbing activity (both NSO and 

CSU) and restrictions on motorized vehicle use. The larger acreage of special designations and limited 

resource use under Alternative E reduce the potential for direct and indirect adverse impacts. 

Alternative C allows the greatest resource use and provides the least protection through special 

designations, but it does provide more effective proactive management, including NSO and CSU 

restrictions, than Alternative A. Alternative A, the existing management, includes the least effective 

proactive management, in part because of the change in understanding of the adverse impact of 

viewshed intrusions that has evolved since this management was developed. However, management 

under Alternative A would result in less resource use than Alternative C, and adverse impacts would 

likewise be less under this alternative. Alternatives D and F provide for similar protection to these trails, 

which is more than alternatives A and C, but less than alternatives B and E.

4.7.4.3 Detailed Analysis of Alternatives

Alternative E

Surface Disturbance

Alternative E applies the same management corridor as Alternative B (refer to Map 73 of Draft RMP and 

Draft EIS), and adverse and beneficial impacts to the Nez Perce NHT and Other Historic Trails from 

surface-disturbing activities would be similar to Alternative B. However, under Alternative E, additional 

restrictions on surface-disturbing activities along 31 miles of the Nez Perce NHT and Other Historic Trails 

would apply in areas overlapping the Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC. These restrictions 

would include withdrawal from locatable mineral entry, closures to mineral materials disposal, ROW and 

renewable energy exclusion, and additional restrictions on allowable density and area of disturbance 
National Historic Trails and Other Historic Trails

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS 4-129

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

which would result in greater protection for these trails. Alternative E has the lowest amount of acres 

affected by surface disturbances, and thus has the least potential for direct impact on the Nez Perce 

NHT and Other Historic Trails of any of the alternatives.

In areas outside of the Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC, restrictions on surface-disturbing 

activities for the protection of other resources (e.g., soil, water, biological resources, and special 

designations) and consultation and compliance requirements under NHPA Section 106 are the same as 

under Alternative B, and impacts would be the same as Alternative B.

Resource Uses

The management of resource uses under Alternative E, except for certain resource uses in the proposed 

Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC, is the same as Alternative B; impacts to trail resources 

outside the ACEC would be the same as Alternative B, while impacts inside the ACEC would be less 

adverse. Lands in the Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC are managed for potential 

acquisition, so more acreage may be acquired under Alternative E than any other alternatives, with 

resulting surveys that may identify other potential NRHP-eligible trail segments. All lands within the 

proposed Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC are managed as excluded from ROW and 

renewable energy uses, which may reduce the magnitude of impacts from new developments on trail 

resources in the area compared to the other alternatives. Under Alternative E, the Greater Sage-Grouse 

Key Habitat Areas ACEC is closed to all types of mineral development, which may decrease the potential 

for adverse impacts from these types of activities.

Overall, additional protective management along certain trail segments in the Greater Sage-Grouse Key 

Habitat Areas ACEC would reduce adverse impacts to the Nez Perce NHT and Other Historic Trails; along 

all other portions, impacts from resources uses would be the same as Alternative B. As with all the 

alternatives, compliance with the NHPA would be required for all actions under Alternative E.

Special Designations

Alternative E designates more special designation areas and includes greater restrictions on surfacedisturbing activity within these areas any other alternative. In addition to all the special designations 

made under Alternative B, Alternative E also designates the Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas 

ACEC (1,231,383 acres). The addition of this ACEC would provide additional protection for the Nez Perce 

NHT and Other Historic Trails through greater restrictions on surface-disturbing activities. These 

additional restrictions would result in the greatest beneficial impact to the NHT and Other Historic Trails 

of any alternative from special designations management.

Resources

Fire and fuels management under Alternative E, except for areas in the proposed Greater Sage-Grouse 

Key Habitat Areas ACEC, is the same as Alternative B; impacts to trail resources outside the ACEC would 

be the same as Alternative B. Additional restrictions in the Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC 

would limit access for fire management activities compared to the other alternatives, which may reduce 

adverse impacts from fire suppression, stabilization, and rehabilitation compared to the other 

alternatives.

VRM and cultural resource management under Alternative E is the same as Alternative B, and impacts to 

trail resources would be the same as Alternative B.
National Historic Trails and Other Historic Trails

4-130 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Proactive Management

Management of the Nez Perce NHT and Other Historic Trails under Alternative E is the same as 

Alternative B, and beneficial impacts to these trail resources would be the same as Alternative B.

Alternative F

Surface Disturbance

Alternative F applies the same management corridor as Alternative D (refer to Map 73 of Draft RMP and 

Draft EIS), and adverse and beneficial impacts to the Nez Perce NHT and Other Historic Trails from 

surface-disturbing activities would be similar to those discussed under Alternative D. However, under 

Alternative F, the BLM would apply additional restrictions on surface-disturbing activities along 24 miles 

of the Nez Perce NHT and Other Historic Trails located in the Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas 

ACEC. These restrictions would include restrictions on leasable mineral development and more 

stringent allowable density and area of disturbance considerations, which may result in greater 

protection for these trails. Total projected surface disturbance under Alternative F is similar to 

alternatives A and D, less than Alternative C, and greater than alternatives B and E.

In areas outside of the Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC, restrictions on surface-disturbing 

activities for the protection of other resources (e.g., soil, water, biological resources, and special 

designations) and consultation and compliance requirements under NHPA Section 106 are the same as 

Alternative D, and impacts would be the same as Alternative D.

Resource Uses

The management of resource uses under Alternative F, except for certain resource uses in the proposed 

Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC, is the same as Alternative D; impacts to trail resources 

outside the ACEC would be the same as Alternative D while impacts inside the ACEC may be less 

adverse. Lands in the Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC would limit motorized vehicle use 

to designated roads and trails, potentially limiting access in the area to a greater extent than 

alternatives A, C, and D, but less so than alternatives B and E. Within the ACEC, NSO restrictions within 

0.6 miles of occupied or undetermined greater sage-grouse leks may also benefit trail resources where 

they overlap with these leasable mineral surface restrictions.

Overall, additional protective management along certain trail segments in the Greater Sage-Grouse Core 

Habitat Areas ACEC may result a slight reduction in adverse impacts for the Nez Perce NHT and Other 

Historic Trails; along all other portions, impacts from resources uses would be the same as described 

under Alternative D. As with all the alternatives, compliance with the NHPA would be required for all 

actions under Alternative E.

Special Designations

Alternative F designates more special designation areas than alternatives A, C, and D, and includes 

greater restrictions on surface-disturbing activities within these areas, resulting in greater beneficial 

impacts than under those alternatives. Alternative F includes the same back country byways as 

Alternative D, and impacts would be the same as Alternative D.

Resources

Fire and fuels management under Alternative F, except for areas in the proposed Greater Sage-Grouse 

Core Habitat Areas ACEC, is the same as Alternative D; impacts to trail resources outside the ACEC would 

be the same as Alternative D. Additional restrictions in the Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas 
Wild and Scenic Rivers

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS 4-131

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

ACEC would limit the ability to use prescribed fire and implement fuels reduction in certain habitats, 

potentially resulting in fewer adverse impacts from fire and fuels management than alternatives A 

and D.

VRM and cultural resource management under Alternative F is the same as Alternative D, and impacts to 

trail resources would be the same as Alternative D.

Proactive Management

Management of the Nez Perce NHT and Other Historic Trails under Alternative F is the same as 

Alternative D, and beneficial impacts to these trail resources would be the same as Alternative D.

4.7.5 Wild and Scenic Rivers

NOTE: The Draft RMP and Draft EIS impact analysis for Wild and Scenic Rivers under Alternative B is 

representative of the impacts anticipated under Alternative E, and the impact analysis for Wild and 

Scenic Rivers under Alternative D is representative of the impacts anticipated under Alternative F. 

Please refer to the Draft RMP and Draft EIS for a discussion of impacts to this designation. Map SEIS-32 

shows Wild and Scenic Rivers in the Planning Area under alternatives A, B, and E.

4.7.6 Wilderness Study Areas

NOTE: The Draft RMP and Draft EIS impact analysis for Wilderness Study Areas under Alternative B is 

representative of the impacts anticipated under Alternative E, and the impact analysis for Wilderness 

Study Areas under Alternative D is representative of the impacts anticipated under Alternative F. Please 

refer to the Draft RMP and Draft EIS for a discussion of impacts to this designation.

4.8 Socioeconomic Resources

4.8.1 Social Conditions

4.8.1.2 Summary of Impacts by Alternative

Social conditions are fundamentally influenced by economic conditions. Employment and income 

improve or detract from social conditions and quality of life; communities in the Planning Area have 

developed cultures associated with economic activities such as natural resource extraction, ranching,

and recreation. Given the large portions of public land within the counties of the Planning Area, BLM 

management decisions have the potential to influence the community character and identity, even if the 

economic impact as measured by this analysis is minimal.

For the purposes of the analysis below, some unknown impacts of the management alternatives on 

economic activities (e.g., restrictions to ROWs, travel management or seasonal restrictions) are not 

included in the quantitative estimates of impacts and derived discussions, but are recognized 

qualitatively when appropriate. Table 4-20 provides a summary of impacts on social conditions as 

discussed in this section for the alternatives. Although the table attempts to summarize impacts and 

characterize them as low, medium, or high, it does not classify these impacts as beneficial or adverse. 

Social impacts seen as beneficial to some people and groups may be seen as adverse to others. For 

instance, increased emphasis on resource conservation in alternatives B and E would result in a change 

from the current uses, which may be seen as a beneficial impact by wilderness advocates, but an 
Social Conditions

4-132 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

adverse impact by oil and gas development and livestock grazing interests. In Table 4-20, high impacts 

are those that would result in substantial changes to an existing condition in a way that would affect a 

large number of people and/or endure for a long period of time; no high impacts were identified during 

this analysis. Low impacts are those that would affect a limited number of people and for a limited 

period of time. Impacts on population, housing, and community services would lie within typical annual 

fluctuations for the Planning Area. Impacts on quality of life and culture would not be expected to be 

noticeable by most people. Medium impacts are intermediate and fall between high and low impacts.

Under all alternatives, the social condition is expected to change. However, the greatest impact on 

social conditions under alternatives B and E would be from reduced oil and gas development and 

livestock grazing and increased emphasis on resource conservation and primitive recreational 

opportunities. Alternative E imposes additional constraints on disturbance in greater sage-grouse Key 

Habitat Areas when compared to Alternative B; however, based on the economic analysis in the 

Economic Conditions section, these additional constraints are expected to have little additional adverse 

impacts on employment and earnings. Under Alternative C, the greatest impact on social conditions 

would result from decreased restrictions on oil and gas development compared to the other 

alternatives, which 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 higher population.

Alternatives D and F balance management emphasis between resource conservation and resource use, 

but are generally closer in line with resource use and development. Alternative F imposes additional 

constraints on disturbance in greater sage-grouse Core Habitat Areas when compared to Alternative D. 

Based on analysis in the Economic Conditions section, these additional constraints would restrict further 

economic activity in the oil and gas sector when compared to Alternative D. Impacts of Alternative F on 

population and public services associated with impacts on economic activity would be slightly more 

restrictive than those of Alternative D.

Overall, alternatives E and B favor resource conservation over traditional industries such as livestock 

grazing, and the values associated with these industries when compared to alternatives F and D. 

Alternatives E and B also enhance opportunities to engage in primitive forms of recreation in 

comparison to the other alternatives, while restricting motorized use of recreational sites due to 

seasonal closures of greater sage-grouse Key Habitat Areas.
Social Conditions

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS 4-133

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Table 4-20. Overall Impacts on Social Conditions by Alternative

Impact Alternative

A

Alternative

B

Alternative

C

Alternative

D

Alternative

E

Alternative

F

Impact on 

Population Low Impact

Medium Impact 

(potential reductions 

focused in oil/gas 

service areas, which 

generally correspond 

to population centers)

Low Impact Low Impact

Medium Impact 

(potential reductions 

focused in oil/gas 

service areas, which 

generally correspond 

to population centers)

Low Impact

Impact on 

Housing and 

Community 

Services

Low Impact

Medium Impact (due 

to potential 

population 

reductions)

Low Impact Low Impact

Medium Impact (due 

to potential 

population 

reductions)

Low Impact

Consistency 

with Adopted 

County Land 

Use Plans

No Impact

Potential conflict with 

Hot Springs County 

Land Use Plan

No Impact No Impact

Potential conflict with 

Hot Springs County 

Land Use Plan

No Impact

Impacts on 

Quality of Life 

and Local 

Culture

Low Impact

Medium Impact 

(change from recent 

trends would 

constitute greater 

emphasis on resource 

conservation at the 

expense of traditional 

industries such as 

livestock grazing)

Medium Impact 

(change from 

recent trends 

would 

constitute 

greater 

emphasis on 

resource 

development)

Low Impact

Medium Impact 

(change from recent 

trends would 

constitute greater 

emphasis on resource 

conservation at the 

expense of traditional 

industries such as 

livestock grazing)

Low to 

medium (due 

to restrictions 

and 

requirements 

for livestock 

grazing 

operators in 

Core Habitat 

Areas)

Source: Based on the analysis of impacts to social conditions, as described in the text.
Social Conditions

4-134 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

4.8.1.3 Detailed Analysis of Alternatives

NOTE: Replace Table 4-21 of the Draft RMP and Draft EIS (page 4-461) with the following table.

Table 4-21. Comparison of Projected Earnings and Employment to 2008 Levels

Measure Alternative

A

Alternative

B

Alternative

C

Alternative

D

Alternative

E

Alternative

F

Forecasted annual 

earnings due to 

activities on BLMadministered surface1 

($ millions)

$75.0 $36.9 $83.4 $70.8 $36.9 $65.9

Total labor earnings in 

2008 ($ millions) $2,098 $2,098 $2,098 $2,098 $2,098 $2,098

Forecasted annual 

earnings as a 

percentage of 2008 

earnings

3.6% 1.8% 4.0% 3.4% 1.8% 3.1%

Forecasted annual 

employment due to 

activities on BLMadministered surface1

1,465 796 1,606 1,393 796 1,311

Total employment in 

2008 37,221 37,221 37,221 37,221 37,221 37,221

Forecasted annual 

employment as a 

percentage of 2008 

employment

3.9% 2.1% 4.3% 3.7% 2.1% 3.5%

Source: Forecasted annual earnings and employment are calculated based on the IMPLAN model, as described in the text. Earnings and

employment for 2008 are from the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA 2010). Earnings are in millions of year 2008 dollars.

1

Estimate of annual earnings and employment includes direct, indirect, and induced economic activity (the “multiplier effect”).

BLM Bureau of Land Management

IMPLAN Impact Analysis for Planning model

Alternative E

Impacts on Population

Under Alternative E, activities on BLM-administered land and mineral estate related to oil and gas, 

livestock grazing, and recreation would support an average of 796 full-time and part-time jobs per year, 

which represents approximately 2.1 percent of total employment in the Planning Area counties as of 

2008 (Table 4-21). Although Alternative E places additional restrictions on energy development in 

greater sage-grouse Key Habitat Areas in comparison to Alternative B, it is not expected to result in a

perceptible change in the number of jobs supported by oil and gas, livestock grazing, and recreation in 

comparison to that alternative (for additional details, please see Leasable Minerals – Oil and Gas, 

Recreation, and Livestock Grazing Management). Therefore, impacts on population would be the same 

as those described under Alternative B, which would include a decrease of 669 jobs (approximate 46 

percent decrease) compared to Alternative A. Using 2008 employment statistics, these job losses 

represent approximately 1.8 percent of total employment in the Planning Area counties.
Social Conditions

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS 4-135

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

A decrease in employment opportunities may result in a decrease in population in the Planning Area as 

people may leave the area to seek employment elsewhere. As with the other alternatives, the expected 

magnitude of any such decrease would be similar to the magnitude of employment loss but would be 

lower since some people (e.g., retired people) survive on unearned income and do not depend directly 

on employment for economic well-being.

Approximately 63 percent of the job opportunities from activities analyzed using the Impact Analysis for 

Planning (IMPLAN) model would be related to oil and gas development and production under 

Alternative E (505 jobs). Livestock grazing would contribute approximately 17 percent of the job 

opportunities (134 jobs), and recreation would contribute approximately 20 percent (158 jobs). These 

jobs may be dispersed across the Planning Area; however, those cities with a higher concentration of oil 

and gas support activities businesses, as well as housing centers for oil and gas workers, could 

experience greater impacts.

Impacts on Housing and Community Services

Anticipated population and tax revenue decreases under Alternative E are similar to Alternative B and 

greater than under the other alternatives; resulting impacts on housing and community services would 

be the same as described under Alternative B. This population decrease may result in reduced demand 

for housing and community services compared to existing conditions. Alternative E would result in a 

reduced tax base for providing community services similar to that described under Alternative B (see 

Economic Conditions for additional information). The exact geographic distribution of these changes is 

not possible to predict because tax losses in specific jurisdictions would be driven by undetermined well 

locations; however, the restrictions on oil and gas development under Alternative E affect broad areas 

of land throughout the Planning Area, so the reductions in tax revenues would likely affect all 

communities that currently produce oil and/or gas.

Consistency with Adopted County Land Use Plans

BLM takes practical steps to resolve any identified conflicts between federal and local plans. The Hot 

Springs County Land Use Plan expresses concern about growing federal and state regulation on public 

lands that may slow or hinder economic development. Similar to Alternative B, but to a greater extent 

due to additional conservation measures for greater sage-grouse, restrictions on oil and gas 

development under Alternative E could be perceived as a conflict with the Hot Springs County Land Use 

Plan. Alternative E would not conflict with the adopted land use plans of Big Horn, Park, or Washakie 

counties. These plans simultaneously advocate both the economic use of lands and open spaces and 

the preservation of wildlife habitat.

Impacts on Quality of Life and Local Culture

In general, quality of life impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative B. Quality of 

life for the people who live in the Planning Area is closely interconnected with continued economic 

opportunities as well as features of the natural landscape. Alternative E would reduce economic 

opportunities from oil and gas development and livestock grazing, but would also result in decreased air 

pollution and other adverse environmental impacts associated with development compared to the 

other alternatives.

Residents generally support multiple-use of BLM-administered lands, including the development of 

mineral and energy resources, livestock grazing authorizations, continued access to BLM-administered

lands for recreation, and conservation of wildlife and native vegetation. Alternative E would continue 

BLM’s current practice of allowing multiple-uses, but would prioritize resource conservation over 

resource uses such as oil and gas development and livestock grazing. This resource conservation focus 
Social Conditions

4-136 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

would be especially evident in areas like the Greater Sage-Grouse Key Habitat Areas ACEC, where many 

resource use activities would be restricted or prohibited. This may be inconsistent with the culture 

advocated by some interest groups (e.g., oil and gas interests, livestock ranchers) and may promote the 

culture advocated by others (e.g., wilderness advocates).

Under Alternative E, the continued development of oil and gas wells, ROWs, and other human-made 

structures on the landscape would continue to result in adverse impacts to nonmarket values associated 

with open space and the environment. However, because this alternative emphasizes resource 

conservation, the magnitude of these decreases would be less than under the other alternatives and 

less than overall historic trends.

The withdrawal of a large portion of the Planning Area from livestock grazing under Alternative E would 

result in the same adverse impacts on allotments and livestock operators as described under Alternative 

B, including potential reductions in operations and ranch consolidations and/or sales.

As under Alternative B, residents of the Planning Area would be affected by restrictions to recreational 

opportunities beyond what is reflected in Economic Conditions. This is because the economic impacts of 

recreational activities only capture changes to non-resident recreation that would affect expenditures 

made in the Planning Area. In addition to affects from non-resident expenditures, seasonal travel 

restrictions in greater sage-grouse Key Habitat Areas and other wildlife habitats under Alternative E 

would limit motorized vehicle use in those areas for all recreationists on BLM-administered land, and in 

effect favor primitive recreational uses; these effects would be the same as under Alternative B.

Alternative F

Impacts on Population

Under Alternative F, activities on BLM-administered land and mineral estate related to oil and gas, 

livestock grazing, and recreation would support an average of 1,311 full-time and part-time jobs per 

year (Table 4-21), which represents approximately 3.5 percent of total employment in the Planning Area 

counties using 2008 employment statistics. For purposes of this analysis it is assumed that ROW, 

transportation, and seasonal restrictions would not impact commercial or recreational activities, 

although the impact is unknown at this time. Compared to Alternative A, which essentially represents 

the continuation of current trends, Alternative F would result in a decrease of 154 jobs (approximate 

10.5 percent decrease), or approximately 0.4 percent of year 2008 employment. Most of these job 

decreases would be associated with decreased development of oil and gas resources.

As shown in Economic Conditions, approximately 74 percent of the job opportunities from activities 

analyzed using the IMPLAN model would be related to oil and gas development and production (967 

jobs). Livestock grazing would contribute approximately 14 percent of the job opportunities (186 jobs), 

and recreation would contribute approximately 12 percent (158). (Note that due to rounding, these 

sector-level figures do not necessarily match the total reported in Table 4-21.) These jobs would be 

dispersed geographically across the Planning Area, as described under Alternative A. In comparison to 

Alternative A, the average annual number of jobs supported by recreation activities and livestock 

grazing would increase, while the number of jobs supported by oil and gas would decrease by 

approximately 4 percent.

Alternative F may result in a slight decrease in job opportunities compared to alternatives A and D, 

potentially causing a slight decrease in population compared to those alternatives. At this time, the 

impact to individual communities is not known until further research is conducted.
Economic Conditions

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS 4-137

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Impacts on Housing and Community Services

Alternative F may result in a small decrease in population compared to alternatives A and D, which may 

in turn decrease the demand for housing and community services. Alternative F would also result in a 

slightly reduced tax base from oil and gas production compared to alternatives A and D. Geographically, 

the change in job opportunities—and related impacts on housing and community services—would be 

spread across the Planning Area and would be spread over time.

Consistency with Adopted County Land Use Plans

Similar to the other alternatives, the BLM would take practical steps to resolve any identified conflicts 

between federal and local plans. Similar to Alternative D, Alternative F would continue BLM’s historical 

policy of balanced resource conservation and development, but with slightly greater emphasis on 

resource conservation in greater sage-grouse Core Habitat Areas. In general, Alternative F encourages 

diversified economic activities by providing opportunities for developers to extract resources (e.g., oil 

and gas extraction), as well as develop industries that are sustainable in the very long term (e.g., 

renewable energy). Alternative F would not conflict with the adopted land use plans of Big Horn, Hot 

Springs, Park, or Washakie counties. These plans simultaneously advocate both the economic use of 

lands and open spaces, as well as the preservation of wildlife habitat.

Impacts on Quality of Life and Local Culture

Economic opportunities in the Planning Area under Alternative F would be slightly less than under 

alternatives A and D. Alternative F would also result in greater beneficial effects to air quality, wildlife, 

and other resources that improve quality of life related to natural characteristics than under alternatives 

A, C, or D.

As described under Alternative D, Alternative F employs a balanced management approach and would 

continue BLM’s current practice of allowing multiple-uses of public lands, as opposed to a single species 

management. However, under Alternative F, additional measures related to the conservation of 

resources (particularly in greater sage-grouse Core Habitat Areas) would place additional emphasis on 

wildlife habitat concerns over economic development compared to management under alternatives A 

or D.

Under this alternative, subdivision of ranch land and related development and sale of “ranchette” 

parcels would continue and would result in impacts similar to those of alternatives A and D, although 

some uncertainty exists on the effects of this alternative on ranchers, due to the added restrictions 

when compared to Alternative D. This continuation would generally be in line with historic trends.

4.8.2 Economic Conditions

4.8.2.2 Summary of Impacts by Alternative

Based on the data from the IMPLAN model, as well as qualitative analysis from other sectors, output, 

employment, and tax revenues resulting from activities on BLM-administered land and mineral estate 

would be highest under Alternative C and lowest under alternatives B and E (quantitative estimates of 

earnings and output are the same under alternatives B and E). Alternative A would result in the secondhighest level of economic activity, and alternatives D and F the third-highest. The amount of economic 

activity projected for alternatives A, C, D, and F is similar; however, activity under alternatives B and E 

would be substantially reduced compared to the other alternatives. The most important drivers of 

economic activity influenced by BLM management, respectively, are oil and gas activity and livestock 
Economic Conditions

4-138 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

grazing. Oil and gas production would be highest under Alternative C, followed by alternatives A, D, and 

F; the lowest oil and gas production would occur under alternatives B and E. Economic activity from 

livestock grazing would be similar under alternatives A, C, D, and F, but substantially lower under 

alternatives B and E. Additional restrictions and requirements for livestock grazing in Core Habitat Areas 

under Alternative F could result in adverse effects to economic activity compared to alternatives A and 

D; however, at present it is not possible to quantify the changes in livestock grazing economic activity 

that would result from these restrictions. Earnings, output, and employment from recreation would be 

similar across all the alternatives.

Economic activity from other sectors not modeled using IMPLAN, including renewable energy, locatable 

minerals, and salable minerals, would be greatest under alternatives A, C, D, and F, and lowest under 

alternatives B and E. However, at present it is not possible to quantify effects from renewable energy, 

locatable minerals, and salable minerals.

Alternative C would result in the highest earnings and employment, followed by alternatives A, D, F, B, 

and E. Table 4-21 includes additional information on projected earnings and employment related to 

activities on BLM-administered areas to the levels in 2008. Alternative A would result in approximately 

$75 million in earnings and 1,465 jobs annually from BLM-administered land and resources. Alternatives 

B and E would generate about $37 million in earnings and 796 jobs; Alternative C would generate 

approximately $83 million in earnings and 1,606 jobs; Alternative D would generate about $71 million in 

earnings and 1,393 jobs; and Alternative F would result in $66 million in earnings and 1,311 jobs 

annually from BLM-administered land and resources.

It is useful to compare the differences in earnings and employment across alternatives, not only in 

absolute terms, but also to the size of the regional economy. The earnings associated with Alternative A 

represent approximately 3.6 percent of the total earnings in the Planning Area counties compared to 

2008 earnings (Table 4-21). Earnings associated with BLM-administered lands under alternatives B, C, D, 

E, and F constitute 1.8, 4.0, 3.4, 1.8, and 3.1 percent of year 2008 earnings, respectively. The average 

employment associated with activities on BLM-administered land under alternatives A, B, C, D, E, and F 

represents about 3.9, 2.1, 4.3, 3.7, 2.1, and 3.5 percent of employment for counties in the Planning Area 

in year 2008, respectively (Table 4-21). This provides a useful perspective on the relative importance of 

BLM-administered lands in the overall regional economy and also shows that the difference between 

alternatives—relative to the regional economy—is small. For example, the difference in employment 

projected between alternatives A and B would be just 1.8 percentage points of employment in year 

2008 (3.9 minus 2.1), which would be noticeable (it would be as if the unemployment rate increased by 

1.8 percentage points), but would not lead to wholesale changes in regional economic activity. The 

difference in annual employment between alternatives A and F would be noticeable in regional 

statistics, but would still be just 0.4 percentage points, which is not likely noticeable for most residents 

or workers. Other national, state, and regional policies and trends, such as the value of the dollar, 

federal fiscal and monetary policy, and global oil prices, would have a substantially larger impact on 

economic activity in the Planning Area.

The data presented in Table 4-21, as well as the other tables in this section showing the results of the 

economic model analysis, reflect direct and indirect impacts on economic conditions. For example, the 

earnings and employment information in this section include oil and gas, livestock grazing, and 

recreation sectors as well as all other sectors that are connected such as retail, food service, hotels and 

other accommodation services, and social services such as education and health care. These jobs may 

be dispersed across the Planning Area; however, those cities with a higher concentration of oil and gas 

support activities businesses, as well as housing centers for oil and gas workers, could experience 

greater impacts.
Economic Conditions

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS 4-139

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

4.8.2.3 Detailed Analysis of Alternatives

NOTE: Replace Table 4-22 (page 4-472), Table 4-23 (page 4-473), Table 4-24 (page 4-474), and Table 4-

25 (page 4-475) of the Draft RMP and Draft EIS with the following tables.

Table 4-22. Average Annual Impacts on Earnings and Output, by Sector and Alternative

for the Planning Area

Sector Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Alternative F

Impacts on Annual Average Earnings (millions of 2008 $)

Oil and Gas $66.5 $29.9 $74.9 $62.2 $29.9 $57.3

Livestock Grazing $5.7 $4.1 $5.6 $5.7 $4.1 $5.7

Recreation $2.9 $2.9 $2.9 $2.9 $2.9 $2.9

Total2 $75.0 $36.9 $83.4 $70.8 $36.9 $65.9

Impacts on Annual Average Output (millions of 2008 $)

Oil and Gas $481.2 $216.5 $542.2 $450.6 $216.5 $417.6

Livestock Grazing $19.0 $13.7 $18.9 $19.0 $13.7 $19.0

Recreation $11.1 $11.1 $11.1 $11.1 $11.1 $11.1

Total2 $511.3 $241.3 $572.3 $480.8 $241.3 $447.8

Impacts on Net Present Value of Output Over 20 Years (millions of 2008 $)1

Oil and Gas $5,483.5 $2,467.0 $6,178.8 $5,135.8 $2,467.0 $4,760.9

Livestock Grazing $201.5 $157.0 $200.8 $201.4 $157.0 $201.5

Recreation $114.9 $114.9 $114.9 $114.9 $114.9 $114.9

Total2 $5,799.9 $2,738.9 $6,494.5 $5,452.1 $2,738.9 $5,077.2

Source: Calculated using the IMPLAN model, as described in the text.

1

Net present value from 2007 to 2028, discounted at 7 percent (rate from OMB 1992). 2

Due to rounding, totals may not be additive.

IMPLAN Impact Analysis for Planning model
Economic Conditions

4-140 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Table 4-23. Average Annual Impacts on Employment, by Sector and Alternative

for the Planning Area

Number of Jobs1

Sector Alternative

A

Alternative

B

Alternative

C

Alternative

D

Alternative

E

Alternative

F

Oil and Gas 1,121 505 1,263 1,050 505 967

Direct 578 260 651 541 260 498

Indirect & Induced 543 245 612 509 245 470

Livestock Grazing 186 134 185 186 134 186

Direct 106 77 106 106 77 106

Indirect & Induced 80 57 79 80 57 80

Recreation 158 158 158 158 158 158

Direct 131 131 131 131 131 131

Indirect & Induced 27 27 27 27 27 27

Total2 1,465 796 1,606 1,393 796 1,311

Direct 815 467 887 778 467 735

Indirect & Induced 650 329 719 616 329 577

Source: Calculated using the IMPLAN model, as described in the text.

1

Number of jobs is in annual job equivalents (AJE), where one AJE represents 12 months of employment. For instance, one AJE could represent 

one job for 12 months, or two jobs for 6 months.

2

Due to rounding, totals may not be additive.

IMPLAN Impact Analysis for Planning model
Economic Conditions

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS 4-141

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Table 4-24. Average Annual Impacts on Employment, by Subsector and Alternative

for the Planning Area

Number of Jobs1

Total Contribution (Direct Contribution)2

Sector Alternative 

A

Alternative 

B

Alternative 

C

Alternative 

D

Alternative 

E

Alternative 

F

Agriculture & 

Agricultural Services 140 (106) 100 (77) 139 (106) 139 (106) 98 (75) 139 (106)

Mining (includes oil 

and gas services) 517 (503) 233 (227) 582 (567) 484 (471) 233 (227) 445 (434)

Utilities 6 (0) 3 (0) 6 (0) 5 (0) 3 (0) 5 (0)

Construction 104 (32) 48 (14) 117 (36) 98 (30) 48 (14) 91 (27)

Manufacturing 12 (1) 6 (1) 13 (1) 11 (1) 6 (1) 10 (1)

Wholesale Trade 47 (27) 22 (12) 53 (30) 44 (25) 22 (12) 41 (23)

Retail Trade 123 (32) 78 (32) 133 (32) 118 (32) 77 (32) 113 (32)

Transportation & 

Warehousing 21 (0) 10 (0) 23 (0) 20 (0) 10 (0) 18 (0)

Information 10 (0) 6 (0) 12 (0) 10 (0) 6 (0) 9 (0)

Finance & Insurance 29 (0) 14 (0) 32 (0) 27 (0) 14 (0) 25 (0)

Real Estate & Rentals 56 (22) 28 (10) 62 (24) 53 (20) 28 (10) 49 (19)

Business Services 

(e.g., administrative) 97 (0) 48 (0) 108 (0) 92 (0) 48 (0) 86 (0)

Social Services 66 (0) 33 (0) 73 (0) 62 (0) 33 (0) 58 (0)

Arts/Entertainment/

Recreation Services 156 (83) 120 (83) 163 (83) 152 (83) 120 (83) 147 (83)

Other Services 67 (13) 41 (13) 73 (13) 64 (13) 41 (13) 61 (13)

Institutions 15 (0) 7 (0) 17 (0) 14 (0) 7 (0) 13 (0)

Source: Calculated using the IMPLAN model. Due to rounding, totals may not match exactly the totals reported in other tables in this section.

1

Number of jobs is in annual job equivalents (AJE), where one AJE represents 12 months of employment. For instance, one AJE could represent 

one job for 12 months, or two jobs for 6 months.

2

The total contribution includes indirect and induced economic activity from related sectors (i.e., “upstream” and “downstream” sectors that 

supply materials and labor, or benefit from spending by workers in the sectors directly affected). For more information see the economic 

model description in the text.

IMPLAN Impact Analysis for Planning model
Economic Conditions

4-142 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Table 4-25. Estimated Oil and Gas Tax Revenues by Alternative for the Planning Area

(millions of 2008 $)

Tax Type Alternative 

A

Alternative 

B

Alternative 

C

Alternative 

D

Alternative 

E

Alternative 

F

Federal mineral 

royalties $40.8 $18.3 $45.9 $38.2 $18.3 $35.5

State severance taxes $19.6 $8.8 $22.1 $18.3 $8.8 $17.1

Local ad valorem 

production taxes $22.6 $10.2 $25.5 $21.2 $10.2 $19.7

Total1 $83.0 $37.3 $93.5 $77.7 $37.3 $72.3

Source: Calculated based on the IMPLAN model and state, federal, and local tax rates, as described in the text.

1

Due to rounding, totals may not be additive.

IMPLAN Impact Analysis for Planning model

Alternative E

Impacts on Regional Earnings and Output

Based on the IMPLAN model, regional earnings and output under Alternative E would be estimated to 

be the same as those under Alternative B for the modeled sectors (oil and gas, grazing, and recreation). 

Alternative E includes the greatest area of ROW exclusion and the most restrictive management on 

allowable surface disturbance of any alternative due to the inclusion of the Greater Sage-Grouse Key 

Habitat Areas ACEC. However, the management of new oil and gas leasing, motorized vehicle use 

restrictions and seasonal closures, recreation, and livestock grazing under Alternative E is similar to 

Alternative B (for details, please see Leasable Minerals – Oil and Gas, Recreation, and Livestock Grazing 

Management). Regional earnings under Alternative E would average approximately $37 million per 

year, and regional output would average approximately $241 million per year, due to activities on BLMadministered land and mineral estate. The net present value of the stream of regional output would be 

approximately $2.7 billion over 20 years. Table 4-22 summarizes and compares sector-level breakouts 

for earnings and output by alternative.

Under Alternative E, 1,953,388 acres would be renewable energy exclusion areas. This represents 

701,519 acres more than under Alternative B. An additional 991,023 acres are managed as 

avoidance/mitigation areas. Approximately 246,000 acres (7.7 percent of the Planning Area) would be 

open to renewable energy development, the same as under Alternative B. Despite the greater acreage 

of exclusion areas, the BLM expects that wind-energy development on BLM-administered lands would 

be approved at the same rate as under Alternative B (see Renewable Energy for details).

Alternative E imposes the most restrictions on the development of locatable and salable minerals in the 

Planning Area of any alternative, and could result in the greatest restrictions to economic activity from 

these types of mining compared to any other alternative. However, at present it is not possible to 

quantify effects from locatable and salable minerals management changes among the alternatives, for 

lack of reliable production forecasts.
Economic Conditions

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS 4-143

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Impacts on Employment

Based on the IMPLAN model, regional employment under Alternative E for the modeled sectors would 

average approximately 796 jobs per year between 2007 and 2028 due to activities on BLM-administered 

land and mineral estate. Alternative E would result in the least number of jobs compared to the other 

alternatives. Table 4-23 provides a comparison of jobs by sector under the alternatives.

Impacts on Tax Revenue

Projected tax revenues for Alternative E resulting from oil and gas production on BLM-administered 

mineral estate are estimated to be the same as under Alternative B. As in Alternative B, estimated tax 

revenues under Alternative E would average $18.3 million per year for federal royalties, $8.8 million per 

year for state severance taxes, and $10.2 million per year for local ad valorem taxes. Estimated oil and 

gas tax revenues under Alternative E would be the same as under Alternative B, and would be the less 

than any of the other alternatives. Table 4-25 provides a summary and comparison of tax revenues 

from oil and gas production for the alternatives.

Alternative F

Impacts on Regional Earnings and Output

Based on the IMPLAN model, regional earnings and output under Alternative F for the modeled sectors 

(oil and gas, grazing, and recreation) would be similar to but slightly less than under Alternative D due to 

additional NSO restrictions for oil and gas development in greater sage-grouse Core Habitat Areas. This 

NSO restriction would reduce estimated oil and gas development when compared to alternatives A and 

D. The change in AUMs under Alternative F would be similar to Alternative D (see Livestock Grazing 

Management for details). Due to the abundance of recreational resources relative to current demand, 

impediments to one type of recreation often generate opportunities for other types of recreation (e.g., 

closure of areas to OHV may increase primitive recreation uses), and because the economic impact to 

the region is restricted to impacts through non-resident recreational activities (based on the assumption 

that residents would still spend the same proportion of their income within the region, even if they 

experience some restrictions on certain types of recreation in certain areas), Alternative F is expected to 

have similar economic impacts to recreation as Alternative D. For purposes of this analysis it is assumed 

that ROW, transportation, and seasonal restrictions would not impact commercial or recreational 

activities, although the impact is unknown at this time.

Regional earnings from activities on BLM-administered land and mineral estate under Alternative F 

would average approximately $66 million per year, and regional output would average approximately 

$448 million per year. The net present value of the stream of regional output would be approximately 

$5.1 billion over 20 years. Table 4-22 summarizes and compares sector-level breakouts for earnings and

output by alternative.

Under Alternative F, 294,345 acres are managed as renewable energy exclusion areas, and 2,515,372 

acres as avoidance/mitigation areas. Approximately 380,097 acres would be open to renewable energy 

development. Although restrictions on ROW development under Alternative F in the Greater SageGrouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC may increase costs associated with this development relative to 

Alternative D, the BLM expects development of renewable energy on BLM-administered lands to be 

similar to that described under Alternative D.
Health and Safety

4-144 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Alternative F imposes similar restrictions to the development of locatable and salable minerals as 

Alternative D, but also includes additional restrictions on surface-disturbing activities within the Greater 

Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC that may restrict economic activity compared to alternatives A 

and D. Due to the lack of reliable production forecasts, it is not possible to possible to quantify effects 

from locatable and salable minerals management changes among the alternatives at present.

Impacts on Employment

Based on the IMPLAN model, regional employment under Alternative F would be less than under 

alternatives A, C and D, but greater than alternatives B and E. Regional employment for the modeled 

sectors would average approximately 1,311 jobs per year between 2007 and 2028 due to activities on 

BLM-administered land and mineral estate. Table 4-23 provides a comparison of jobs by sector under 

the alternatives.

Impacts on Tax Revenue

Implementation of Alternative F would result in greater estimated oil and gas tax revenues than 

alternatives B and E, but less than alternatives A, C, and D. Projected tax revenues for Alternative F due 

to oil and gas production on BLM-administered surface would average $35.5 million per year for federal 

royalties, $17.1 million per year for state severance taxes, and $19.7 million per year for local ad 

valorem taxes. Table 4-25 provides a summary and comparison of tax revenues from oil and gas 

production for the alternatives.

4.8.3 Health and Safety

NOTE: The Draft RMP and Draft EIS impact analysis for health and safety under Alternative B is 

representative of the impacts anticipated under Alternative E, and the impact analysis for health and 

safety under Alternative D is representative of the impacts anticipated under Alternative F. Please refer 

to the Draft RMP and Draft EIS for a discussion of impacts to this program.

4.8.4 Environmental Justice

NOTE: The Draft RMP and Draft EIS impact analysis for Environmental Justice is not changed by the 

addition of alternatives E and F; please refer to the Draft RMP and Draft EIS for a discussion of impacts 

to this resource.

4.8.5 Tribal Treaty Rights

There are no tribal treaty rights or trust responsibilities within the Planning Area and as such there are 

no differences in impacts between the alternatives. Under all alternatives, the BLM would continue to 

consult with interested tribes regarding issues of importance to the tribes.
Cumulative Impacts

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS 4-145

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

4.9 Cumulative Impacts

NOTE: Replace Table 4-26 from the Draft RMP and Draft EIS (page 4-487) with the following table.

Table 4-26. Cumulative Surface Disturbance in Acres from BLM and Non-BLM

Reasonably Foreseeable Actions

Action Alternative 

A

Alternative 

B

Alternative 

C

Alternative 

D

Alternative 

E

Alternative 

F

Total Acres Short-Term 

Disturbance from BLM Actions 136,415 73,919 245,783 140,508 71,799 137,568

Total Acres Reclaimed from 

BLM Actions 120,705 63,037 204,238 122,065 61,993 119,684

Total Acres Long-Term 

Disturbance from BLM Actions 15,710 10,882 41,545 18,443 10,787 17,866

Total Acres Short-Term 

Disturbance from Non-BLM 

Actions

24,129 26,048 24,154 24,129 26,048 24,129

Total Acres Reclaimed from 

Non-BLM Actions 14,494 16,494 14,494 14,494 16,494 14,494

Total Acres Long-Term 

Disturbance from Non-BLM 

Actions

9,635 9,555 9,660 9,636 9,555 9,636

Cumulative Long-Term Acres 

from Disturbance 25,346 20,436 51,206 28,079 20,342 27,502

Source: Appendix T

BLM Bureau of Land Management

4.9.1.3 Cumulative Impacts

The cumulative impacts discussion is organized according to the following seven cumulative issues:

Cumulative Issue 1: The cumulative impact on air quality with regard to public health and welfare 

within the Planning Area and protected Class I areas outside the Planning Area.

Cumulative Issue 2: The cumulative impact of surface-disturbing and other activities that affect 

vegetation cover on water quality.

Cumulative Issue 3: The cumulative impact of management actions on habitat for wildlife and 

special status wildlife species, excluding greater sage-grouse.

Cumulative Issue 4: The cumulative impact of management actions on global climate change.

Cumulative Issue 5: Cumulative impacts of management actions and constraints on recreation 

opportunities.

Cumulative Issue 6: The cumulative impact of management actions and projected development on 

the economic and social conditions of local communities.

Cumulative Issue 7: The cumulative impact of management actions on greater sage-grouse.
Cumulative Impacts

4-146 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

NOTE: The Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS does not include a discussion of 

Cumulative Issues 2, 3 (except greater sage-grouse, which are moved to new Cumulative Issue 7 in this 

document), 4, and 5. The Draft RMP and Draft EIS impact analysis for the listed cumulative issues under 

Alternative B is representative of the impacts anticipated under Alternative E, and the impact analysis 

for the listed cumulative issues under Alternative D is representative of the impacts anticipated under 

Alternative F. Please refer to the Draft RMP and Draft EIS for a discussion of these impacts.

Cumulative Issue 1: The cumulative impact on air quality with regard to public health and 

welfare within the Planning Area and protected Class I areas outside the Planning Area.

Cumulative Impact Assessment Area

The Bighorn Basin and federal Class I areas within 100 miles.

Analysis of Cumulative Impacts

Base year (2005) and anticipated annual air emissions by alternative for project years 2015 and 2024 are 

organized by project scenario and resource as shown in Tables 4-30 through 4-38 of the Draft RMP and 

Draft EIS for alternatives A through D, which are augmented by the addition of SEIS Tables 3 through 6 

for alternatives E and F (SEIS tables located at the end of Cumulative Impacts). These tables identify 

each anticipated emission category for projected BLM actions, projected non-BLM actions, and the 

cumulative total of these actions.

Typical sources contributing to potential cumulative impacts on air quality would include emissions from 

conventional oil and gas development, vehicle operations associated with mining activities, and general 

vehicular activity from local residents and tourism. In addition, open burning of agricultural fields, which 

is a traditional practice in the Cumulative Impact Assessment Area (CIAA), would, along with wildland 

fires and prescribed burns, result in impacts on air quality from emissions of particulates and 

polyaromatic hydrocarbons and temporarily reduce visibility in areas. Permitted stationary sources of 

air emissions, such as the Western Sugar factory in Lovell, Wyoming would also continue to contribute 

to cumulative impacts on air quality.

Overall, air quality in the Bighorn Basin is good. Some concentrated emission sources may have health 

impacts to certain local residents. The Washakie County Comprehensive Plan notes that a number of 

emission sources in the county contribute to poor air quality which can disproportionately impact the 

county’s senior and disabled population, who are more susceptible to dust and smoke than the general 

population (Washakie County 2004). Local policy that encourages land use and development that does 

not result in new, significant deteriorations of existing air quality would help to maintain current air 

quality, reduce air quality degradation, and protect public health. However, increases in population 

would likely bring more development and the potential for more emission sources that could degrade 

air quality in the Bighorn Basin.

BLM and non-BLM reasonably foreseeable actions are anticipated to increase emissions in the Planning 

Area over the life of the plan. For the Planning Area, the cumulative air quality impacts (as measured 

against NAAQS and WAAQS) are anticipated to have the same intensity on BLM- and non BLMadministered lands because it is assumed the density of activities are the same in both areas. This 

conclusion also assumes that cumulative impacts to air quality are equally distributed across the CIAA. 

Because of proposed development restrictions on BLM-administered land, the potential for adverse 

cumulative impacts to air quality are anticipated to be the least under Alternative E, which places the 
Cumulative Impacts

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS 4-147

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

greatest restrictions on resource uses and management actions that contribute emissions, followed by 

alternatives B, F, D, and A. Cumulative emissions are projected to be highest under Alternative C due to 

fewer proposed development restrictions on BLM-administered land. Cumulative emissions within the 

Planning Area are not anticipated to result in air quality impacts that exceed NAAQS or WAAQS given 

the rather small amount of emissions (relative to other portions of the state of Wyoming where 

significant development is predicted) from BLM and other activities. The only exception may be ozone. 

The nearest ozone monitor to the Planning Area is located well outside of the Bighorn Basin, but showed 

levels close to the current standard (see Chapter 3 for additional information). However, the lack of 

available data makes it impossible to say with any certainty whether an exceedance of the standard 

would occur under any of the alternatives.

Cumulative Issue 6: The cumulative impact of management actions and projected 

development on the economic and social conditions of local communities.

Cumulative Impact Assessment Area

The assessment area for cumulative social and economic conditions consists of the four counties that 

overlap the Planning Area.

Analysis of Cumulative Impacts

Analysis in this section primarily focuses on cumulative impacts related to oil and gas activity, ranching 

and livestock grazing, and quality of life, including nonmarket values.

The impacts of oil and gas drilling and production described in Section 4.8.2 Economic Conditions relate 

to activities only on BLM-administered surface and federal mineral estate within the Planning Area. 

However, oil and gas activity on private and state land is estimated to constitute a substantial portion of 

projected oil and gas activity in all alternatives (see Table 4-28 below). Specifically, in Alternative A, oil 

and gas drilling and production on state and private land would comprise about 31 percent of total 

activity; in alternatives B and E, about 50 percent; in Alternative C, about 28 percent; in Alternative D, 

about 32 percent; and in Alternative F about 34 percent. Note that the percentage is greatest in 

alternatives B and E. The overall change in earnings, employment, and output would be proportionally 

smaller than the reduction in activity on federal lands would suggest. To see this, note that the analysis 

earlier in Chapter 4 showed $66.5 million in earnings and 1,121 jobs related to oil and gas drilling, 

completion, and production in Alternative A, and $30 million in earnings and 505 jobs for the same 

activities in alternatives B and E – a 55 percent reduction. The comparable figures incorporating state 

and private production are $96 million and 1,621 jobs for Alternative A, and $59.5 million and 1,004 jobs 

for alternatives B and E– a 38 percent reduction. While the reduction from Alternative A to alternatives 

B and E would still be substantial, the stability of state and private production would moderate the 

change in federal policy.
Cumulative Impacts

4-148 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Table 4-28. Cumulative (including state and private) Impacts of

Oil and Gas Development over the Life of the Plan in the Planning Area

for Economic Conditions

Impact1 Alternative 

A

Alternative 

B

Alternative 

C

Alternative 

D

Alternative 

E

Alternative 

F

Annual Average Earnings $96.1 $59.5 $104.5 $91.8 $59.5 $87.1

Annual Average Output $695.8 $431.1 $756.8 $665.3 $431.1 $634.5

Net Present Value of Output $7,929.8 $4,912.9 $8,625.3 $7,582.1 $4,912.9 $7,233.8

Annual Average Employment2 1,621 1,004 1,763 1,549 1,004 1,470

Change from Alternative A – Earnings N/A -$36.5 $8.4 -$4.2 -$36.5 -$9.0

Change from Alternative A – Employment N/A -616 +142 -71 -616 -151

Percentage change from Alternative A 

(earnings, employment) N/A -38% +9% -4% -38% -9%

Percentage change from Alternative A 

(earnings, employment), for federal land 

only

N/A -55% +13% -6% -55% -14%

Source: Calculated using the IMPLAN model, as described in the text. Includes oil and gas well drilling and completion, and production from 

new wells, as estimated in the BLM’s Reasonable Foreseeable Development Scenario for federal, state, and private land.

1 All dollar values are in millions of year 2008 dollars. Net present value of output is discounted at a 7 percent real discount rate, as 

recommended in OMB 2002.

2 Employment is in annual job equivalents.

BLM Bureau of Land Management

IMPLAN Impact Analysis for Planning model

N/A not applicable

Similarly, the effect of oil and gas activities on state and private land moderates the changes in earnings 

and employment for alternatives C, D, and F. In Alternative C, oil and gas activity on federal lands would 

create 13 percent more jobs and earnings than Alternative A, but incorporating state and fee lands 

would reduce this effect to a 9 percent increase. In Alternative D, oil and gas activity on federal lands 

would create 6 percent fewer jobs and earnings than Alternative A, but incorporating state and fee lands 

would reduce this effect to a 4 percent decrease. Finally, in Alternative F, oil and gas activity on federal 

lands would create 14 percent fewer jobs and earnings than Alternative A, but incorporating state and 

fee lands would reduce this effect to a 9 percent decrease.

Under each alternative various management actions constrain mineral development on BLMadministered land for the protection of other resource values. These constraints can limit the mineral 

development activity on BLM-administered surface and mineral estate and constrict the minerals-based 

economy in the Planning Area. Table 4-29 summarizes the number of constrained federal wells and 

unconstrained non-federal wells for each alternative over the life of the plan.
Cumulative Impacts

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS 4‐149

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Table 4‐29. Reasonable Foreseeable Development Well Number Projections

Well Type Alternative

A

Alternative

B

Alternative

C

Alternative

D

Alternative

E

Alternative

F

Number of Projected New Federal Wells 1,130 509 1,257 1,032 509 973

Projected Number of Abandoned New

Federal Wells 217 98 243 201 98 188

Projected Productive New Federal Wells 913 411 1,014 831 411 785

Number of Projected New Non‐federal

Wells 511 511 511 511 511 511

Projected Number of Abandoned New

Non‐federal Wells 98 98 98 98 98 98

Projected Productive New Non‐federal

Wells 413 413 413 413 413 413

Cumulative New Wells

(Federal and Non‐federal) 1,641 1,020 1,768 1,543 1,020 1484

Cumulative Abandoned New Wells

(Federal and Non‐federal) 315 196 342 299 196 286

Cumulative Productive New Wells

(Federal and Non‐federal) 1,326 824 1,426 1,244 824 1,198

Source:  BLM 2009c; BLM 2013p

The projected number of cumulative productive new wells is greatest under Alternative C (1,426) and

the least under alternatives B and E (824).  The percent increase/decrease from the number of new

wells under Alternative A follows.

 Alternatives B and E – 38 percent decrease

 Alternative C – 8 percent increase

 Alternative D – 6 percent decrease

 Alternative F ‐ 10 percent decrease

Increasing energy development and mining for mineral resources is likely to have a substantial social

and economic impact within the Planning Area.  As noted in the Economic Conditions section of this

chapter, Alternative C is anticipated to result in the most substantial increase of economic opportunities

with the highest projected job growth for the Planning Area followed by alternatives A, D, F, B, and E.  

Regional employment under Alternative C is also anticipated to average the greatest number of full and

part‐time jobs per year related to the oil and gas, livestock grazing, and recreation industries, which may

result in beneficial impacts on quality of life.  However, Alternative C may also result in adverse impacts

to air quality, wildlife, and other resources that improve quality of life related to natural characteristics

as priorities would be placed on the use of resources such as oil and gas development over the

conservation of resources such as air quality and wildlife.

Comparatively, alternatives B and E would provide the least economic and social benefits as measured

by jobs and income; priorities under these alternatives are centered on conservation of land and existing

environmental conditions.  Alternative D and Alternative F, respectively, would result in more

opportunities than Alternative B, but fewer economic and social opportunities than Alternative C and

Alternative A; the latter essentially represents the continuation of current trends.  However, Alternative

D would continue BLM’s current practice of allowing multiple uses, balancing the use of resources such

as oil and gas reserves with the conservation of resources such as air quality, open space, and wildlife
Cumulative Impacts

4-150 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

range areas while providing an increase in job opportunities dispersed geographically across the 

Planning Area. Overall, Alternative D updates BLM’s land and resource management guidelines in the 

Planning Area while preserving both job opportunities and nonmarket values associated with open 

space and the environment. Management under Alternative F is the same as Alternative D except in the 

Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas ACEC, where additional restrictions on the amount and type of 

development would apply. In the ACEC under Alternative F, open space and environmental 

considerations would be prioritized, potentially limiting job opportunities in comparison to 

Alternative D.

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions in the Planning Area and surrounding 

geographic areas would also affect both traditional economic measures (earnings, jobs, output) and 

nonmarket values in the Planning Area. For example, the BLM Lander Field Office RMP, which is being 

updated concurrent with the CYFO and WFO RMPs, would update BLM’s direction and management 

plans in the Lander Field Office, which includes some land in Hot Springs County as well as several 

neighboring counties. Thus, the choice of alternatives in the Lander RMP could directly affect social and 

economic conditions in the Planning Area for the Bighorn Basin RMP. However, based on past BLM 

actions and present policy of balanced management of land and resources, the combined effects within 

the Planning Area – either on traditional economic measures or nonmarket values – would not likely be 

different from those under the alternatives considered in this planning effort.

A combination of market conditions and state and federal policy related to ranching and livestock 

grazing in Wyoming, and across the Rocky Mountain West, has created adverse economic conditions for 

many farms and ranches in the Planning Area. BLM management actions have the potential to help 

mitigate the effects of past and present trends that make livestock grazing more challenging, or to 

exacerbate those trends and further reduce the opportunities for livestock grazing operators. For 

example, some ranch owners raise money for retirement or other purposes by subdividing portions of 

their land into ranchettes and selling them to individuals. The sale of these ranchettes provides financial 

liquidity to ranchers who frequently have most of their assets in land, but generally results in increased 

building of fences, houses, and sometimes other structures (e.g., barns), changing the character of the 

landscape. Under all alternatives, this trend is likely to continue, because it is fundamentally related to 

(1) the nature of the ranching business (principally, the fact that most ranchers’ assets are in land, and 

the fact that profit margins are generally low and can turn negative in drought or other adverse 

conditions) and (2) state laws that govern property subdivision, under which county zoning laws cannot 

regulate subdivisions of 35 acres and larger. However, RMP alternatives that adversely affect the 

profitability of ranching could serve to increase this trend. Specifically, alternatives B and E would have 

an adverse impact on continued profitability of livestock operators, and under this alternative, the 

subdivision, sale, and development of ranchettes could accelerate. This would result in a substantial 

cumulative impact, and the contribution of the BLM action would be cumulatively considerable. 

Alternatives A, C, D, and F would not be expected to exacerbate this cumulative impact.

Under all alternatives, however, potential cumulative impacts on livestock grazing operations could also 

result from a combination of activities and land uses occurring within the Planning Area primarily from 

surface-disturbing activities, human disturbances, and the presence of wildlife that compete with 

livestock for rangeland resources. Additionally, any increases in human population relative to increased 

job growth could create additional demands for recreational use of the public lands and could result in 

livestock displacement, increases in noxious weed infestation, and costs to operators and public land 

management areas. (However, only Alternative C would result in increased job growth compared to the 

current trend, and the increase would be small.)
Cumulative Impacts

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS 4‐151

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Despite the potential for cumulative impacts resulting from various operations in the Planning Area,

overall cumulative impacts of BLM and non‐BLM actions are not anticipated to have long‐term adverse

impacts on livestock grazing on public lands, since anticipated impacts to grazing lands would occur

gradually over the life of the plan, except in alternatives B and E where the impacts of livestock grazing

withdrawals would be substantial for the reasons noted above.  Additionally, the implementation of

BLM’s mitigation guidelines, reclamation requirements, surface‐use restrictions, rangeland guidelines,

vegetation treatments, and monitoring efforts would provide protection to forage resources on federal

lands, which would help reduce overall impacts on livestock grazing resources and operations.

Cumulative Issue 7: The cumulative impact of management actions on greater sage‐grouse.

Cumulative Impact Assessment Area

Sage‐Grouse Management Zones I and II (Northern Great Plains and Wyoming Basin).

Cumulative Impacts Analysis

This Supplement contains a qualitative cumulative effects analysis for greater sage‐grouse habitat within

the Cumulative Impact Assessment Area.  Due to the fact that the USFWS will be making a listing

decision in early 2015, it is important that the BLM incorporate regulatory mechanisms to conserve the

greater sage‐grouse into its land use plans before this listing decision.  Because of the timing of the

listing decision, it is expected that additional data and information to enable a more comprehensive

analysis will become available in an iterative process between now and the final EIS stages for the land

use plan amendments and revisions within the Management Zones that overlap the Planning Area (refer

to SEIS Figure‐1).  The BLM invites the public to comment on the scope of the cumulative effects analysis

and will incorporate, as necessary, any additional data and information received.

The BLM administers approximately 52 percent of the surface area within the entire range of the greater

sage‐grouse, across all seven greater sage‐grouse Management Zones (MZs) defined by the WAFWA

(Manier et al. 2013).  The majority of the Planning Area is located within MZ II (Wyoming Basin), where

35 percent of greater sage‐grouse habitat is on BLM‐administered land and 49 percent is privately

owned (Knick 2011).

Only a small portion of the Planning Area overlaps MZ I (Northern Great Plains) (SEIS Figure‐1), where

greater sage‐grouse habitat is 68 percent privately owned and 13 percent state or federally owned

(Knick 2011).  The primary threats to sage‐grouse in MZ I are similar to those in MZ II.  These threats in

MZ I include sagebrush habitat modification and fragmentation from vegetation changes (pinyon‐juniper

expansion) and/or treatments, oil and gas development, mining, agriculture, livestock grazing, and

housing development; disturbance/displacement of birds during sensitive periods from human activity;

and direct mortality from environmental stress, disease, predation, and collisions with vehicles or

powerlines (BLM 2013c; BLM 2013d; BLM 2013e; BLM 2013f; BLM 2013g).  Threats in MZ II include

those listed above and are further discussed below.

For a discussion of cumulative effects to greater sage‐grouse from past, present, and reasonably

foreseeable actions, including future conservation measures to reduce the vulnerability of populations

in MZ I, see the published plans in MZ I included in SEIS Table‐2a.  The Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and

Draft EIS (Table 4‐27) includes a list of reasonably foreseeable future actions in the Planning Area and

SEIS Table‐2a below lists other published and reasonably foreseeable federal plans affecting greater

sage‐grouse in MZ II.
Cumulative Impacts

4‐152 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

SEIS Table‐2a. Pending BLM Resource Management Plans Addressing Cumulative Effects to

Greater Sage‐Grouse in Management Zones I and II

Management Zone Reference Section/Projected Release

I Buffalo Resource Management Plan Revision and

Draft EIS 4.4.9.7 Cumulative Impacts.  pp. 1137 – 1138.

I Miles City Field Office Resource Management Plan

and Environmental Impact Statement.

Chapter 4:  Environmental Consequences, Fish

and Wildlife, Terrestrial through Hazardous

Materials and Waste.  pp. 4‐163 – 4‐177.

I Hi Line Resource Management Plan EIS Chapter 4:  Environmental Consequences,

Wildlife.  pp. 691 – 733.

I South Dakota Draft Resource Management Plan and

Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 4:  Environmental Consequences,

Special Status Species, Cumulative Impacts.  pp.

671 – 675.

I & II Billings/Pompey’s Pillar National Monument

Resource Management Plan EIS 4.6.6 Biological Resources.  pp. 4‐615 – 4‐617.

II Lander Proposed RMP and Final EIS

4.10.1 Cumulative Impacts to Greater Sage‐

Grouse from Management Actions.  pp. 1282 –

1295.

I North Dakota Greater Sage‐Grouse Resource

Management Plan Amendment EIS August 2013

I & II Nine‐Plan Greater Sage‐Grouse Resource

Management Plan Amendment (Wyoming) September 2013

II

Northwest Colorado Greater Sage‐Grouse Resource

Management Plan Amendment and Draft

Environmental Impact Statement.

August 2013

II

Idaho and Southwestern Montana Sub‐Regional

Greater Sage‐Grouse Resource Management Plan

Amendment/EIS

September 2013

II Utah Sub‐Regional Greater Sage‐Grouse Resource

Management Plan Amendment EIS September 2013

Sources:  BLM 2013c; BLM 2013d; BLM 2013e; BLM 2013f; BLM 2013g; BLM 2013h; BLM 2013i; BLM 2013j; BLM 2013k; BLM 2013l; BLM

2013m; BLM 2013n

Past human actions in greater sage‐grouse habitat have adversely affected the species.  Overall, the loss

and fragmentation of sagebrush habitats are the primary causes for the decline of greater sage‐grouse

populations (USFWS 2013).  Oil and gas developments and the widespread conversion of nearly 60

percent of greater sage‐grouse habitat to agriculture have been the primary source of decline of greater

sage‐grouse populations within MZ I (Samson et al. 2004; BLM 2013a).  Trends in land cover and land

use predominately associated with non‐renewable and renewable energy extraction, along with

livestock grazing, prolonged drought, and programs for bush eradication, have also contributed to

population declines in MZ II (Manier et al. 2013; USFWS 2013; BLM 2013a).

Present and reasonably foreseeable future actions in the Cumulative Impacts Assessment Area will also

affect sage‐grouse habitats and populations.  Remaining threats to greater sage‐grouse habitats and

populations include the conversion of native rangeland to crops and energy development (primarily oil

and gas).  Secondary threats include fire, invasive species, urban development, livestock grazing, power

lines, vertical structures, railroads, parasites, infectious diseases, predation, and weather events (Manier

et al. 2013; USFWS 2013; BLM 2013a).
Cumulative Impacts

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS 4‐153

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

The greatest potential for cumulative impacts to greater sage‐grouse populations may occur where the

Planning Area overlaps MZ II; the northern portions of this MZ currently support the largest sage‐grouse

populations relative to other MZs across the species’ range (Manier et al. 2013).  Restrictions that limit

resource uses in greater sage‐grouse habitat on BLM‐administered land would reduce habitat loss, but

would not prevent further habitat destruction from occurring on non BLM‐administered land.  Greater

sage‐grouse habitat on private and state lands may not receive the same level of protection and may

result in greater habitat degradation.  However, policies affecting greater sage‐grouse Core Habitat

Areas identified by the Wyoming Game and Fish Department would help to limit development that may

cause a decline in greater sage‐grouse populations on state land (Wyoming Office of the Governor

2008).  Additionally, the Governor’s Executive Order for sage‐grouse applies to private and state lands

when a state permit is necessary.  Applying resource constraints to limit disturbances within these Core

Habitat Areas will protect suitable habitat for greater sage‐grouse in the Planning Area, reducing overall

cumulative impacts to the species.

Within MZ II, livestock grazing is ranked just below energy development and urbanization as an

immediate threat in eastern portions of the range of greater sage‐grouse (Manier et al. 2013).  Land in

the Planning Area will continue to be available for livestock grazing under each alternative.  However,

the least potential for impacts to sagebrush communities are projected under alternatives B and E due

to large acreages of livestock grazing closures in greater sage‐grouse habitats, followed by alternatives F,

D, C, and A.

The loss and fragmentation of sagebrush habitats are the primary causes of the decline of sage‐grouse

populations and fire is one of the primary factors linked to loss of sagebrush‐steppe habitat (USFWS

2013).  In general, fire risk is considered to be low across MZs I and II; however, isolated areas of both

MZs overlapping the Planning Area (north‐central and northwest Wyoming) are identified as having high

fire risk (Manier et al. 2013).  The potential cumulative impacts to greater sage‐grouse from fuels

treatments are projected to be lowest under Alternative E due to the limited application of prescribed

fire and mechanical treatments in sagebrush ecosystems, followed by alternatives B; A; D and F; and C.  

Protections for greater sage‐grouse under Alternative E may contribute to a buildup of fine fuels that

would increase the risk of larger wildland fires in the short term compared to alternatives B, A, D, F,

and C respectively; however, the return to a more natural fire regime under Alternative E would reduce

the potential for cumulative impacts to greater‐sage grouse from larger catastrophic wildfires in the long

term more than any other alternative.

Wildfire frequency in sagebrush ecosystems has been increased by the incursion of non‐native grasses

and the positive feedback loop between exotic anneal grasses and fires can preclude the re‐

establishment of sagebrush (USFWS 2013).  Exotic annual grasses and other invasive plants also alter

habitat suitability for sage‐grouse by reducing or eliminating native forbs and grasses essential for food

and cover (USFWS 2013).  Rates of invasive species establishment and spread are expected to increase

proportionally with long‐term anthropogenic surface disturbances.  The risk of cumulative impacts to

greater sage‐grouse from invasive species is projected to be lowest under alternatives E and B, followed

by alternatives A; D and F; and C.  However, the location of these impacts may vary and occur outside of

greater sage‐grouse habitats under Alternative E, which manages more areas as ROW exclusion areas

than any other alternative.

SEIS Table‐2b summarizes the potential for cumulative impacts on greater sage‐grouse habitats and

populations in relation to threats identified in MZs I and II.  Alternative A represents existing

management practices and the continuation of current trends in the Planning Area, and is therefore

used as a baseline for the comparison of the other alternatives.  The potential for cumulative impacts
Cumulative Impacts

4‐154 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

presented in SEIS Table‐2b takes into account BLM, private, and state actions affecting sagebrush

vegetation.

Although reliable broad scale data for the present and reasonably foreseeable future actions in MZs I

and II is currently incomplete, BLM and non‐BLM actions involving energy and ROW development,

urbanization, fire, and livestock grazing are anticipated to continue.  These primary threats to greater

sage‐grouse populations within MZs I and II occur on lands throughout both MZs, regardless of

ownership.  The contribution of cumulative impacts to greater sage‐grouse in MZs I and II is anticipated

to be least under Alternative E, which provides the most measures to minimize surface disturbance

within the largest acreage of priority habitat for greater sage‐ grouse, followed by alternatives B, F, D, A

and C.  The greatest contribution of cumulative adverse impacts to greater sage‐grouse in the

Cumulative Impacts Assessment Area is expected under Alternative C, which would result in the most

surface disturbance and the least amount of restrictions within in greater sage‐grouse priority habitat.
Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

SEIS Table‐2b. Potential for Cumulative Impacts on Greater Sage‐Grouse Habitat and Populations in C

Existing Management Direction (Alternative A)

Threat Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E 

Non‐Renewable Energy

Development Decreased potential Increased potential Same potential as existing management Decreased potential 

Renewable Energy

Development Decreased potential Increased potential Same potential as existing management Decreased potential 

Agriculture Same potential as existing management Increased potential Same potential as existing management Decreased potential Urban Development Same potential as existing management Increased potential Same potential as existing management Decreased potential Livestock Grazing Decreased potential Same potential as existing management Decreased potential Decreased potential Fire and Fuels Treatment Decreased potential Increased potential Same potential as existing management Decreased potential Invasive Species Decreased potential Increased potential Same potential as existing management Decreased potential ROW Development Decreased potential Same potential as existing management Decreased potential Decreased potential 1 Renewable energy development would occur on a case‐by‐case basis under Alternative A.2Alternative A does not consider lands for acquisition.3Alternatives E and F are projected to have a low potential for short‐term impacts, and higher potential for long‐term catastrophic fire.
Cumulative Impacts

4-156 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

SEIS Table-3. Cumulative Annual Emissions Associated with Alternative E - Project Year 2015

Emissions (Tons per Year)

Project Scenario/Resource PM10 PM2.5 NOx SOx

BLM Non-BLM Cumulative BLM Non-BLM Cumulative BLM Non-BLM Cumulative BLM Non-BLM Cumulative

Natural Gas Development/Production 40.06 21.85 61.91 14.57 8.03 22.60 178.97 98.34 277.30 0.70 0.38 1.08

Oil Development/Production 144.70 80.35 225.05 27.35 15.12 42.48 464.16 255.31 719.47 61.23 33.68 94.91

Locatables 1,075.78 531.40 1,607.18 116.95 58.07 175.01 41.02 20.39 61.41 0.19 0.07 0.26

Salable Minerals 330.63 118.86 449.49 33.92 12.21 46.13 7.69 2.76 10.44 0.06 0.02 0.09

Resource Roads 60.62 62.68 123.31 6.51 6.73 13.24 0.24 0.25 0.49 0.02 0.02 0.03

ROW and Corridors 4.13 4.67 8.80 0.48 0.55 1.03 1.02 1.15 2.17 0.02 0.02 0.04

Livestock Grazing 11.95 9.97 21.92 1.76 1.44 3.20 0.05 0.08 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00

Renewable Energy 59.36 46.64 106.00 8.64 6.79 15.43 0.19 0.15 0.34 0.01 0.01 0.01

Fire Management 166.39 262.25 428.64 24.19 38.10 62.29 0.50 0.81 1.30 0.01 0.01 0.02

Forest and Woodlands 14.63 17.51 32.14 2.11 2.51 4.62 0.08 0.11 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.00

Vegetation Management 4.28 1.74 6.02 0.61 0.25 0.86 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00

Vegetation – Invasive Species 6.47 10.17 16.64 0.67 1.05 1.72 0.16 0.22 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.01

Off-Highway Vehicles 26.58 20.88 47.46 24.45 19.21 43.66 37.52 29.48 67.00 4.29 3.37 7.65

Project Year 2015 Total 1,945.58 1,188.97 3,134.55 262.21 170.04 432.25 731.60 409.05 1,140.65 66.52 37.58 104.10

Project Scenario/Resource CO VOC HAP

BLM Non-BLM Cumulative BLM Non-BLM Cumulative BLM Non-BLM Cumulative

Natural Gas Development/Production 240.33 133.58 373.90 851.24 493.86 1,345.10 93.92 54.38 148.30

Oil Development/Production 120.89 66.53 187.42 15.05 8.28 23.33 1.51 0.83 2.33

Locatables 12.52 4.40 16.92 1.94 0.68 2.62 0.19 0.07 0.26

Salable Minerals 5.43 1.95 7.38 0.78 0.29 1.07 0.08 0.03 0.11

Resource Roads 0.08 0.08 0.16 0.11 0.12 0.23 0.01 0.01 0.02

ROW and Corridors 1.28 1.42 2.70 0.21 0.23 0.44 0.02 0.02 0.04

Livestock Grazing 0.08 0.13 0.21 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00

Renewable Energy 0.30 0.23 0.53 0.06 0.05 0.11 0.01 0.00 0.01

Fire Management 5.86 9.23 15.09 2.44 3.84 6.28 0.24 0.38 0.63

Forest and Woodlands 0.44 0.32 0.76 0.09 0.07 0.16 0.01 0.01 0.02

Vegetation Management 0.04 0.01 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Vegetation – Invasive Species 0.32 0.47 0.79 0.04 0.05 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.01

Off-Highway Vehicles 2,420.75 1,902.02 4,322.77 908.02 713.44 1,621.46 0.00 0.00 0.00

Project Year 2015 Total 2,808.30 2,120.38 4,928.68 1,780.00 1,220.93 3,000.93 95.99 55.74 151.74

BLM Bureau of Land Management PM10 particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter

CO carbon monoxide PM2.5 particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter

HAP hazardous air pollutant SOx sulfur oxides

NOx nitrogen oxides VOC volatile organic compound
Cumulative Impacts

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS 4-157

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

SEIS Table-4. Cumulative Annual Emissions Associated with Alternative E - Project Year 2024

Emissions (Tons per Year)

Project Scenario/Resource PM10 PM2.5 NOx SOx

BLM Non-BLM Cumulative BLM Non-BLM Cumulative BLM Non-BLM Cumulative BLM Non-BLM Cumulative

Natural Gas Development/Production 44.25 24.18 68.43 16.28 8.98 25.26 199.16 109.57 308.73 0.78 0.43 1.20

Oil Development/Production 172.95 96.05 269.01 30.64 16.95 47.60 471.80 259.58 731.38 62.16 34.20 96.36

Locatables 1,075.78 531.40 1,607.18 116.95 58.07 175.01 39.36 20.39 59.75 0.19 0.07 0.26

Salable Minerals 330.63 118.86 449.49 33.92 12.21 46.13 7.69 2.76 10.44 0.06 0.02 0.09

Resource Roads 60.62 62.68 123.31 6.51 6.73 13.24 0.24 0.25 0.49 0.02 0.02 0.03

ROW and Corridors 4.13 4.67 8.80 0.48 0.55 1.03 1.02 1.15 2.17 0.02 0.02 0.04

Livestock Grazing 11.95 9.97 21.92 1.76 1.44 3.20 0.05 0.08 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00

Renewable Energy 59.36 46.64 106.00 8.64 6.79 15.44 0.28 0.18 0.47 0.01 0.01 0.02

Fire Management 166.39 262.25 428.64 24.19 38.10 62.29 0.50 0.81 1.30 0.01 0.01 0.02

Forest and Woodlands 14.64 17.52 32.16 2.11 2.52 4.63 0.08 0.11 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.00

Vegetation Management 4.28 1.74 6.02 0.61 0.25 0.86 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00

Vegetation – Invasive Species 6.47 10.17 16.64 0.67 1.05 1.72 0.16 0.22 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.01

Off-Highway Vehicles 18.67 14.67 33.34 17.18 13.50 30.67 55.44 43.56 99.00 4.79 3.76 8.55

Project Year 2024 Total 1,970.13 1,200.80 3,170.93 259.94 167.12 427.06 775.79 438.66 1,214.45 68.04 38.54 106.57

Project Scenario/Resource CO VOC HAP

BLM Non-BLM Cumulative BLM Non-BLM Cumulative BLM Non-BLM Cumulative

Natural Gas Development/Production 271.63 150.96 422.60 737.99 375.07 1,113.07 82.74 42.33 125.07

Oil Development/Production 123.30 67.88 191.17 15.47 8.52 23.99 1.55 0.85 2.40

Locatables 12.52 4.40 16.92 1.94 0.68 2.62 0.19 0.07 0.26

Salable Minerals 5.43 1.95 7.38 0.78 0.29 1.07 0.08 0.03 0.11

Resource Roads 0.08 0.08 0.16 0.11 0.12 0.23 0.01 0.01 0.02

ROW and Corridors 1.28 1.42 2.70 0.21 0.23 0.44 0.02 0.02 0.04

Livestock Grazing 0.08 0.13 0.21 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00

Renewable Energy 0.43 0.32 0.75 0.09 0.05 0.15 0.01 0.01 0.01

Fire Management 5.86 9.23 15.09 2.44 3.84 6.28 0.24 0.38 0.63

Forest and Woodlands 0.55 0.64 1.19 0.11 0.12 0.23 0.01 0.01 0.02

Vegetation Management 0.04 0.01 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Vegetation – Invasive Species 0.32 0.47 0.79 0.04 0.05 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.01

Off-Highway Vehicles 2,190.14 1,720.83 3,910.97 622.72 489.28 1,112.01 0.00 0.00 0.00

Project Year 2024 Total 2,611.65 1,958.32 4,569.97 1,381.93 878.28 2,260.21 84.86 43.72 128.58

BLM Bureau of Land Management PM10 particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter

CO carbon monoxide PM2.5 particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter

HAP hazardous air pollutant SOx sulfur oxides

NOx nitrogen oxides VOC volatile organic compound
Cumulative Impacts

4-158 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

SEIS Table-5. Cumulative Annual Emissions Associated with Alternative F - Project Year 2015

Emissions (Tons per Year)

Project Scenario/Resource PM10 PM2.5 NOx SOx

BLM Non-BLM Cumulative BLM Non-BLM Cumulative BLM Non-BLM Cumulative BLM Non-BLM Cumulative

Natural Gas Development/Production 46.01 21.85 67.86 16.10 8.03 24.13 199.35 98.34 297.68 0.79 0.38 1.17

Oil Development/Production 176.29 80.35 256.64 36.58 15.12 51.70 683.39 255.31 938.71 90.17 33.68 123.85

Locatables 1,420.69 531.40 1,952.10 155.17 58.07 213.24 54.40 20.39 74.79 0.19 0.07 0.26

Salable Minerals 304.63 118.86 423.49 31.30 12.21 43.51 7.06 2.76 9.82 0.06 0.02 0.08

Resource Roads 79.78 62.68 142.46 8.56 6.73 15.29 0.32 0.25 0.56 0.02 0.02 0.04

ROW and Corridors 4.01 4.67 8.68 0.46 0.55 1.01 1.00 1.15 2.15 0.01 0.02 0.03

Livestock Grazing 12.61 9.97 22.58 1.82 1.44 3.26 0.10 0.08 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.01

Renewable Energy 59.36 46.64 106.00 8.64 6.79 15.43 0.19 0.15 0.34 0.01 0.01 0.01

Fire Management 333.77 262.25 596.02 48.49 38.10 86.58 1.03 0.81 1.84 0.01 0.01 0.02

Forest and Woodlands 22.29 17.51 39.80 3.19 2.51 5.70 0.14 0.11 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.00

Vegetation Management 2.21 1.74 3.95 0.31 0.25 0.56 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00

Vegetation – Invasive Species 12.94 10.17 23.11 1.33 1.05 2.38 0.27 0.22 0.49 0.00 0.00 0.01

Off-Highway Vehicles 26.58 20.88 47.46 24.45 19.21 43.66 37.52 29.48 67.00 4.29 3.37 7.65

Project Year 2015 Total 2,501.17 1,188.97 3,690.14 336.41 170.04 506.45 984.77 409.05 1,393.82 95.56 37.58 133.14

Project Scenario/Resource CO VOC HAP

BLM Non-BLM Cumulative BLM Non-BLM Cumulative BLM Non-BLM Cumulative

Natural Gas Development/Production 255.70 133.58 389.28 921.07 493.86 1,414.94 101.47 54.38 155.85

Oil Development/Production 176.07 66.53 242.60 22.05 8.28 30.33 2.21 0.83 3.04

Locatables 12.52 4.40 16.92 1.94 0.68 2.62 0.19 0.07 0.26

Salable Minerals 4.99 1.95 6.94 0.72 0.29 1.01 0.07 0.03 0.10

Resource Roads 0.10 0.08 0.18 0.15 0.12 0.26 0.01 0.01 0.02

ROW and Corridors 1.15 1.42 2.57 0.18 0.23 0.41 0.02 0.02 0.04

Livestock Grazing 0.15 0.13 0.28 0.03 0.03 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00

Renewable Energy 0.30 0.23 0.53 0.06 0.05 0.11 0.01 0.00 0.01

Fire Management 11.75 9.23 20.99 4.89 3.84 8.73 0.49 0.38 0.87

Forest and Woodlands 0.41 0.32 0.74 0.09 0.07 0.16 0.01 0.01 0.02

Vegetation Management 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Vegetation – Invasive Species 0.60 0.47 1.08 0.06 0.05 0.11 0.01 0.00 0.01

Off-Highway Vehicles 2,420.75 1,902.02 4,322.77 908.02 713.44 1,621.46 0.00 0.00 0.00

Project Year 2015 Total 2,884.52 2,120.38 5,004.90 1,859.26 1,220.93 3,080.19 104.49 55.74 160.23

BLM Bureau of Land Management PM10 particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter

CO carbon monoxide PM2.5 particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter

HAP hazardous air pollutant SOx sulfur oxides

NOx nitrogen oxides VOC volatile organic compound
Cumulative Impacts

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS 4-159

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

SEIS Table-6. Cumulative Annual Emissions Associated with Alternative F - Project Year 2024

Emissions (Tons per Year)

Project Scenario/Resource PM10 PM2.5 NOx SOx

BLM Non-BLM Cumulative BLM Non-BLM Cumulative BLM Non-BLM Cumulative BLM Non-BLM Cumulative

Natural Gas Development/Production 52.30 24.18 76.49 18.67 8.98 27.64 229.63 109.57 339.20 0.90 0.43 1.33

Oil Development/Production 211.76 96.05 307.81 40.64 16.95 57.59 691.95 259.58 951.53 91.21 34.20 125.41

Locatables 1,420.69 531.40 1,952.10 155.17 58.07 213.24 52.75 20.39 73.14 0.19 0.07 0.26

Salable Minerals 304.63 118.86 423.49 31.30 12.21 43.51 7.06 2.76 9.82 0.06 0.02 0.08

Resource Roads 79.78 62.68 142.46 8.56 6.73 15.29 0.32 0.25 0.57 0.02 0.02 0.04

ROW and Corridors 4.01 4.67 8.68 0.46 0.55 1.01 1.00 1.15 2.15 0.01 0.02 0.03

Livestock Grazing 12.61 9.97 22.58 1.82 1.44 3.26 0.10 0.08 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.01

Renewable Energy 59.36 46.64 106.00 8.64 6.79 15.44 0.28 0.18 0.46 0.01 0.01 0.02

Fire Management 333.77 262.25 596.02 48.49 38.10 86.58 1.03 0.81 1.84 0.01 0.01 0.02

Forest and Woodlands 22.30 17.52 39.82 3.21 2.52 5.72 0.14 0.11 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00

Vegetation Management 2.21 1.74 3.95 0.31 0.25 0.56 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00

Vegetation – Invasive Species 12.94 10.17 23.11 1.33 1.05 2.38 0.27 0.22 0.49 0.00 0.00 0.01

Off-Highway Vehicles 18.67 14.67 33.34 17.18 13.50 30.67 55.44 43.56 99.00 4.79 3.76 8.55

Project Year 2024 Total 2,535.04 1,200.80 3,735.85 335.78 167.12 502.90 1,039.98 438.66 1,478.64 97.22 38.54 135.76

Project Scenario/Resource CO VOC HAP

BLM Non-BLM Cumulative BLM Non-BLM Cumulative BLM Non-BLM Cumulative

Natural Gas Development/Production 302.66 150.96 453.62 751.21 375.07 1,126.28 84.70 42.33 127.03

Oil Development/Production 178.99 67.88 246.86 22.53 8.52 31.05 2.25 0.85 3.10

Locatables 12.52 4.40 16.92 1.94 0.68 2.62 0.19 0.07 0.26

Salable Minerals 4.99 1.95 6.94 0.72 0.29 1.01 0.07 0.03 0.10

Resource Roads 0.10 0.08 0.18 0.15 0.12 0.26 0.01 0.01 0.03

ROW and Corridors 1.15 1.42 2.57 0.18 0.23 0.41 0.02 0.02 0.04

Livestock Grazing 0.15 0.13 0.28 0.03 0.03 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.01

Renewable Energy 0.43 0.32 0.75 0.09 0.05 0.15 0.01 0.01 0.01

Fire Management 11.75 9.23 20.99 4.89 3.84 8.73 0.49 0.38 0.87

Forest and Woodlands 0.81 0.64 1.45 0.16 0.12 0.28 0.02 0.01 0.03

Vegetation Management 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Vegetation – Invasive Species 0.60 0.47 1.08 0.06 0.05 0.11 0.01 0.00 0.01

Off-Highway Vehicles 2,190.14 1,720.83 3,910.97 622.72 489.28 1,112.01 0.00 0.00 0.00

Project Year 2024 Total 2,704.32 1,958.32 4,662.64 1,404.68 878.28 2,282.97 87.78 43.72 131.50

BLM Bureau of Land Management PM10 particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter

CO carbon monoxide PM2.5 particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter

HAP hazardous air pollutant SOx sulfur oxides

NOx nitrogen oxides VOC volatile organic compound
Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources

4-160 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

4.10 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources

NOTE: The Draft RMP and Draft EIS impact analysis of irreversible and irretrievable commitments of 

resource is not changed by the addition of alternatives E and F; please refer to the Draft RMP and Draft 

EIS for a discussion of these categories of impacts.

4.11 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts

NOTE: The Draft RMP and Draft EIS impact analysis of unavoidable adverse impacts is not changed by 

the addition of alternatives E and F; please refer to the Draft RMP and Draft EIS for a discussion of this 

category of impacts.
Public Involvement

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS 5-1

Chapter 5 – Public Involvement

CHAPTER 5 – PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND LIST OF PREPARERS

Reader’s Guide to Chapter 5

The Bighorn Basin Draft Resource Management Plan (RMP) and Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS) were released for public review and comment in April 2011 (76 Federal Register [FR] 22721, April 

22, 2011). Chapter 5 of the Draft RMP and Draft EIS, entitled “Public Involvement and List of Preparers,” 

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. It also contains the List of Preparers.

The Draft RMP and Draft EIS provides context for Chapter 5 of this Supplement. Chapter 5 of the Draft 

RMP and Draft EIS is supplemented to provide additional context and rationale for the incorporation of 

alternatives E and F into the planning process. Only the following sections of the Draft RMP and Draft 

EIS Chapter 5 are modified by this Supplement:

• Section 5.1 – Public Involvement

• Section 5.2.1 – Cooperating Agencies

• Section 5.2.3 – Native American Interests

• Section 5.3 – Distribution List

• Section 5.4 – List of Preparers

For all other sections of the Draft RMP and Draft EIS, no change or no substantive change has occurred; 

the reader is referenced to Chapter 5 of the original National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) document 

for these sections.
Public Involvement

5-2 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Chapter 5 – Public Involvement

5.1 Public Involvement

NOTE: Table 5-1 (which lists public involvement, coordination, and consultation events) from the Draft 

RMP and Draft EIS (page 5-2) is augmented to include additional events related to the development of 

this Supplement.

Table 5-1. Public Involvement, Coordination, and Consultation Events

Date Location Event

January 31, 2013 Cody, Wyoming Cooperating Agency Workshop/Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft 

RMP and Draft EIS

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

RMP Resource Management Plan

5.2.1 Cooperating Agencies

NOTE: Insert the following text at the end of Section 5.2.1 to describe additional cooperating agency 

coordination related to the development of this Supplement.

The BLM held an additional cooperating agency workshop on January 31, 2013 to update the 

cooperators on the status of the RMP revision process and the need to prepare a Supplement to the 

Draft RMP and Draft EIS to incorporate additional considerations for the protection of greater sagegrouse. The meeting also presented an opportunity for cooperators to discuss and provide input on 

how impact analyses should be conducted for the new alternatives.
Public Involvement

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS 5-3

Chapter 5 – Public Involvement

5.2.3 Native American Interests

NOTE: Insert the following text at the end of Section 5.2.3 to describe additional consultation activities 

with tribes related to the development of this Supplement.

State Tribe Chairman Cultural Contact

Idaho Nez Perce Silas C. Whitman, Chairman

Nez Perce Tribal Executive Committee

P.O. Box 305

Lapwai, ID 83540

208-843-7342

Keith “Pat” Baird

Tribal Historic Preservation Officer

Nez Perce Tribe

P.O. Box 365

Lapwai, ID 83540

208-843-2313

keithb@nezperce.org

Idaho Shoshone-Bannock Nathan Small, Chairman

Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the Fort 

Hall Reservation

P.O. Box 306

Fort Hall, ID 83203-0306

208-478-3700

Fax: 208-237-0797

Carolyn Boyer Smith

Cultural Resource Coordinator

HETO/Cultural Resources

Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall 

Reservation

P.O. Box 306

Fort Hall, ID 83203-0306

208-478-3707

csmith@sbtribes.com

Yvette Tuell, Environmental Program Manager

Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall 

Reservation

P.O. Box 306

Fort Hall, ID 83203-0306

Ofc: 208-239-4552

ytuell@sbtribes.com

Montana Blackfeet Willie A. Sharp, Jr., Chairman

Blackfeet Tribal Business Council

1 Agency Square

Browning, MT 59417

406-338-5194

John Murray

Tribal Historic Preservation Officer

Blackfeet Tribe

620 All Chief Road

Box 850

Browning, MT 59417

406-338-7522

blkftthpo@aol.com

Montana Crow Darrin Old Coyote, Chairman

Crow Tribal Council

P.O. Box 159

Crow Agency, MT 59022

406-638-3700

Fax: 406-638-3881

Emerson Bull Chief

Tribal Historic Preservation Officer

P.O. Box 159

Crow Agency, MT 59022

406-638-3793

George Reed

Director, Cultural Resources Department

P.O. Box 159

Crow Agency, MT 59022
Public Involvement

5-4 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Chapter 5 – Public Involvement

State Tribe Chairman Cultural Contact

Montana Northern Cheyenne John Robinson, President

Northern Cheyenne Tribal Council

P.O. Box 128

Lame Deer, MT 59043

406-477-6284

Fax: 406-477-6210

Conrad Fisher

Tribal Historic Preservation Officer

P.O. Box 128

Lame Deer, MT 59043

406-477-4839

Fax: 406-477-6491

conrad.fisher@cheyennenation.com

Montana Confederated Salish 

and Kootenai

Mr. E.T. “Bud” Moran, Chairman

Confederated Salish and Kootenai 

Tribes of the Flathead Indian Nation

P.O. Box 278

Pablo, MT 59855

406-675-2700

budm@cskt.org

Ms. Marcia Pablo

Tribal Historic Preservation Officer

Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of 

the Flathead Indian Nation

P.O. Box 278

Pablo, MT 59855

406-675-2700, ext. 1077

marciap@cskt.org

South Dakota Cheyenne River 

Sioux

Kevin Keckler, Sr.

Cheyenne River Sioux Tribal Council

P.O. Box 590

Eagle Butte, SD 57625-0590

605-964-4155

Fax: 605-964-4151

Steve Vance

Tribal Historic Preservation Officer

P.O. Box 590

Eagle Butte, SD 57625

605-964-7554

Fax: 605-964-7552

steve.vance@cheyenneriversiouxtribensn.gov

South Dakota Oglala Sioux Bryan Brewer, President

Oglala Sioux Tribal Council

P.O. Box 2070

Pine Ridge, SD 57770

605-867-5821

Fax: 605-867-1449

Wilmer Mesteth

Tribal Historic Preservation Officer

P.O. Box 419

Pine Ridge, SD 57770

605-867-5624

Fax: 605-867-2818

South Dakota Rosebud Sioux Cyril “Whitey” Scott, President

Rosebud Sioux Tribe

11 Legion Avenue

Rosebud, SD 57570

605-747-2381

Fax: 605-747-2905

rstchairman@gwtc.net

Russell Eagle Bear

Tribal Historic Preservation Officer

Rosebud Sioux Tribe

P.O. Box 809

Rosebud, SD 57570

605-747-4255

Fax: 605-747-4211

rstthpo@yahoo.com

Wyoming Eastern Shoshone Darwin St. Clair, Jr., Chairman

Eastern Shoshone Tribe of the Wind 

River Reservation

P.O. Box 538

Fort Washakie, WY 82514

307-332-3532

Fax: 307-332-3055

Wilfred Ferris

Tribal Historic Preservation Officer

Eastern Shoshone Tribe of the Wind River 

Reservation

P.O. Box 538

Fort Washakie, WY 82514

307-335-2081

Cell: 307-349-6406

wjferrisiii@yahoo.com
Public Involvement

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS 5-5

Chapter 5 – Public Involvement

State Tribe Chairman Cultural Contact

Wyoming Northern Arapaho Darrell O’ Neal, Sr., Chairman

Northern Arapaho Tribe

P.O. Box 396

Fort Washakie, WY 82514

307-332-6120

Fax: 307-332-7543

northernarapaho@msn.com

Darlene Conrad

Tribal Historic Preservation Officer

P.O. Box 396

Fort Washakie, WY 82514

307-856-1628

Fax: 307-856-1836/4611

narapahothpo_2009@ymail.com

In 2013, the BLM sent additional consultation letters to the above tribes informing them of the need to 

prepare a Supplement to the Draft RMP and Draft EIS, and welcoming continued feedback.

5.3 Distribution List

The BLM distributed the Supplement to the Draft RMP and Draft EIS to the following entities for their 

review and comment:

TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS

• Blackfeet

• Cheyenne River Sioux

• Crow

• Eastern Shoshone

• Nez Perce

• Northern Arapaho

• Northern Cheyenne

• Oglala Sioux

• Rosebud Sioux

• Salish & Kootenai

• Shoshone-Bannock

LOCAL GOVERNMENTS (COUNTIES, CITIES, TOWNS)

Big Horn County, Wyoming

• Big Horn County Commission

• South Big Horn Conservation District

• Town of Basin

• Town of Greybull

• Town of Manderson

• Town of Lovell

Park County, Wyoming

• Park County Commission

• Cody Conservation District

• Meeteetse Conservation District
Public Involvement

5-6 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Chapter 5 – Public Involvement

• Powell-Clarks Fork Conservation District

• City of Cody

• City of Powell

• Town of Meeteetse

Washakie County, Wyoming

• Washakie County Commission

• Washakie County Conservation District

• City of Worland

• Town of Ten Sleep

Hot Springs County, Wyoming

• Hot Springs County Commission

• Hot Springs Conservation District

• Town of Thermopolis

STATE OF WYOMING

• Senator Henry H.R. ‘Hank’ Coe

• Senator Gerald Geis

• Senator R. Ray Peterson

• Representative David Northrup

• Representative Samuel Krone

• Representative Elaine Harvey

• Representative Nathan Winters

• Representative David Blevins

• Representative Mike Greear

WYOMING STATE AGENCIES

• Office of the Governor, Environmental Policy Division

• Business Council

• Department of Environmental Quality

o Air Quality Division

o Land Quality Division

o Water Quality Division

• Department of Agriculture

• Department of State Parks and Cultural Resources

o State Museum

• Department of Transportation

• State Planning Office

• Game and Fish Department

• State Geologic Survey

• Office of State Lands and Investments
Public Involvement

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS 5-7

Chapter 5 – Public Involvement

• State Engineer’s Office

• State Historic Preservation Office

• Department of Administration and Information

• Department of Employment, Research, and Planning Division

WYOMING STATE BOARDS/COMMISSIONS

• Air Quality Advisory Board

• Board of Wildlife Commissioners

• Natural Gas Pipeline Authority

• Agriculture Board

• Environmental Quality Council

• Farm Bureau Federation

• Land Quality Advisory Board

• Livestock Board

• Mining Council

• Oil and Gas Conservation Commission

• Recreation Commission

• State Board of Outfitters and Professional Guides

• State Grazing Board

• Trails Council

WEED AND PEST CONTROL DISTRICTS

• Big Horn County Weed and Pest Control District

• Hot Springs County Weed and Pest Control District

• Park County Weed and Pest Control District

• Washakie County Weed and Pest Control District

ASSOCIATIONS/COUNCILS

• Coalbed Methane Coordination Coalition

• Mormon Trails Association

• Oregon-California Trails Association

• Petroleum Association of Wyoming

• Powder River Basin Resource Council

• Washakie Development Association

• Wildlife Habitat Council

• Wyoming Association of Municipalities

• Wyoming Association of Conservation Districts

• Wyoming County Commissioners Association

• Wyoming Mining Association

• Wyoming Natural Diversity Database

• Wyoming Outdoor Council
Public Involvement

5-8 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Chapter 5 – Public Involvement

• Wyoming Sportsman’s Association

• Wyoming Stock Growers Association

• Wyoming Wilderness Association

• Wyoming Woolgrowers Association

• Western Energy Alliance

CLUBS/ALLIANCES/SOCIETIES/GROUPS

• Audubon Society

• Audubon Wyoming

• Back Country Horsemen of America

• Biodiversity Conservation Alliance

• Foundation for North American Wild Sheep

• Greater Yellowstone Coalition

• Guardians of the Range

• Izaak Walton League

• Land and Water Fund of the Rockies

• Meeteetse Economic Development Alliance

• Murie Audubon Society

• National Wildlife Federation

• North American Pronghorn Foundation

• Outdoor Women of Wyoming

• Public Lands Advocacy Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation

• Sierra Club

• The Conservation Fund

• The Land and Water Fund of the Rockies

• The Land Trust Alliance

• The Nature Conservancy

• The Wilderness Society

• The Wildlife Society

• Trout Unlimited

• Western Land Exchange Project

• Western Watersheds Project

• Wyoming Fly Casters Association

• Wyoming Livestock Roundup

• Wyoming Motorcycle Trails Association

• Wyoming Nature Conservancy

• Wyoming Wildlife Federation

• Wyoming Wildlife Trust Fund
Public Involvement

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS 5-9

Chapter 5 – Public Involvement

CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION

• U.S. Senator Michael Enzi

• U.S. Senator John Barrasso

• U.S. Representative Cynthia Lummis

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

• Bureau of Indian Affairs

• U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

• Minerals Management Service

• National Park Service

o Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area

o Yellowstone National Park

• Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance

• Natural Resources Library

• Office of Surface Mining

• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

• U.S. Geological Survey

o Washington, D.C.

o Cheyenne, Wyoming

• Bureau of Land Management

o Washington, D.C.

o Wyoming State Office, Cheyenne

o Wyoming Field Offices: Buffalo, Casper, Kemmerer, Lander, Newcastle, Pinedale, Rawlins, 

and Rock Springs

OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES

• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

• U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service

o Big Horn National Forest

o Shoshone National Forest

• U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service

• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

• Department of Energy Western Area Power Administration

• Federal Highway Administration

• Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

• U.S. Government Printing Office

• Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Weather Service

LIBRARIES

• Library of Congress

• University of Wyoming Library

• Park County Library
Public Involvement

5-10 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Chapter 5 – Public Involvement

• Big Horn County Public Library

• Washakie County Library

• Hot Springs County Library

• Central Wyoming College Library

• Northwest College, Wyoming Library

EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS

• University of Wyoming

• Western Wyoming Community College

• Wyoming Community College Commission

• Central Wyoming College

• Northwest College

MEDIA

Newspapers

• Northern Wyoming Daily News, Worland, Wyoming

• The Independent Record, Thermopolis, Wyoming

• Greybull Standard Tribune, Greybull, Wyoming

• Basin Republican Rustler, Basin, Wyoming

• The Cody Enterprise, Cody, Wyoming

• Powell Tribune, Powell, Wyoming

• Lovell Chronicle, Lovell, Wyoming

• Billings Gazette, Billings, Montana

• Wyoming Livestock Roundup, Casper, Wyoming

• Associated Press, Billings, Montana

• Casper Star Tribune, Casper, Wyoming

• Riverton Ranger, Riverton, Wyoming

Radio

• Big Horn Radio Network: KODI/KZMQ/KTAG/KKLX/KWOR, Cody AM and FM

• KPOW/KLZY, Powell AM and FM

• KTHE, Thermopolis AM

• KWOR/KKLX, Worland AM and FM

• KVOW/KTAK, Riverton AM and FM

• Wyoming Public Radio
Public Involvement

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS 5-11

Chapter 5 – Public Involvement

5.4 List of Preparers

Table 5-2. List of Preparers

Name Education

(degree, year, school) Title Project Role Years of Experience

Bureau of Land Management

Holly Elliott B.S. Environmental Science & 

Natural Resource 

Management w/emphasis in 

Environmental Law/Policy, 

2001,

University of Nevada, Reno

Planning and Environmental 

Coordinator

Project 

Manager/Inspector and 

Team Leader

16

Caleb Hiner B.S. Geosciences, 2001,

Idaho State University

Senior Resource Advisor Senior Resource Advisor 13

Mike Stewart B.S. Agriculture and Range 

Management, 1981,

University of California at 

Chico

Field Manager Cody Field Office 

Manager

27

Rebecca Good Bachelor of Science in 

Geological Engineering 1994 

from South Dakota

School of Mines (SDSM&T)

Bachelor of Science in 

Geology 1995 SDSM&T

Field Manager Worland Field Office 

Manager

20

Jessica Montag B.S. Recreation Resource 

Management, 1998, 

University of Minnesota; M.S. 

Resource Management, 2000, 

University of Montana; Ph.D. 

Wildlife Biology, 2004, 

University of Montana

Economist Social 

Conditions/Economic 

Conditions

10

Sarah Beckwith B.A. Environmental Studies 

and Geography, 1993,

University of California, Santa 

Barbara

Public Affairs Specialist Public Affairs 16

JoDee Cole B.A. Anthropology, 1978,

Southern Illinois University

Resource Information 

Specialist

GIS Data Management 36

Kierson Crume B.A. Anthropology, 1995,

University of New Mexico

Archaeologist Cultural including 

National Historic Trails

19

Jared Dalebout B.A. Geology, 2003,

Weber State University

Hydrologist Water, 

Riparian/Wetlands

7

Jim Gates B.S. Forest Resources, 1996,

University of Idaho

Forester Forestry 20

Monica Goepferd BS Mining Engineering, 2002,

Montana Tech

Supervisory Civil Engineer Transportation, Facilities, 

Maintenance

10

Destin Harrell B.A. Biology, 2000,

Western State College

Wildlife Biologist Wildlife, Special Status 

Species

13

Patricia (Tricia) Hatle B.S. Range Science, 1991,

University of Wyoming

Rangeland Management 

Specialist

Wild Horses 24
Public Involvement

5-12 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Chapter 5 – Public Involvement

Table 5-2. List of Preparers

Name Education

(degree, year, school) Title Project Role Years of Experience

Cam Henrichsen B.S. Range Science, 1990,

South Dakota State University

Range Management 

Specialist

Wild Horses 23

Karen Hepp B.S. Range/Wildlife, 1983,

University of Nebraska

Rangeland Management 

Specialist

Rangeland Vegetation, 

Special Status Species

28

Charis A. Tuers B.S. Environmental 

Engineering, 1997, Montana 

Tech

Air Quality Specialist Air Quality 12

Gretchen Hurley B.S. Natural Science & 

Mathematics, 1981,

University of Wyoming

Geologist Paleontology, Minerals 32

Gerald (Jerry) Jech B.S. Range 

Management/Wildlife, 1981,

Washington State University

Natural Resource Specialist 

(CYFO) 

(Riparian/Wetland/Aquatic 

Resources, Soil, & Water)

Riparian/Wetland/Aquati

c Resources, Vegetation 

(Riparian/Wetland, 

Grasslands/Shrublands), 

Water, & Fish

31

Steve Kiracofe B.S. Agronomy, Soil Science,

University of Maryland

Masters Certificate –

Hazardous Waste 

Management, Wayne State 

University

Natural Resource Specialist Soil, Water, 

Riparian/Wetlands, 

Vegetation (Grasslands, 

Shrublands, Special 

Status Plants)

35

Rance Neighbors B.S. Forestry, 2002,

Auburn University

Natural Resource Specialist Invasive Species 10

Jack Mononi B.S., 1975,

California State University, 

Chico

Rangeland Management 

Specialist

Livestock Grazing, Fire 

Ecology

34

Paul Rau B.S. Geography, 2000,

University of Wyoming

Outdoor Recreation Planner Visual Resource 

Management, OHV, 

Travel Management, 

Recreation and Special 

Designations

12

Dennis Saville B.S. Wildlife Management 

1988,

University of Wyoming

2 years graduate study in 

Wildlife and Recreation, 

1982-1983, University of 

Wyoming

Wildlife Biologist Wildlife, Special Status 

Species

23

David Seward B.S. Range Management, 

1995,

University of Wyoming

Natural Resource Specialist Surface Compliance 19

Carol Sheaff BLM-Lands Academy, 2003.

Northwest Community 

College, Various courses.

University of Nebraska, 

Kearney, Education

Realty Specialist Lands & Realty, including 

Transportation/Access 

and ROWs, Renewable 

Energy 

Utility/Communication 

Corridors

30

Pete Sokolosky B.S. Geology, 1975,

University of South Alabama

Geologist Minerals 31
Public Involvement

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS 5-13

Chapter 5 – Public Involvement

Table 5-2. List of Preparers

Name Education

(degree, year, school) Title Project Role Years of Experience

Tim Stephens B.A. Greenville College, 1983

M.S. Environmental Biology, 

1985,

Emporia State University

Teachers Certificate, 1988,

Lawrence University, 

Appleton Wisconsin

Biologist Fish & Wildlife, Special 

Status Species

24

Eve Warren B.S. Wildlife Management, 

1991,

Utah State University

M.S. Conservation Biology, 

1993,

Utah State University

PhD, Range Science, 2001,

Texas Tech University

Natural Resource Specialist Rangeland Vegetation 22

Criss Whalley B.S. Range Management, 

1984,

Humboldt State University

M.S. Plant Science, 1987,

University of Nevada, Reno

Rangeland Management 

Specialist

Livestock Grazing 27

Chet Wheeless B.S. Wildlife/Fisheries, 1974,

New Mexico State University

M.S. Environmental Studies, 

1981,

University of Montana

Fisheries Biologist Fish & Wildlife 30

Bill Wilson B.S. Watershed Science, 

1979,

Utah State University

GIS Specialist GIS Data Management 34

Jim Wolf B.S. Range Ecology, 1983,

Colorado State University

Fire Management Specialist Fire Ecology 29

Consultant

ICF International – Interdisciplinary Team
Public Involvement

5-14 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Chapter 5 – Public Involvement

This page intentionally left blank.
References

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS 6-1

Chapter 6 – References

CHAPTER 6 – REFERENCES

BEA (Bureau of Economic Analysis). 2010. Regional Economic Information System, 1969-2008. 

Available online: http://www.bea.gov/regional/reis/default.cfm. Accessed June 2010.

Big Horn Basin Sage-Grouse Local Working Group. 2007. Sage-grouse Conservation Plan for the Big 

Horn Basin, WY. August 31.

BLM (Bureau of Land Management). 1988. BLM Manual 1613, Areas of Critical Environmental Concern. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. September.

BLM. 2005. BLM Handbook H-1601-1, Land Use Planning. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of 

Land Management. Washington, D.C.

BLM. 2007. BLM Handbook H-1741-1, Burned Area Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Washington, D.C. Available online: 

http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/Information_Resources_Management/polic

y/blm_handbook.Par.52739.File.dat/h1742-1.pdf.

BLM. 2008a. Instruction Memorandum 2008-204, Offsite Mitigation. U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Bureau of Land Management. Washington, D.C. September 30.

BLM. 2008b. Analysis of the Management Situation. Bighorn Basin Planning Area. Unpublished 

Internal Report. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cody Field 

Office and Worland Field Office, WY.

BLM. 2009a. Reservoir Management Group, Bighorn Basin Well Count By Alternative. U.S. Department 

of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cody Field Office and Worland Field Office, WY. 

September 29.

BLM. 2009b. Geographic Information System Data. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management, Cody Field Office and Worland Field Office, WY.

BLM. 2009c. Reasonable Foreseeable Development Scenario for Oil and Gas, Bighorn Basin Planning 

Area, Wyoming. Prepared by Wyoming Reservoir Management Group. U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Bureau of Land Management. May 6.

BLM. 2010a. Draft Areas of Critical Environmental Concern Evaluation Report. Bighorn Basin Resource 

Management Plan Revision Project. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management, Cody Field Office and Worland Field Office, WY.

BLM. 2010b. BLM Air Quality Worksheets. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management. Cody Field Office and Worland Field Office, WY.

BLM. 2011. National Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy Charter. U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Bureau of Land Management. August 22.

BLM. 2012a. Instruction Memorandum WY-2012-019, Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Management Policy 

on Wyoming Bureau of Land Management Administered Public Lands Including the Federal 

Mineral Estate. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Wyoming State 

Office. Cheyenne, WY. February 10.

BLM. 2012b. Instruction Memorandum 2012-044, BLM National Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use 

Planning Strategy. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Washington, 

D.C. December 27.
References

6-2 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Chapter 6 – References

BLM. 2012c. BLM Manual 6330, Management of BLM Wilderness Study Areas. U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Bureau of Land Management. July 13. Available online: 

http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/Information_Resources_Management/polic

y/blm_manual.Par.31915.File.dat/6330.pdf.

BLM. 2013a. Wyoming State Office Greater Sage-Grouse Step-Down Report. U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Bureau of Land Management. April.

BLM. 2013b. BLM Air Quality Worksheets. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management. Cody Field Office and Worland Field Office, WY.

BLM. 2013c. North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Resource Plan Amendment and Environmental Impact 

Statement. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management.

BLM. 2013d. Nine-Plan Greater Sage-Grouse Resource Plan Amendment and Environmental Impact 

Statement. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management.

BLM. 2013e. Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Resource Plan Amendment and Environmental 

Impact Statement. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management.

BLM. 2013f. Idaho and Southwestern Montana Sub-Regional Greater Sage-Grouse Resource Plan 

Amendment and Environmental Impact Statement. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of 

Land Management.

BLM. 2013g. Utah Sub-Regional Greater Sage-Grouse Resource Plan Amendment and Environmental 

Impact Statement. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management.

BLM. 2013h. “Sage-Grouse and Sagebrush Conservation”. Available online: 

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/more/sagegrouse.html. Updated April 4. Accessed 

June 18.

BLM. 2013i. Draft Resource Management Plan Revision and Environmental Impact Statement for the 

Buffalo Field Office Planning Area. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management.

BLM. 2013j. Draft Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement for the Miles City 

Field Office Planning Area. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management.

BLM. 2013k. HiLine Draft Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management.

BLM. 2013l. South Dakota Draft Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management.

BLM. 2013m. Billings and Pompeys Pillar National Monument Draft Resource Management Plan and 

Environmental Impact Statement. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management.

BLM. 2013n. Proposed Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement for the 

Lander Field Office Planning Area. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management.

BLM. 2013o. Geographic Information System Data. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management, Cody Field Office and Worland Field Office, WY.
References

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS 6‐3

Chapter 6 – References

BLM. 2013p. Reasonable Foreseeable Development Scenario for Oil and Gas, Bighorn Basin Planning

Area, Wyoming. Prepared by Wyoming Reservoir Management Group. U.S. Department of the

Interior, Bureau of Land Management. February.

Brown, J.K.  1982.  Fuel and Fire Behavior Prediction in Big Sagebrush.  U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.  Research Paper INT‐290.  

Ogden, UT.

Connelly, J.W., M.A. Schroeder, A.R. Sands, and C.E. Braun.  2000.  Guidelines to Manage Sage Grouse

Populations and Their Habitats.  Wildlife Society Bulletin 28(4):967‐985.

Connelly, J.W., S.T. Knick, M.A. Schroeder, and S.J. Stiver.  2004.  Conservation Assessment of Greater

Sage‐Grouse and Sagebrush Habitats.  Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies.  

Cheyenne, WY.  July 22.

DOI (Department of the Interior).  2006.  Interagency Burned Area Emergency Response Guidebook.  

U.S. Department of the Interior.  Washington, D.C.  Available online:  

http://www.fws.gov/fire/ifcc/esr/Policy/es_handbook_2‐7‐06.pdf.  Accessed October 15, 2009.

EPA (Environmental Protection Agency).  2010.  Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks:  

1990‐2008.  Public Review Draft.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Hagen, C.A., J.W. Connelly, and M.A. Schroeder.  2007.  A Meta‐Analysis for Greater Sage‐Grouse

Nesting and Brood Rearing Habitats.  Wildlife Biology 13 (Supplement 1):42‐50.

Hanser, S.E., M. Leu, S.T. Knick, and C.L. Aldridge (editors).  2011.  Sagebrush Ecosystem Conservation

and Management:  Ecoregional Assessment Tools and Models for the Wyoming Basins.  

Lawrence, KS.

IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change).  2007a.  Climate Change 2007:  The Physical Basis

(Summary for Policymakers).  Cambridge University Press.  Cambridge, England and New York,

New York.  Available online:  http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment‐report/ar4/wg1/ar4‐wg1‐

spm.pdf.

Knick, S.T.  2011.  Historical Development, Principal Federal Legislation, and Current Management of

Sagebrush Habitats:  Implications for Conservation, in S.T. Knick and J.W. Connelly (editors),

Greater Sage‐Grouse:  Ecology and Conservation of a Landscape Species and its Habitats.  

Studies in Avian Biology.  Vol. 38:13‐31.  Berkeley, CA.

Knick, S.T. and J.W. Connelly.  2011.  An Introduction to the Landscape, in S.T. Knick and J.W. Connelly

(editors), Greater Sage‐Grouse:  Ecology and Conservation of a Landscape Species and its

Habitats.  Studies in Avian Biology, Vol. 38.  Berkeley, CA.

Manier, D.J., D.J.A. Wood, Z.H. Bowen, R.M. Donovan, M.J. Holloran, L.M. Juliusson, K.S. Mayne, S.J.

Oyler‐McCance, F.R. Quamen, D.J. Saher, and A.J. Titolo.  2013.  Summary of Science, Activities,

Programs and Policies that Influence the Rangewide Conservation of Greater Sage‐Grouse

(Centrocerus urophasianus).  Department of Interior, U.S. Geological Survey.  Denver, CO.  

Available online:  http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2013/1098/.

OMB (Office of Management and Budget).  1992.  Guidelines and Discount Rates for Benefit‐Cost

Analysis of Federal Programs.  Office of Management and Budget.  Circular A‐94.  October 29.  

Available online:  www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/.

Sage‐grouse NTT (National Technical Team).  2011.  A Report on National Greater Sage‐Grouse

Conservation Measures.  December.
References

6‐4 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Chapter 6 – References

Samson, F.B., F.L. Knopf, and W.R. Ostlie.  2004.  Great Plains Ecosystems:  Past, Present, and Future.  

Wildlife Society Bulletin, Vol. 32(1):6‐15.

Stiver, S.J., A.D. Apa, J.R. Bohne, S.D. Bunnell, P.A. Deibert, S.C. Gardner, M.A. Hilliard, C.W. McCarthy,

and M.A. Schroeder.  2006.  Greater Sage‐Grouse Comprehensive Conservation Strategy.  

Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies.  Unpublished Report.  Cheyenne, WY.

Taylor, R.L., D.E. Naugle, and L.S. Mills.  2012.  Viability Analyses for Conservation of Sage‐Grouse

Populations:  Buffalo Field Office, Wyoming.  U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land

Management.  46 pages.  Available online:  

http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/programs/Wildlife/sage‐grouse.html.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service).  2010.  Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12‐

Month Findings for Petitions to List the Greater Sage‐Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) as

Threatened or Endangered.  50 CFR Part 17.

USFWS.  2013.  Greater Sage‐Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) Conservation Objectives:  Final

Report.  U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.  Denver, CO.  February.

Washakie County.  2004.  Comprehensive Plan.  Washakie County, WY.  Available online:  

http://washakiecounty.net/cmpdrft.htm.  Accessed August 2009.

WGFD (Wyoming Game and Fish Department).  2000.  Sage‐Grouse Annual Report and Summary Data of

the Cody Region, 1956‐1999.  Wyoming Game and Fish Department.  Cheyenne, WY.

WGFD.  2004.  Annual Sage‐Grouse Report, 2000 to 2004.  Wyoming Game and Fish Department.  

Cheyenne, WY.

Wyoming Office of the Governor.  2008.  Wyoming Executive Order 2008‐2, Greater Sage‐grouse Core

Area of Protection.

Wyoming Office of the Governor.  2010.  Wyoming Executive Order 2010‐4, Greater Sage‐grouse Core

Area of Protection.
Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Bighorn Basin Resource Management Plan Revision Project

Appendix B

Federal Laws, Regulations, Policies, and Guidance

Appendix B

Appendix B – Federal Laws, Regulations, Policies, and Guidance

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS Appendix B-1

APPENDIX B

FEDERAL LAWS, REGULATIONS, POLICIES, AND GUIDANCE

NOTE: The second table in Appendix B of the Draft RMP and Draft EIS (pages B-5 to B-8) is updated to 

include additional BLM policies and guidance pertaining to greater sage-grouse that were considered in 

the development of new alternatives E and F. These new BLM directives are appended to those from the 

draft NEPA document.
Appendix B – Federal Laws, Regulations, Policies, and Guidance

Appendix B-2 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

BLM Directive Year

BLM National Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Conservation Strategy 2004

BLM National Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy Charter 2011

Instruction Memorandum 2012-044, BLM National Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Planning Strategy 2011

Instructional Memorandum WY-2012-019, Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Management Policy on Wyoming 

Bureau of Land Management Administered Public Lands Including the Federal Mineral Estate 2011
Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Bighorn Basin Resource Management Plan Revision Project

Appendix C

Monitoring and Evaluation

Appendix C

Appendix C – Monitoring and Evaluation

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS Appendix C-1

APPENDIX C

MONITORING AND EVALUATION

NOTE: This appendix augments Appendix C of the Draft RMP and Draft EIS with the addition of intervals 

and standards for monitoring under the Greater Sage-grouse Planning Strategy. The reader is referred 

to Appendix C of the original Draft RMP and Draft EIS for an overview of the Bighorn Basin Monitoring 

and Evaluation protocol.

Add the following monitoring information as a new section “7.0 Monitoring for the Greater Sage-Grouse 

Planning Strategy.”

7.0 MONITORING FOR THE GREATER SAGE-GROUSE PLANNING 

STRATEGY

BLM’s planning regulations, specifically 43 CFR 1610.4-9 require that land use plans establish intervals 

and standards for monitoring, based on the sensitivity of the resource decisions. Land use plan 

monitoring is the process of tracking the implementation of land use plan decisions (implementation 

monitoring) and collecting data/information necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of land use plan 

decisions (effectiveness monitoring). For sage-grouse, these types of monitoring are also described in 

the criteria found in the Policy for Evaluation of Conservation Efforts When Making Listing Decisions 

(PECE) (50 CFR Vol. 68, No. 60). One of the PECE criteria evaluates whether provisions for monitoring 

and reporting progress on implementation (based on compliance with the implementation schedule) 

and effectiveness (based on evaluation of quantifiable parameters) of the conservation effort are 

provided.

A guiding principle in the BLM National Sage-grouse Conservation Strategy (BLM 2004) is that “the 

Bureau is committed to sage-grouse and sagebrush conservation and will continue to adjust and adapt 

our National Sage-grouse Strategy as new information, science and monitoring results evaluate 

effectiveness over time.” In keeping with the WAFWA Sage-grouse Comprehensive Conservation 

Strategy (Stiver et al. 2006) and the Greater Sage-grouse Conservation Objectives: Final Report (USFWS 

2013), BLM and USFS will monitor implementation and effectiveness of conservation measures in sagegrouse habitats.

On March 5, 2010 the 12-Month Findings for Petitions to List the Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus

urophasianus) as Threatened or Endangered were posted as a Federal Register notice (75 FR 13910 

14014). This notice stated:

“...the information collected by BLM could not be used to make broad generalizations 

about the status of rangelands and management actions. There was a lack of 

consistency across the range in how questions were interpreted and answered for the 

data call, which limited our ability to use the results to understand habitat conditions for 

sage-grouse on BLM lands.”

Standardization of monitoring methods and implementation of a defensible monitoring approach 

(within and across jurisdictions) will resolve this situation. The BLM, the USFS and other conservation 

partners use the resulting information to guide implementation of conservation activities.
Appendix C – Monitoring and Evaluation

Appendix C-2 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Monitoring strategies for sage-grouse habitat and populations must be collaborative, as habitat occurs 

across jurisdictional boundaries (52 percent BLM, 31 percent private, 8 percent USFS, 5 percent state, 4

percent tribal and other Federal; 75 FR 13910), and because state fish and wildlife agencies have 

primary responsibility for population level management of wildlife, including population monitoring. 

Therefore, population efforts will continue to be conducted in partnership with state fish and wildlife 

agencies. The BLM and USFS are currently in the process of finalizing a Monitoring Framework which 

will be included in the Proposed RMP Amendment/FEIS. This framework will describe the process that 

the BLM and USFS will use to monitor implementation and effectiveness of Resource Management Plan 

(RMP)/LUP decisions. The Monitoring Framework will include: methods, data standards, and intervals 

of monitoring at broad and mid scales; consistent indicators to measure and metric descriptions for each 

of the scales (see Habitat Assessment Framework (HAF) and Assessment, Inventory and Monitoring 

(AIM) core indicators); analysis and reporting methods; and the incorporation of monitoring results into 

adaptive management. The need for fine and site-scale specific habitat monitoring may vary by area 

depending on existing conditions, habitat variability, threats, and land health. Indicators at the fine and 

site scales will be consistent with the HAF; however the values for the indicators could be adjusted for 

regional conditions. The major components of the Monitoring Framework can be found in Appendix C 

of the April 2011 Draft RMP and Draft EIS.

More specifically, the framework will discuss how the BLM and USFS will monitor and track 

implementation and effectiveness of planning decisions (e.g., tracking of waivers, modifications, site 

level actions). The two agencies will monitor the effectiveness of RMP/LUP decisions in meeting 

management and conservation objectives. Effectiveness monitoring will include monitoring disturbance 

in habitats as well as landscape habitat attributes. To monitor habitats the BLM and USFS will measure 

and track attributes of occupied habitat, priority habitat, and general habitat at the broad scale, and 

attributes of habitat availability, patch size, connectivity, linkage areas, edge effect, and anthropogenic 

disturbances at the mid-scale. Disturbance monitoring will measure and track changes in the amount of 

sagebrush in the landscape and changes in the anthropogenic footprint including the change in the 

density of energy development. The framework will also include methodology for analysis and reporting

for Field Offices/States/Ranger Districts/BLM Districts/Forests/FS Regions including geospatial and 

tabular data for disturbance mapping (e.g., geospatial footprint of new permitted disturbances) and 

effectiveness of management actions.

The monitoring data will provide the indicator estimates for adaptive management. The BLM and the 

USFS will adjust management decisions through an adaptive management process.

8.0 REFERENCES

BLM. 2004. Bureau of Land Management National Sage-Grouse Habitat Conservation Strategy. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. November. Available online: 

http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/Planning_and_Renewable_Resources/fish_

_wildlife_and.Par.9151.File.dat/Sage-Grouse_Strategy.pdf.

Stiver, S.J., A.D. Apa, J.R. Bohne, S.D. Bunnell, P.A. Deibert, S.C. Gardner, M.A. Hilliard, C.W. McCarthy, 

and M.A. Schroeder. 2006. Greater Sage-Grouse Comprehensive Conservation Strategy. 

Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. Unpublished Report. Cheyenne, WY.

USFWS. 2013. Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) Conservation Objectives: Final 

Report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Denver, CO. February.
Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Bighorn Basin Resource Management Plan Revision Project

Appendix E

Consultation Letters and Cooperating Agency Position 

Statements

Appendix D

Appendix E

Appendix E – Consultation Letters and Cooperating Agency Position Statements

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS Appendix E-1

APPENDIX E

CONSULTATION LETTERS AND COOPERATING AGENCY

POSITION STATEMENTS

NOTE: Appendix E of the Draft RMP and Draft EIS (page E-6) is updated to include additional examples 

of tribal consultation letters sent to inform recipients of the preparation of this Supplement.
Appendix E – Consultation Letters and Cooperating Agency Position Statements

Appendix E-2 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

1.0 CONSULTATION LETTERS

Example: Tribal Consultation Letter
Appendix E – Consultation Letters and Cooperating Agency Position Statements

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS Appendix E-3
Appendix E – Consultation Letters and Cooperating Agency Position Statements

Appendix E‐4 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

This page intentionally left blank.
Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Bighorn Basin Resource Management Plan Revision Project

Appendix F

Special Designations: Wild and Scenic Rivers and Areas of 

Critical Environmental Concern

Appendix F

Appendix F – Special Designations

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS Appendix F-1

APPENDIX F

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS: 

WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS AND AREAS OF CRITICAL

ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN

NOTE: Table F-2 (which summarizes the results of the BLM ACEC evaluation process) from the Draft RMP 

and Draft EIS (pages F-6 to F-10) is augmented to include the addition of the new alternatives E and F. 

Because these new alternatives only differ from alternatives B and D from the Draft RMP and Draft EIS in 

the addition of the proposed Greater Sage-Grouse Key and Core Habitat Area ACECs, only those ACECs 

are included below. These new ACECs are appended to the ACECs from the draft NEPA document.
Appendix F – Special Designations

Appendix F-2 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Table F-2. Summary Results of the ACEC Evaluation

Area Acres Value(s) of Concern Relevance 

Criteria1

Importance 

Criteria1 Recommended Comments

Proposed ACECs

Greater Sage-Grouse 

Core Habitat Area

1,116,124 Special Status 

Species; Vegetation

2, 3 A, B, C Yes The area contains sagebrush habitat used by sensitive bird 

species and other wildlife, including the greater sagegrouse, a candidate species for listing under provisions of 

the ESA. These habitats are under threat from surface 

disturbance associated with mineral (including gravel pits) 

and ROW development, renewable energy developments, 

heavy recreational and motorized vehicle use, and invasive 

and nonnative species infestations. These activities 

threaten important greater sage-grouse habitats, including

breeding, later brood-rearing, and winter concentration 

areas.

Greater Sage-Grouse 

Key Habitat Area

1,231,383 Special Status 

Species; Vegetation

2, 3 A, B, C Yes Same as above.

1 Values in these columns correspond to the numbers or letters in the lists provided previously in this appendix.

ACEC Area of Critical Environmental Concern

ESA Endangered Species Act

ROW right-of-way
Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Bighorn Basin Resource Management Plan Revision Project

Appendix G

Exception, Modification, and Waiver Criteria

Appendix G

Appendix G – Exception, Modification, and Waiver Criteria

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS Appendix G-1

APPENDIX G

EXCEPTION, MODIFICATION, AND WAIVER CRITERIA

NOTE: Table G-1 (which lists exceptions, modifications, and waiver criteria for oil and gas lease 

stipulations in the Planning Area) and Table G-2 (which lists exceptions, modifications, and waiver codes 

and definitions) from the Draft RMP and Draft EIS (pages G-5 to G-36) are augmented to include the 

addition of the new alternatives E and F.

Alternatives E and F differ from alternatives B and D from the Draft RMP and Draft EIS only in the 

addition of the Greater Sage-Grouse Key and Core Habitat Area ACECs, and only stipulations related to 

management in those ACECs are included below. All other exceptions, modifications, and waivers for 

alternatives E and F are the same as under alternatives B and D (respectively).
Appendix G – Exception, Modification, and Waiver Criteria

Appendix G-2 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Table G-1. Oil and Gas Lease Stipulations – Bighorn Basin Planning Area

Record # Resource of 

Concern Applicable Area Stipulation

Alternative

Stipulation Description

A B C D E F Proposed 

RMP

7, 76 

(Supplement)

Special Status Species 

– Greater Sage-Grouse

Greater Sage-Grouse 

Key/Core Habitat Areas 

ACECs

CSU X X Surface occupancy or use will be restricted or 

prohibited to no more than one disturbance location 

per 640 acres, and the cumulative value of 

disturbances will not exceed 3 percent of the DDCT 

area, in accordance with the procedures described 

within the BLM WY Disturbance Density Calculation 

Tool Manual.

This lease does not guarantee the lessee the right to 

occupy the surface of the lease for the purpose of 

producing oil and natural gas within greater sagegrouse designated Core Habitat Areas. The surface 

occupancy restriction criteria identified in this 

stipulation may preclude surface occupancy and may 

be beyond the ability of the lessee to meet due to 

existing surface disturbance on federal, state, or 

private lands within designated Core areas or surface 

disturbance created by other land users. The BLM may 

require the lessee or operator to enter into a unit 

agreement or drilling easement to facilitate the 

equitable development of this and surrounding leases.

EXCEPTION: EC-017

MODIFICATION: MC-015

WAIVER: WV-020

76 

(Supplement)

Special Status Species 

– Greater Sage-Grouse

Greater Sage-Grouse 

Key Habitat Areas ACEC

NSO X Prohibit new surface occupancy on federal leases 

during any time of the year (Map SEIS - 7).

EXCEPTION: EC-013, EC-014, EC-015

MODIFICATION: MC-015

WAIVER: WV-020

71, 76 

(Supplement)

Special Status Species 

– Greater Sage-Grouse

Within 0.6 mile of 

greater sage-grouse 

leks in the Greater 

Sage-Grouse Core 

Habitat Areas ACEC

NSO X Apply an NSO restriction within 0.6 mile of occupied or 

undetermined sage-grouse leks in Greater Sage-Grouse 

Core Habitat Areas ACEC (Map SEIS - 8).

EXCEPTION: EC-013

MODIFICATION: MC-015

WAIVER: WV-020
Appendix G – Exception, Modification, and Waiver Criteria

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS Appendix G-3

Table G-1. Oil and Gas Lease Stipulations – Bighorn Basin Planning Area

Record # Resource of 

Concern Applicable Area Stipulation

Alternative

Stipulation Description

A B C D E F Proposed 

RMP

71, 76 

(Supplement)

Special Status Species 

– Greater Sage-Grouse

Within 0.6 mile of 

greater sage-grouse 

leks in the Greater 

Sage-Grouse Core 

Habitat Areas ACEC

TLS X Restrict disruptive activity within 0.6 mile of occupied 

or undetermined sage-grouse leks from 6:00 p.m. to 

8:00 a.m. from March 1 to May 15 in greater sagegrouse Core Habitat Areas (Map SEIS - 8).

EXCEPTION: EC-013

MODIFICATION: MC-015

WAIVER: WV-020

77 

(Supplement)

Special Status Species 

– Greater Sage-Grouse

Within greater sagegrouse Key Habitat 

Areas (Alternative E) 

and Core Habitat Areas 

(Alternative F)

TLS X X To protect greater sage-grouse nesting/early broodrearing habitat, restrict surface disturbing and/or 

disruptive activities from March 15 to June 30 in 

greater sage-grouse Key Habitat Areas (Alternative E) 

and Core Habitat Areas (Alternative F) (Map SEIS – 7; 

Map SEIS - 8).

EXCEPTION: EC-013, EC-016

MODIFICATION: MC-015, MC-016

WAIVER: WV-020

ACEC Area of Critical Environmental Concern RMP Resource Management Plan

CSU Controlled surface use SEIS Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

DDCT Density and Disturbance Calculation Tool TLS Timing limitation stipulation

NSO No surface occupancy
Appendix G – Exception, Modification, and Waiver Criteria

Appendix G-4 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Table G-2. Codes for Exceptions, Modifications, and Waivers

CODE DESCRIPTION

Exceptions

EC-013 The authorized officer may grant an exception if an environmental record of review determines that the 

action, as proposed or conditioned, will not affect reproductive displays, nest attendance, egg or chick 

survival, or early brood-rearing success. Actions designed to enhance the long-term utility or availability of 

suitable sage-grouse habitat may be exempted from this timing limitation. The BLM can and does grant 

exceptions to seasonal restrictions if the BLM, in consultation with the WGFD, feels that granting an 

exception would not adversely impact the population being protected. Any changes to this stipulation will 

be made in accordance with the land use plan and/or the regulatory provisions for such changes. For 

guidance on the use of this stipulation, see BLM Manuals 1624 and 3101 or Forest Service Manuals 1950 

and 2820.

EC-014 If the lease is entirely within greater sage-grouse Key Habitat Areas, apply a NSO within a four-mile radius of 

the perimeter of occupied sage-grouse leks, and limit permitted disturbances to one per section with no 

more than three percent surface disturbance in that section.

EC-015 If the entire lease is within a four-mile radius of the perimeter of an occupied sage-grouse leks or leks, limit 

permitted disturbances to one per section with no more than three percent surface disturbance in that 

section.

EC-016 This stipulation does not apply to operation and maintenance of production facilities.

EC-017 The authorized officer may grant an exception if an environmental record of review determines that the 

action, as proposed or conditioned, would not impair the function or utility of the site for the current or 

subsequent seasonal habitat, life-history, or behavioral needs of greater sage-grouse. The BLM can and 

does grant exceptions if the BLM, in consultation with the WGFD, feels that granting an exception would not 

adversely impact the population being protected. Any changes to this stipulation will be made in 

accordance with the land use plan and/or the regulatory provisions for such changes. For guidance on the 

use of this stipulation, see Bureau of Land Management Manuals 1624 and 3101 or Forest Service Manuals 

1950 and 2820.

Modifications

MC-015 The authorized officer may modify the area subject to the stipulation if an environmental record of review 

finds that a portion of the NSO or CSU area is nonessential, or that the proposed action could not be 

conditioned so as not to impair the function or utility of the site for the seasonal habitat, life-history, or 

behavioral needs of the greater sage-grouse, including (but not limited to) reproductive display, daytime 

loafing/staging activities, and nesting. Any changes to this stipulation will be made in accordance with the 

land use plan and/or the regulatory provisions for such changes. For guidance on the use of this stipulation, 

see BLM Manuals 1624 and 3101 or Forest Service Manuals 1950 and 2820.

MC-016 Where credible data support different timeframes for this seasonal restriction, dates may be expanded by 

up to 14 days prior to or subsequent to the original dates.

Waivers

WV-020 This stipulation may be waived if, in consultation with the State wildlife agency, it is determined that the site 

has been permanently abandoned or unoccupied for a minimum of three years or sage-grouse are no longer 

a BLM sensitive or special status species and are not listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as 

threatened or endangered under the ESA. Any changes to this stipulation will be made in accordance with 

the land use plan and/or the regulatory provisions for such changes. For guidance on the use of this 

stipulation, see BLM Manuals 1624 and 3101 or Forest Service Manuals 1950 and 2820.

ACEC Area of Critical Environmental Concern

BLM Bureau of Land Management

CSU Controlled Surface Use

EC Exception

ESA Endangered Species Act

MC Modification

NSO No Surface Occupancy

WGFD Wyoming Game and Fish Department

WV Waiver
Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Bighorn Basin Resource Management Plan Revision Project

Appendix L

Best Management Practices

Appendix H

Appendix I

Appendix J

Appendix K

Appendix L

Appendix L – Best Management Practices

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS Appendix L-1

APPENDIX L

BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AND REQUIRED DESIGN FEATURES

NOTE: Add the following required design features as a new section “7.0 Required Design Features for 

Greater Sage-Grouse”.

7.0 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR GREATER SAGE-GROUSE

The following required design features are found in the Sage-Grouse National Technical Team report 

(Sage-grouse NTT 2011) titled “A Report on National Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Measures”.

General

1. Evaluate and take advantage of opportunities to remove or modify existing power lines within 

priority sage‐grouse habitat areas. When possible, require perch deterrents on existing or new 

overhead facilities. Encourage installation of perch deterrents on existing facilities.

2. Where existing leases or rights-of-way (ROWs) have had some level of development (road, fence, 

well, etc.) and are no longer in use, reclaim the site by removing these features and restoring the 

habitat.

3. Locate man camps outside priority sage-grouse habitats.

4. Work cooperatively with permittees, leasees, and other landowners to develop grazing 

management strategies that integrate both public and private lands into single management units.

5. Coordinate BMPs and vegetative objectives with the NRCS for consistent application across 

jurisdictions where the BLM and NRCS have the greatest opportunities to benefit greater sagegrouse, particularly as it applies to the NRCS’s National Sage-Grouse Initiative 

(http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detailfull/national/programs/farmbill/initiatives/and 

cid=steldevb1027671).

6. When conducting National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis for water developments or 

other rangeland improvements address the direct and indirect effects to sage‐grouse populations 

and habitat.

7. Evaluate the role of existing seedings that are currently composed of primarily introduced perennial 

grasses in and adjacent to priority sage‐grouse habitats to determine if they should be restored to 

sagebrush or habitat of higher quality for sage‐grouse. If these seedings are part of an Allotment 

Management Plan/Conservation Plan or if they provide value in conserving or enhancing the rest of 

the priority habitats, then no restoration would be necessary. Assess the compatibility of these 

seedings for sage‐grouse habitat or as a component of a grazing system during land health 

assessments. For example, some introduced grass seedings are an integral part of a livestock 

management plan and reduce grazing pressure in important sagebrush habitats, or serve as a 

strategic fuels management area.

8. Where the federal government owns the surface, and the mineral estate is in non‐federal 

ownership, apply appropriate BMPs to surface development.
Appendix L – Best Management Practices

Appendix L-2 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Roads

1. Design roads to an appropriate standard no higher than necessary to accommodate their intended 

purpose.

2. Locate roads to avoid important areas and habitats.

3. Coordinate road construction and use among Federal fluid mineral lessees and ROW or Surface Use 

Agreement (SUA) holders.

4. Construct road crossings of ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial streams to minimize impacts to 

the riparian habitat, such as by crossing at right angles to ephemeral drainages and stream 

crossings.

5. Establish slow speed limits on BLM and FS system-administered roads or design roads for slower 

vehicle speeds to reduce sage-grouse mortality.

6. Establish trip restrictions or minimization through use of telemetry and remote well control (e.g., 

Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition).

7. Do not issue ROWs or SUAs to counties on energy development roads, unless for a temporary use 

consistent with all other terms and conditions including this document.

8. Restrict vehicle traffic to only authorized users on newly constructed routes (using signage, gates, 

etc.)

9. Apply dust abatement on roads, well pads, and other surface disturbances.

10. Close and rehabilitate duplicate roads by restoring original landform and establishing desirable.

11. Do not issue ROWs to counties on newly constructed energy development roads, unless for a 

temporary use consistent with all other terms and conditions included in this document.

Operations

1. Site and/or minimize linear ROWs or SUAs to reduce disturbance and fragmentation of sagebrush 

habitats.

2. Place new utility developments (power lines, pipelines, etc.) and transportation routes in existing 

utility or transportation corridors.

3. Bury power lines to the extent technically feasible.

4. Collocate powerlines, flowlines, and small pipelines under or immediately adjacent to existing 

roads/transportation corridors.

5. Cover all fluid-containing pits and open tanks with netting (maximum 1.5-inch mesh size) regardless 

of size to reduce sage‐grouse mortality.

6. Equip tanks and other above ground facilities with structures or devices that discourage nesting and 

perching of raptors and corvids.

7. Control the spread and effects of invasive non‐native plant species, including treating weeds prior to 

surface disturbance and washing vehicles and equipment at designated wash stations when 

constructing in areas with weed infestations.

8. Require sage-grouse-safe fences.

9. Clean up refuse.
Appendix L – Best Management Practices

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS Appendix L-3

10. Locate mining camps outside of priority sage‐grouse habitats.

11. Fit transmission towers with anti-perch devices.

12. Construct sage‐grouse‐safe fences around sumps.

13. Cluster disturbances, operations (hydraulic fracture stimulation, liquids gathering, etc.), and 

facilities.

14. Use directional and horizontal drilling to the extent feasible as a means to reduce surface 

disturbance in relation to the number of wells.

15. Place infrastructure in already disturbed locations where the habitat has not been fully restored.

16. Apply a phased development approach with concurrent reclamation.

17. Place liquid gathering facilities outside priority areas. To reduce truck traffic and perching and 

nesting sites for ravens and raptors do not place tanks at well locations within priority habitat areas.

18. Pipelines must be under or immediately adjacent to the road.

19. Use remote monitoring techniques for production facilities and develop a plan to reduce the 

frequency of vehicle use.

20. Restrict the construction of tall facilities, distribution powerlines, and fences to the minimum 

number and amount needed.

21. Design or site permanent structures to minimize impacts to sage‐grouse, with emphasis on locating 

and operating facilities that create movement (e.g., pump jacks) or attract frequent human use and 

vehicular traffic (e.g., fluid storage tanks) in a manner that will minimize disturbance of sage-grouse 

or interference with habitat use.

22. Use only closed‐loop systems for drilling operations, with no reserve pits.

23. Consider using oak (or other material) mats for drilling activities where topography permits to 

reduce vegetation disturbance and for temporary roads between closely-spaced wells to reduce soil 

compaction and maintain soil structure to increase likelihood of vegetation reestablishment 

following drilling.

West Nile

1. Restrict impoundment construction to reduce or eliminate threats from West Nile Virus.

2. Increase the size of freshwater ponds to accommodate a greater volume of water than is 

discharged. This will result in un‐vegetated and muddy shorelines that breeding Cx. tarsalis avoid. 

This modification may reduce Cx. tarsalis habitat but could create larval habitat for Culicoides 

sonorensis, a vector of blue tongue disease, and should be used sparingly. Steep shorelines should 

be used in combination with this technique whenever possible.

3. Build steep shorelines to reduce shallow water (greater than 60 cm) and aquatic vegetation around 

the perimeter of impoundments. Construction of steep shorelines also will create more permanent 

ponds that are a deterrent to colonizing mosquito species like Cx. tarsalis which prefer newly 

flooded sites with high primary productivity.
Appendix L – Best Management Practices

Appendix L-4 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

4. Maintain water levels below that of rooted vegetation for a muddy shoreline that is unfavorable 

habitat for mosquito larvae. Rooted vegetation includes both aquatic and upland vegetative types. 

Avoid flooding terrestrial vegetation in flat terrain or low lying areas. Aquatic habitats with a 

vegetated inflow and outflow separated by open water produce 5 to 10 fold fewer Culex mosquitoes 

than completely vegetated wetlands. Wetlands with open water also had significantly fewer stage 

III and IV instars which may be attributed to increased predator abundances in open water habitats.

5. Construct dams or impoundments that restrict down slope seepage or overflow by digging ponds in 

flat areas rather than damming natural draws for effluent water storage, or lining constructed ponds 

in areas where seepage is anticipated.

6. Line channels where discharge water flows into ponds with crushed rock, or use a horizontal pipe to 

discharge inflow directly into existing open water, thus precluding shallow surface inflow and 

accumulation of sediment that promotes aquatic vegetation.

7. Line the overflow spillway with crushed rock, and construct the spillway with steep sides to preclude 

the accumulation of shallow water and vegetation.

8. Fence pond sites to restrict access by livestock and other wild ungulates that trample and disturb 

shorelines, enrich sediments with manure and create hoof print pockets of water that are attractive 

to breeding mosquitoes

9. Manage artificial water impoundments for the prevention and/or spread of West Nile virus (WNv) 

where the virus poses a threat to sage-grouse. This may include but is not limited to: (a) the use of 

larvicides and adulticides to treat waterbodies; (b) overbuilding ponds to create non-vegetated, 

muddy shorelines; (c) building steep shorelines to reduce shallow water and emergent aquatic 

vegetation; (d) maintaining the water level below rooted vegetation; (e) avoiding flooding terrestrial 

vegetation in flat terrain or low lying areas; (f) constructing dams or impoundments that restrict 

seepage or overflow; (g) lining the channel where discharge water flows into the pond with crushed 

rock, or use a horizontal pipe to discharge inflow directly into existing open water; (h) lining the 

overflow spillway with crushed rock and construct the spillway with steep sides to preclude the 

accumulation of shallow water and vegetation; and (i) restricting access of ponds to livestock and 

wildlife.

10. Field Offices should consider alternate means to manage produced waters that could present 

additional vectors for WNV. Such remedies may include re-injection under an approved 

Underground Injection Control permit, transfer to single/centralized facility, etc.

11. Policy Statement 7 regarding WNv does not apply to naturally occurring waters.

12. Design impoundments for wildlife and/or livestock use to reduce the potential to produce vectors 

for WNv where the virus may pose a threat to sage-grouse.

13. Manage water impoundments to prevent the spread of West Nile virus where analysis shows the 

virus poses a threat to sage-grouse and may result in negative impacts to other species of concern.

14. Remove or re-inject produced water to reduce habitat for mosquitoes that vector West Nile virus. If 

surface disposal of produced water continues, use the following steps for reservoir design to limit 

favorable mosquito habitat:

• Overbuild size of ponds for muddy and non-vegetated shorelines.

• Build steep shorelines to decrease vegetation and increase wave actions.

• Avoid flooding terrestrial vegetation in flat terrain or low lying areas.
Appendix L – Best Management Practices

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS Appendix L-5

• Construct dams or impoundments that restrict down slope seepage or overflow.

• Line the channel where discharge water flows into the pond with crushed rock.

• Construct spillway with steep sides and line it with crushed rock.

15. Treat waters with larvicides to reduce mosquito production where water occurs on the surface.

16. Restrict pit and impoundment construction to reduce or eliminate threats from West Nile virus.

Noise

1. Limit noise to less than 10 decibels above ambient measures (20 to 24 dBA) at sunrise at the 

perimeter of a lek during active lek season.

2. Require noise shields when drilling during the lek, nesting, brood-rearing, or wintering season.

3. Locate new compressor stations outside priority habitats and design them to reduce noise that may 

be directed towards priority habitat.

4. Require sage-grouse safe fences.

Reclamation

1. Include objectives for ensuring habitat restoration to meet sage-grouse habitat needs in reclamation 

practices/sites. Address post reclamation management in reclamation plan such that goals and 

objectives are to protect and improve sage-grouse habitat needs.

2. Maximize the area of interim reclamation on long‐term access roads and well pads, including 

reshaping, topsoiling, and revegetating cut-and-fill slopes.

3. Restore disturbed areas at final reclamation to the pre‐disturbance landforms and desired plant 

community.

4. Implement irrigation during interim or final reclamation for sites where establishment of seedlings 

has been shown or is expected to be difficult due to dry conditions. Utilize mulching techniques to 

expedite reclamation.

5. Use mulching, soil amendments, and/or erosion blankets to expedite reclamation and to protect 

soils.

6. Address post reclamation management in reclamation plan such that goals and objectives are to 

protect and improve sage‐grouse habitat needs.

7. Minimize surface-disturbing or disrupting activities (including operations and maintenance) where 

needed to reduce the impacts of human activities on important seasonal sage-grouse habitats. 

Apply these measures during project level planning.

8. When conducting NEPA analysis for wild horse and burro management activities, water 

developments or other rangeland improvements for wild horses in priority sage‐grouse habitat, 

address (and apply conservation measures as appropriate) the direct and indirect effects to 

sage‐grouse populations and habitat.

9. During activity level planning, where appropriate, designate routes with current 

administrative/agency purpose or need to administrative access only.

10. Identify and work with partners to increase native seed availability and work with plant material 

centers to develop new plant materials, especially the forbs needed to restore sage-grouse habitat
Appendix L – Best Management Practices

Appendix L-6 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

11. Consider potential changes in climate when proposing seedings using native plants. Consider seed 

collections from the warmer component within a species’ current range for selection of native seed.

12. Use Ecological Site Descriptions (ESDs) or other protocols could be used (e.g., TEUI or LSI) to identify 

the understory species and sagebrush subspecies needed to restore desirable habitat conditions.

Vegetation Treatments/Fire and Fuels Management

1. During vegetation management project design, consider the utility of using livestock to strategically 

reduce fine fuels, and implement grazing management that will accomplish this objective. Consult 

with ecologists to minimize impacts to native perennial grasses.

2. Provide to personnel planning vegetation treatments information on sage‐grouse biology, habitat 

requirements, and identification of areas utilized locally.

3. Use vegetation treatment prescriptions that minimize undesirable effects on vegetation or soils 

(e.g., minimize mortality of desirable plant species and reduce risk of hydrophobicity.

4. Ensure proposed sagebrush treatments are planned with interdisciplinary input from BLM/FS and 

/or state wildlife agency biologist and that treatment acreage is conservative in the context of 

surrounding sage-grouse seasonal habitats and landscape.

5. Ensure that treatments are configured in a manner (e.g., strips) that promotes use by sage‐grouse.

6. Where appropriate, incorporate roads and natural fuels breaks into fuels break design.

7. Power‐wash all vehicles and equipment involved in vegetation treatment activities prior to entering 

the area to minimize the introduction of undesirable and/or invasive plant species.

8. Design vegetation treatments in areas of high wildfire frequency to facilitate firefighter and public 

safety, reduce the risk of extreme fire behavior; and to reduce the risk and rate of fire spread to 

sage-grouse habitats.

9. Restore prior perennial grass/shrub plant communities infested with non-native invasive species to 

a species composition characterized by perennial grasses, forbs, and shrubs as outlined in ESDs.

10. Emphasize the use of native plant species, recognizing that non-native species may be necessary 

depending on the availability of native seed and prevailing site conditions.

11. Reduce the risk of vehicle or human‐caused wildfires and the spread of invasive species into sagegrouse habitats could be minimized by planting perennial vegetation (e.g., green‐strips) paralleling 

road rights‐of‐way (This BMP could be applied to BLM linear ROW authorizations).

12. Strategically place and maintain pre‐treated strips/areas (e.g., mowing, herbicide application, and 

strictly managed grazed strips) to aid in controlling wildfire should wildfire occur near sage-grouse 

key habitats or important restoration areas (such as where investments in restoration have already 

been made).

13. Design vegetation treatments in sage-grouse habitats to strategically reduce wildfire threats in the 

greatest area. This may involve spatially arranging new vegetation treatments with past treatments, 

vegetation with fire-resistant serial stages, natural barriers, and roads in order to constrain fire 

spread and growth. This may require vegetation treatments to be implemented in a more linear 

versus block design.

14. Design post Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation (ES&R) and BAER management to ensure 

long term persistence of seeded or pre-burn native plants. This may require temporary or long-term 

changes in livestock grazing, wild horse and burro, and travel management, etc., to achieve and 
Appendix L – Best Management Practices

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS Appendix L-7

maintain the desired condition of ES&R and BAER projects to benefit sage-grouse. Include 

sage‐grouse habitat parameters as defined by Connelly et al., Hagen et al. or if available, State 

Sage‐Grouse Conservation plans and appropriate local information in habitat restoration objectives. 

Make maintaining these objectives within priority sage‐grouse habitat areas a high restoration 

priority.

15. Make re‐establishment of sagebrush and desirable understory plant cover (relative to ecological site 

potential) a high priority for restoration efforts. Write specific vegetation objectives to reestablish 

sage-brush cover and desirable understory cover.

16. Where applicable, design fuels treatment objective to protect existing sagebrush ecosystems, 

modify fire behavior, restore native plants, and create landscape patters which most benefit sagegrouse habitat.

17. Provide training to fuels treatment personnel on sage-grouse biology, habitat requirements, and 

identification of areas utilized locally.

18. Use fire prescriptions that minimize undesirable effects on vegetation or soils (e.g., minimize 

mortality of desirable perennial plant species and reduce risk of hydrophobicity).

19. Ensure proposed sagebrush treatments are planned with interdisciplinary input from BLM, FS 

and/or state wildlife agency biologist and that treatment acreage is conservative in the context of 

surrounding sage-grouse seasonal habitats and landscape.

20. Where appropriate, ensure that treatments are configured in a manner (e.g., strips) that promotes 

use by sage-grouse.

21. Where applicable, incorporate roads and natural fuel breaks into fuel break design.

22. Power‐wash all firefighting vehicles, including engines, water tenders, personnel vehicles, and ATVs 

prior to deploying in or near sage‐grouse habitat areas to minimize noxious weed spread.

23. Design vegetation treatment in areas of high frequency to facilitate firefighting safety, reduce the 

risk of extreme fire behavior; and to reduce the risk and rate of fire spread to sage-grouse key 

habitats and restoration habitats.

24. Give priority for implementing specific sage-grouse habitat restoration projects in annual grasslands 

first to sites which are adjacent to or surrounded by sage-grouse key habitats. Annual grasslands 

are second priority for restoration when the sites not adjacent to key habitat, but within two miles 

of key habitat. The third priority for annual grasslands habitat restoration projects are sites beyond 

two miles of key habitat. The intent is to focus restoration outward from existing, intact habitat.

25. As funding and logistics permit, restore annual grasslands to a species composition characterized by 

perennial grasses, forbs, and shrubs.

26. Emphasize the use of native plant species, recognizing that non-native species may be necessary 

depending on the availability of native seed and prevailing site conditions.

27. Remove standing and encroaching trees within at least 100 meters of occupied sage-grouse leks and 

other habitats (e.g., nesting, wintering, and brood rearing) to reduce the availability of perch sites 

for avian predators, as appropriate, and resources permit.

28. Protect wildland areas from wildfire originating on private lands, infrastructure corridors, and 

recreational areas.
Appendix L – Best Management Practices

Appendix L-8 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

29. Develop state‐specific sage‐grouse reference information and resource materials containing maps, a 

list of resource advisors, contact information, local guidance, and other relevant information.

30. Provide localized maps to dispatch offices and extended attack incident commanders for use in 

prioritizing wildfire suppression resources and designing suppression tactics.

31. Assign a sage‐grouse resource advisor to all extended attack fires in or near priority sage‐grouse 

habitat areas. Prior to the fire season, provide training to sage‐grouse resource advisors on wildfire 

suppression organization, objectives, tactics, and procedures to develop a cadre of qualified 

individuals.

32. On critical fire weather days, pre‐position additional fire suppression resources to optimize a quick 

and efficient response in sage‐grouse habitat areas.

33. During periods of multiple fires, ensure line officers are involved in setting priorities.

34. Locate wildfire suppression facilities (i.e., base camps, spike camps, drop points, staging areas, and 

heli‐bases) in areas where physical disturbance to sage‐grouse habitat can be minimized. These 

include disturbed areas, grasslands, near roads/trails or in other areas where there is existing 

disturbance or minimal sagebrush cover.

35. Minimize unnecessary cross‐country vehicle travel during fire operations in sage‐grouse habitat.

36. Minimize burnout operations in key sage‐grouse habitats by constructing direct firelines whenever 

safe and practical to do so.

37. Utilize retardant and mechanized equipment to minimize burned acreage during initial attack.

38. As safety allows, conduct mop‐up where the black adjoins unburned islands, dog legs, or other 

habitat features to minimize sagebrush loss.

Fire Operations Best Management Practices for Sage-Grouse Conservation

1. Compile district-level information into state-wide sage-grouse tool boxes. Tool boxes will contain 

maps, listing of resource advisors, contact information, local guidance, and other relevant 

information for each district, which will be aggregated into a state-wide document.

2. Provide localized maps to dispatch offices and extended attack incident commanders for use in 

prioritizing wildfire suppression resources and designing suppression tactics.

3. Assign a resource advisor with sage-grouse expertise, or who has access to sage-grouse expertise, to 

all extended attack fires in or near sage-grouse habitat areas. Prior to the fire season, provide 

training to sage-grouse resource advisors on wildfire suppression organization, objectives, tactics, 

and procedures to develop a cadre of qualified individuals.

4. On critical fire weather days, pre-position additional fire suppression resources to optimize a quick 

and efficient response in sage-grouse habitat areas.

5. As appropriate, utilize existing fuel breaks, such as roads or discrete changes in fuel type, as control 

lines in order to minimize fire spread.

6. During periods of multiple fires, ensure line officers are involved in setting priorities.

7. To the extent possible, locate wildfire suppression facilities (i.e., base camps, spike camps, drop 

points, staging areas, heli-bases, etc.) in areas where physical disturbance to sage-grouse habitat can 

be minimized. These include disturbed areas, grasslands, near roads/trails or in other areas where 

there is existing disturbance or minimal sagebrush cover.
Appendix L – Best Management Practices

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS Appendix L-9

8. Power-wash all firefighting vehicles, to the extent possible, including engines, water tenders, 

personnel vehicles, and all-terrain vehicles (ATV) prior to deploying in or near sage-grouse habitat 

areas to minimize noxious weed spread.

9. Minimize unnecessary cross-country vehicle travel during fire operations in sage-grouse habitat.

10. Minimize burnout operations in key sage-grouse habitat areas by constructing direct fireline 

whenever safe and practical to do so.

11. Utilize retardant, mechanized equipment, and other available resources to minimize burned acreage 

during initial attack.

12. As safety allows, conduct mop-up where the black adjoins unburned islands, dog legs, or other

habitat features to minimize sagebrush loss.

13. Adequately document fire operation activities in sage-grouse habitat for potential follow-up 

coordination activities.

Fuels Management Best Management Practices for Sage-Grouse Conservation

1. Where applicable, design fuels treatment objectives to protect existing sagebrush ecosystems, 

modify fire behavior, restore native plants, and create landscape patterns which most benefit sagegrouse habitat.

2. Provide training to fuels treatment personnel on sage-grouse biology, habitat requirements, and 

identification of areas utilized locally.

3. Use burning prescriptions which minimize undesirable effects on vegetation or soils (e.g., minimize 

mortality of desirable perennial plant species and reduce risk of annual grass invasion).

4. Ensure proposed sagebrush treatments are planned with full interdisciplinary input pursuant to 

NEPA and coordination with state fish and wildlife agencies, and that treatment acreage is 

conservative in the context of surrounding sage-grouse seasonal habitats and landscape.

5. Where appropriate, ensure that treatments are configured in a manner that promotes use by sagegrouse.

6. Where applicable, incorporate roads and natural fuel breaks into fuel break design.

7. Power-wash all vehicles and equipment involved in fuels management activities, prior to entering 

the area, to minimize the introduction of undesirable and/or invasive plant species.

8. Design vegetation treatments in areas of high fire frequency which facilitate firefighter safety, 

reduce the potential acres burned, and reduce the fire risk to sage-grouse habitat. Additionally, 

develop maps for sage-grouse habitat which spatially display current fuels treatment opportunities 

for suppression resources.

9. Give priority for implementing specific sage-grouse habitat restoration projects in annual grasslands, 

first to sites which are adjacent to or surrounded by preliminary priority habitat (PPH) or that 

reestablish continuity between priority habitats. Annual grasslands are a second priority for 

restoration when the sites are not adjacent to PPH, but within two miles of PPH. The third priority 

for annual grassland habitat restoration projects are sites beyond two miles of PPH. The intent is to 

focus restoration outward from existing, intact habitat.

10. As funding and logistics permit, restore annual grasslands to a species composition characterized by 

perennial grasses, forbs, and shrubs or one of that referenced in land use planning documentation.
Appendix L – Best Management Practices

Appendix L-10 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

11. Emphasize the use of native plant species, recognizing that non-native species may be necessary 

depending on the availability of native seed and prevailing site conditions.

12. Remove standing and encroaching trees within at least 100 meters of occupied sage-grouse leks and 

other habitats (e.g., nesting, wintering and brood rearing) to reduce the availability of perch sites for 

avian predators, as resources permit.

13. Protect wildland areas from wildfire originating on private lands, infrastructure corridors, and 

recreational areas.

8.0 REFERENCES

Sage-Grouse NTT (National Technical Team). 2011. A Report on National Greater Sage-Grouse 

Conservation Measures. December.
Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Bighorn Basin Resource Management Plan Revision Project

Appendix P

Livestock Grazing

Appendix M

Appendix N

Appendix O

Appendix P

Appendix P – Livestock Grazing

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS Appendix P-1

APPENDIX P

LIVESTOCK GRAZING

NOTE: Appendix P of the Draft RMP and Draft EIS is updated to include livestock grazing allotments in 

greater sage-grouse Core Habitat Areas. Add Table P-3 after Table P-2 in Appendix P of the Draft RMP 

and Draft EIS (page P-28).

The determination of retirement of grazing privileges of allotments or portions of allotments in greater 

sage-grouse Core Habitat Areas would be made upon site specific National Environmental Policy Act 

analysis.

SEIS Table P-3. Current Livestock Grazing Allotments or Portions of Allotments in

Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas

Allotment Number Allotment Name Management Category

01513 BLACK MOUNTAIN I

01510 FOX MOUNTAIN I

01535 SOUTH SHELL GROUP I

01507 BUSH BUTTE I

01525 POTATO I

01519 SOUTH SHELL I

00065 SHEEP SPRINGS M

01526 SABIN I

00189 JOLLY PASTURE I

00002 WEBER LOWER I

00143 MEDICINE LODGE I

00674 NORTH TATMAN C

00066 MEYERS SPRING I

00188 SMALL PASTURE I

00639 TATMAN MT COMMON I

00094 RED HILLS I

00218 WEST ALKALI I

00217 EAST ALKALI I

00640 SNYDER I

00003 COLD SPRINGS I

00095 FORKS I

02527 UNALLOTTED -

1

00221 PARKER I

00092 PAINTROCK CANYON I

00669 ALLEN BASIN I

00527 BLACKSTONE C
Appendix P – Livestock Grazing

Appendix P-2 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

SEIS Table P-3. Current Livestock Grazing Allotments or Portions of Allotments in

Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas

Allotment Number Allotment Name Management Category

00618 NORTH BLACKSTONE C

00059 NORTH HOUSE C

00652 BADGER GULCH I

00136 BLACK HILLS C

00005 SOUTHSIDE GROUP I

00213 EAST HYATTVILLE C

00047 HYATTVILLE IND. I

00004 GAPEN HYATT I

00526 RIMROCK BASIN I

00004 GAPEN HYATT I

00200 SOUTH INDIVIDUAL -

1

00148 RENNER INDIVIDUAL I

02562 MEETEETSE-EAST M

00682 HUNT OIL 15 MILE I

00676 PITCHFORK I

00025 NOWOOD INDIVIDUAL I

00663 COW PASTURE C

02701 STATE -

1

00005 SOUTHSIDE GROUP I

00508 NO. GOOSEBERRY I

00670 UPPER 15 MILE C

00662 ENRIGHT I

00604 LU I

00579 HILLBERRY RIM I

00031 BROKENBACK I

00171 EAST NOWOOD C

00604 LU I

00623 NORTH HIGHWAY C

00579 HILLBERRY RIM I

00545 GRASS POINT I

00021 LITTLE COTTONWOOD I

00132 BIG COTTONWOOD CREEK I

SDW W-T STOCK DRIVE -

1

00008 CASTLE GARDENS I

00579 HILLBERRY RIM I

00523 HIGHWAY JUNCTION I

00009 KIMBALL I
Appendix P – Livestock Grazing

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS Appendix P-3

SEIS Table P-3. Current Livestock Grazing Allotments or Portions of Allotments in

Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas

Allotment Number Allotment Name Management Category

00215 DEEDED I

00164 COTTONWOOD-N.BUTTE I

00507 SO. GOOSEBERRY GROUP I

00185 HEALY C

00616 HOME M

00622 SOUTH HIGHWAY I

00007 WORLAND CATTLE GROUP I

00107 HONEY COMBS I

00168 LOWER SPRING CREEK I

00122 HARVARD INDIVIDUAL M

00153 DENVER JAKE DRAW C

00042 EAST FORK I

00110 BUD KIMBALL I

00160 SPRING CREEK COMMON I

00637 ADAM WEISS PEAK I

00522 GRASS CREEK I

00037 NORTH BUTTE I

00580 COAL MINE I

00678 SOUTH GRASS CREEK I

00109 COYOTE SPRINGS C

00048 NEIBER I

02003 ROSE MTN M

00216 MUD GULCH M

00129 MAZET M

00127 OTTER CREEK PASTURES I

00028 UPPER NOWOOD C

00074 ANTELOPE DRAW I

00531 SPRING GULCH I

00163 DEMER NOWATER I

00145 CEDAR RIDGE M

00521 LOWER COTTONWOOD I

00159 TIE DOWN C

00011 JOE HENRY I

00133 POTTER BUTTE I

02008 BOX CANYON I

00024 BECKLEY I

00127 OTTER CREEK PASTURES I
Appendix P – Livestock Grazing

Appendix P-4 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

SEIS Table P-3. Current Livestock Grazing Allotments or Portions of Allotments in

Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas

Allotment Number Allotment Name Management Category

00535 WEST COTTONWOOD C

00111 OTTER CREEK I

00529 PROSPECT COMMON I

00620 PROSPECT I

00665 NELSON M

00130 LOWER V'S I

00014 MILESKI BADLANDS I

00112 FAURE NOWATER I

00019 DOUBLE H I

02007 OTTER CREEK MOUNTAIN I

00105 NOWATER I

00633 UPPER PASTURES I

00041 FATTY ALLEN I

00590 LITTLE SAND DRAW I

00060 MESA M

00641 SWING INDIVIDUAL C

00199 BIG CEDAR I

00573 WAGONHOUND BENCH I

00010 GORDON M

00015 LOWER NOWATER I

00120 BUFFALO CREEK I

00061 AINSWORTH INDIVIDUAL M

00603 PISTOL DRAW C

00012 BIG TRAILS GROUP I

00721 URWIN HOMESTEAD C

00062 AINSWORTH I

00141 GREET INDIVIDUAL M

00076 LOWER WALKER I

00557 RAMUL INDIVIDUAL M

00722 WALES HOMESTEAD C

00018 UPPER NOWATER I

00634 LOWER PASTURES I

00504 HAMILTON DOME I

00596 WAGONHOUND I

00656 SAND DRAW I

00591 ZIMMERMAN SPRINGS I

UNALL UNALLOTTED (2009) -

1
Appendix P – Livestock Grazing

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS Appendix P-5

SEIS Table P-3. Current Livestock Grazing Allotments or Portions of Allotments in

Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas

Allotment Number Allotment Name Management Category

00636 HAYNES C

00157 SOUTH BUTTE M

00193 LITTLE MUD CREEK I

00571 ZIMMERMAN BUTTES I

00119 BLUEBANK M

00680 LAKE CREEK PASTURE C

00553 RICHMOND I

00524 COTTONWOOD CREEK I

00556 21 CREEK I

00080 NORTH MURPHY DOME I

00097 DEADLINE DRAW M

00558 BUCK CREEK I

00118 SCORPION I

00098 SLOPE -

1

00089 BIG BEND I

00607 LAKE I

00562 GARDNER BADLANDS I

00720 PUTNEY PLACE C

00661 THREE PEAKS ANCHOR I

00685 BRAMAH I

00589 KIRBY CREEK I

00570 RED SPRINGS DRAW I

00681 SPRING CREEK I

00501 BLUE SPRINGS I

00537 PADLOCK I

00123 BUFFALO SAND POINT I

00593 HAMILTON RIM M

00071 CHALK BUTTE M

00613 PUTNEY FLAT M

00077 MIDDLE WALKER I

00551 COULEE-MILL IRON M

00582 MILL IRON-EAST M

00147 WEST ALLOTMENT I

00146 EAST ALLOTMENT I

00540 BRIDGES C

00191 LOWER BLACK MTN DRAW I

00608 VASS C
Appendix P – Livestock Grazing

Appendix P-6 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

SEIS Table P-3. Current Livestock Grazing Allotments or Portions of Allotments in

Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas

Allotment Number Allotment Name Management Category

00585 NORTH HART I

00654 AYERS INDIVIDUAL I

00614 RATTLESNAKE I

00533 HOME RANCH I

00210 WILLOW CREEK I

00569 CURTIS I

00205 WEST BLACK MOUNTAIN I

00049 MURPHY DOME I

00568 BASIN I

00158 SEAMAN I

00661 THREE PEAKS ANCHOR I

00078 UPPER WALKER I

00569 CURTIS I

00587 TYPER PASTURE C

00081 LOWER ARNOLD I

00192 UPPER BLACK MTN DRAW I

00035 BUFFALO CANYON I

00586 SOUTH HART C

00182 BUTTES I

00070 S V I

00610 SOUTH OWL CREEK I

00563 WINTER CAMP I

00051 FARLEY I

00583 MUD CREEK PASTURE C

00082 UPPER ARNOLD I

02547 V PASTURE I

00067 DEETER M

00572 EAGLE DRAW M

02539 RED CANYON I

00592 WILD HORSE BUTTE I

00050 MUD CREEK I

00069 MAHOGANY BUTTE I

02546 MAJOR BASIN I

00124 WEST SIDE SUMMER I

00195 LOWER BLACK MTN. I

02543 SWALLOW I

00572 EAGLE DRAW M
Appendix P – Livestock Grazing

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS Appendix P-7

SEIS Table P-3. Current Livestock Grazing Allotments or Portions of Allotments in

Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas

Allotment Number Allotment Name Management Category

00088 PATRAS I

00083 K I S I

02512 BILLYS FLATS M

02514 V-H DRAW I

02509 PEAK I

00648 SHUMWAY INDIVIDUAL I

02506 DYE I

02512 BILLYS FLATS M

02536 BLUE HILL I

02549 HAWKS BUTTE I

02542 STUMP I

02507 BRIDGER CREEK I

02505 LOWER RED CANYON I

02559 SLOPE PASTURE I

00206 BEAR CREEK COMMON I

00223 WOOD'S SPLIT ROCK I

00087 MOUNTAIN IND M

02020 TANNER-MOUNTAIN I

02560 LYSITE CREEK I

02531 JENKS CREEK I

00655 COPPER MTN I

02503 GRIDER BASIN I

00125 EAST SIDE SUMMER I

00086 DAUGHERTY DEWITT M

02554 REED CREEK I

00053 RANCH C

02017 HALL BUTTE M

02012 NATRONA M

02512 BILLYS FLATS M

02559 SLOPE PASTURE I

00090 SPLIT ROCK - V'S I

00204 NORTH OF DITCH I

01517 SOUTH INDIVIDUAL (WRA) C

02534 RENNER SECTION 15 I

03038 NEW HIGHWAY M

03011 HEART MOUNTAIN NORTH M

03026 HILL C
Appendix P – Livestock Grazing

Appendix P-8 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

SEIS Table P-3. Current Livestock Grazing Allotments or Portions of Allotments in

Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas

Allotment Number Allotment Name Management Category

03086 CHAPMAN BENCH 3086 I

00629 RANKINE I

02535 MEETEETSE RIM 2535 M

01013 BEAR CREEK I

01010 MEXICAN HILLS C

01023 CRYSTAL CREEK I

03084 BIG DIPPER M

01026 BURNHAM M

01089 NATURAL TRAP I

03006 COAL CREEK M

03049 HAFFEY PLACE C

01080 CHAPMAN BENCH 1080 I

01076 CLARK C

01085 INDIVIDUAL 1085 C

03094 DRY CREEK 3094 M

02561 MEETEETSE CREEK 2561 M

03079 RED CABIN M

01027 MOSS RANCH I

01072 SORENSEN M

03008 SAGE CREEK ADDITION I

03074 ALEZANDER M

03010 OSBORN M

03063 EL M

03065 TRAILING PASTURE I

03061 LITTLE DRY CREEK M

01068 BOUNDARY WELL 1068 M

03110 BOUNDARY WELL 3110 M

01087 BADLANDS I

01528 COTTONWOOD CREEK WILDLIFE EXCLOSURE M

01067 FERNANDEZ M

03022 FERNANDEZ 15 M

01028 LITTLE MOUNTAIN I

02523 KUKLA SECTION 15 -

1

01048 DRY CREEK 1048 M

03092 PETERSON M

01047 COUNTY LINE M

01084 THREE M C
Appendix P – Livestock Grazing

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS Appendix P-9

SEIS Table P-3. Current Livestock Grazing Allotments or Portions of Allotments in

Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas

Allotment Number Allotment Name Management Category

01522 WEST OF RANCH I

01019 NORTH BEAVER C

01018 INDIVIDUAL 1018 I

01017 BEAVER CREEK 1017 M

03062 UPPER SAGE PASTURE C

01501 CEDAR CREEK I

01509 RED CANYON I

01016 HOME PLACE C

01075 CLARKSFORK I

03114 HORSE CENTER M

03051 COTTONWOOD CREEK M

03053 TRAIL CREEK I

01005 GRAVEL CROSSING M

03012 QUESTION CREEK I

03117 HOLDING PASTURE C

03116 HEART MOUNTAIN SOUTH 3116 M

03103 SIMPSON M

03099 HEART MOUNTAIN SOUTH 3099 C

03071 WILEY RIM M

03119 RUSH CREEK M

02553 WINNIGER M

03031 MEETEETSE CREEK 3031 C

02545 91 RANCH M

03091 YU BENCH - WEST I

02806 SOUTH Y U BENCH I

03104 LONE TREE I

01046 BENCH CANAL M

01086 SCHLAF/COMMON M

03068 OREGON COULEE I

02551 COTTONWOOD M

01516 SUNLIGHT I

03048 HOODOO BASE M

00628 HOLE IN THE GROUND I

03100 BIG BEND C

01534 ONE TWENTY ONE I

03064 LOWER SAGE CREEK M

02564 HOMESTEAD/AVENT M
Appendix P – Livestock Grazing

Appendix P-10 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

SEIS Table P-3. Current Livestock Grazing Allotments or Portions of Allotments in

Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas

Allotment Number Allotment Name Management Category

03029 OREGON BASIN I

01074 KEYSTONE 1074 C

03069 LOWER YU BENCH I

03035 EAGLE PASS I

01065 YU BENCH C

03009 KEYSTONE 3009 M

03090 YU BENCH - EAST I

03102 BENCH I

03052 LAKE M

03113 OILWELL M

03073 RIMROCK M

01073 SAGE CREEK GROUP I

01002 WHISTLE CREEK I

01069 PEAKS 1069 I

03112 STONE BARN 15 I

03088 RECLAMATION 15 I

03067 RED POINT I

00666 RECLAMATION I

01060 EAST/WEST I

01057 POLECAT-FRANNIE C

01003 STATELINE M

01061 INDIVIDUAL 1061 C

01071 POLECAT BENCH I

03089 NEWMEYER CREEK M

00683 SOUTH SLEEPER -

1

00510 FERNANDEZ BLU-JAY -

1

1

Information not available for allotment.

C Custodial

I Improve

M Maintain
Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Bighorn Basin Resource Management Plan Revision Project

Appendix R

Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management

Appendix Q

Appendix R

Appendix R – Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS Appendix R-1

APPENDIX R

COMPREHENSIVE TRAVEL AND TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT

3.0 TRAVEL MANAGEMENT MATRIX

NOTE: Table R-1 (which shows travel management designations in specific locations across the Planning 

Area by alternative) from the Draft RMP and Draft EIS (pages R-19 to R-24) is augmented to include the 

addition of the new alternatives E and F. Because these new alternatives only differ from alternatives B 

and D from the Draft RMP and Draft EIS in the addition of the Greater Sage-Grouse Key and Core Habitat 

Area ACECs, only travel management designations related those ACECs are included below. These new 

travel management designations are appended to the travel management matrix from the draft NEPA 

document.
Appendix R – Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management

Appendix R-2 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Table R-1. Travel Management Matrix

Field

Office ALTERNATIVE E ALTERNATIVE F

AREA C

1 W2 CLOSED LIMITED TO 

EXISTING

LIMITED

TO 

DESIGNATED

OPEN NO SEPARATE 

DESIGNATION3

OVERSNOW4

CLOSURE

CLOSED LIMITED TO 

EXISTING

LIMITED

TO 

DESIGNATED

OPEN NO SEPARATE 

DESIGNATION3

OVERSNOW

CLOSURE

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs)

Greater Sage-Grouse 

Core Habitat Areas    

Greater Sage-Grouse 

Key Habitat Areas    

1

Cody Field Office

2

Worland Field Office

3

Areas with no separate travel management designation are areas with no specific travel management designation under the alternative. Travel Management in these areas is managed consistent 

with other resource objectives. If no other travel management applies, motorized vehicle use is limited to existing roads and trails. 4

Areas open to over-snow vehicle travel under Alternative E must have a minimum average of 12 inches of snow or be recognized as a groomed motorized trail. If these conditions do not exist then 

the over-land travel decisions regulate travel in the area.

ACEC Area of Critical Environmental Concern
Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Bighorn Basin Resource Management Plan Revision Project

Appendix T 

Surface Disturbance and Reasonable Foreseeable Actions

Appendix S

Appendix T

Appendix T – Surface Disturbance and Reasonable Foreseeable Actions

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS Appendix T-1 

APPENDIX T 

SURFACE DISTURBANCE AND REASONABLE FORESEEABLE ACTIONS

NOTE: Replace Appendix T of the Draft RMP and Draft EIS with the revised Appendix T below, which incorporates reasonable foreseeable actions 

for new alternatives E and F.

1.0 SUMMARY OF REASONABLE FORESEEABLE ACTIONS 

This appendix includes information on surface disturbance and reasonable foreseeable actions within the Planning Area. Table T-1 provides 

projected acres of surface disturbance by resource. Table T-2 provides foreseeable development project assumptions by resource; the projected 

surface disturbances in Table T-1 are based on the project assumptions in Table T-2. 

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

Type of Disturbance Alternative 

A

Alternative 

B

Alternative 

C

Alternative 

D

Alternative 

E

Alternative 

F

Mineral Resources – Leasable Oil and Gas (includes CBNG)

Acres Short-Term Disturbance from BLM Actions 3,390 1,527 3,771 3,096 1,527 2,920

 Acres Reclaimed from BLM Actions 2,021 910 2,251 1,850 910 1,742 

Acres Long-Term Disturbance from BLM Actions 1,369 617 1,520 1,246 617 1,178

 Acres Short-Term Disturbance from Non-BLM Actions 1,533 1,533 1,533 1,533 1,533 1533 

Acres Reclaimed from Non-BLM Actions 913 913 913 913 913 913

 Acres Long-Term Disturbance from Non-BLM Actions 620 620 620 620 620 620 

Mineral Resources – Locatable

Acres Short-Term Disturbance from BLM Actions 20,000 15,000 20,000 20,000 15,000 20,000

 Acres Reclaimed from BLM Actions 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 

Acres Long-Term Disturbance from BLM Actions 10,000 5,000 10,000 10,000 5,000 10,000

 Acres Short-Term Disturbance from Non-BLM Actions 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 

 Acres Reclaimed from Non-BLM Actions 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 

 Acres Long-Term Disturbance from Non-BLM Actions 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 
Appendix T – Surface Disturbance and Reasonable Foreseeable Actions

Appendix T-2 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

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

Type of Disturbance Alternative 

A

Alternative 

B

Alternative 

C

Alternative 

D

Alternative 

E

Alternative 

F

Mineral Resources – Salable Minerals

Acres Short-Term Disturbance from BLM Actions 2,000 800 2,000 1,800 800 1,800

 Acres Reclaimed from BLM Actions 400 200 400 450 200 450 

Acres Long-Term Disturbance from BLM Actions 1,600 600 1,600 1,350 600 1,350

 Acres Short-Term Disturbance from Non-BLM Actions 2,800 2,800 2,800 2,800 2,800 2,800 

Acres Reclaimed from Non-BLM Actions 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200

 Acres Long-Term Disturbance from Non-BLM Actions 1,600 1,600 1,600 1,600 1,600 1,600 

Mineral Resources – Other Solid Leasables

 Acres Short-Term Disturbance from BLM Actions 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Acres Reclaimed from BLM Actions 0 0 0 0 0 0

 Acres Long-Term Disturbance from BLM Actions 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Acres Short-Term Disturbance from Non-BLM Actions 200 200 200 200 200 200

 Acres Reclaimed from Non-BLM Actions 40 40 40 40 40 40 

Acres Long-Term Disturbance from Non-BLM Actions 160 160 160 160 160 160

Mineral Resources – Leasable Geothermal1

Acres Short-Term Disturbance from BLM Actions 0 0 0 0 0 0

 Acres Reclaimed from BLM Actions 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Acres Long-Term Disturbance from BLM Actions 0 0 0 0 0 0

 Acres Short-Term Disturbance from Non-BLM Actions 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Acres Reclaimed from Non-BLM Actions 0 0 0 0 0 0

 Acres Long-Term Disturbance from Non-BLM Actions 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Fire and Fuels Management2,3

Prescribed Fire

 Acres Short-Term Disturbance from BLM Actions 40,000 20,000 80,000 40,000 18,000 40,000 

Acres Reclaimed from BLM Actions 40,000 20,000 80,000 40,000 18,000 40,000

 Acres Long-Term Disturbance from BLM Actions 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Acres Short-Term Disturbance from Non-BLM Actions 0 0 0 0 0 0

 Acres Reclaimed from Non-BLM Actions 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Acres Long-Term Disturbance from Non-BLM Actions 0 0 0 0 0 0
Appendix T – Surface Disturbance and Reasonable Foreseeable Actions

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS Appendix T-3 

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

Type of Disturbance Alternative 

A

Alternative 

B

Alternative 

C

Alternative 

D

Alternative 

E

Alternative 

F

Mechanical Fuels Treatment

Acres Short-Term Disturbance from BLM Actions 30,000 5,000 60,000 30,000 5,000 30,000

 Acres Reclaimed from BLM Actions 30,000 5,000 60,000 30,000 5,000 30,000 

Acres Long-Term Disturbance from BLM Actions 0 0 0 0 0 0

 Acres Short-Term Disturbance from Non-BLM Actions 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Acres Reclaimed from Non-BLM Actions 0 0 0 0 0 0

 Acres Long-Term Disturbance from Non-BLM Actions 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Forest, Woodlands, and Forest Products

 Acres Short-Term Disturbance from BLM Actions 30,000 20,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 30,000 

Acres Reclaimed from BLM Actions 30,000 20,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 30,000

 Acres Long-Term Disturbance from BLM Actions 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Acres Short-Term Disturbance from Non-BLM Actions4 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000

 Acres Reclaimed from Non-BLM Actions 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 

Acres Long-Term Disturbance from Non-BLM Actions 0 0 0 0 0 0

Invasive Species and Pest Management3,5

Acres Short-Term Disturbance from BLM Actions 2,000 100 4,000 2,000 100 2000

 Acres Reclaimed from BLM Actions 2,000 100 4,000 2,000 100 2000 

Acres Long-Term Disturbance from BLM Actions 0 0 0 0 0 0

 Acres Short-Term Disturbance from Non-BLM Actions 200 200 200 200 200 200 

Acres Reclaimed from Non-BLM Actions 200 200 200 200 200 200

 Acres Long-Term Disturbance from Non-BLM Actions 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Fish and Wildlife Resources

Fisheries and Stream Enhancement Activities

 Acres Short-Term Disturbance from BLM Actions 0 91 0 0 91 0 

Acres Reclaimed from BLM Actions 0 91 0 0 91 0

 Acres Long-Term Disturbance from BLM Actions 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 Acres Short-Term Disturbance from Non-BLM Actions4 38 38 38 38 38 38 

 Acres Reclaimed from Non-BLM Actions 38 38 38 38 38 38 

Acres Long-Term Disturbance from Non-BLM Actions 0 0 0 0 0 0
Appendix T – Surface Disturbance and Reasonable Foreseeable Actions

Appendix T-4 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

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

Type of Disturbance Alternative 

A

Alternative 

B

Alternative 

C

Alternative 

D

Alternative 

E

Alternative 

F

Watershed Enhancement Projects

Acres Short-Term Disturbance from BLM Actions 781 1,562 391 781 1,562 781

 Acres Reclaimed from BLM Actions 550 1,100 225 550 1,100 550 

Acres Long-Term Disturbance from BLM Actions 231 462 166 231 462 166

 Acres Short-Term Disturbance from Non-BLM Actions 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Acres Reclaimed from Non-BLM Actions 0 0 0 0 0 0

 Acres Long-Term Disturbance from Non-BLM Actions 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Health and Safety – Abandoned Facilities and AML

Abandoned Facilities

 Acres Short-Term Disturbance from BLM Actions 200 200 200 200 200 200 

 Acres Reclaimed from BLM Actions 200 200 200 200 200 200 

 Acres Long-Term Disturbance from BLM Actions 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 Acres Short-Term Disturbance from Non-BLM Actions 200 200 200 200 200 200 

Acres Reclaimed from Non-BLM Actions 200 200 200 200 200 200

 Acres Long-Term Disturbance from Non-BLM Actions 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Abandoned Mine Lands Restoration

Acres Short-Term Disturbance from BLM Actions 0 0 0 0 0 0

 Acres Reclaimed from BLM Actions 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Acres Long-Term Disturbance from BLM Actions 0 0 0 0 0 0

 Acres Short-Term Disturbance from Non-BLM Actions 2,000 4,000 2,000 2,000 4,000 2,000 

Acres Reclaimed from Non-BLM Actions 2,000 4,000 2,000 2,000 4,000 2,000

 Acres Long-Term Disturbance from Non-BLM Actions 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Paleontological

 Acres Short-Term Disturbance from BLM Actions 200 250 200 200 250 200 

Acres Reclaimed from BLM Actions 150 150 150 150 150 150

 Acres Long-Term Disturbance from BLM Actions 50 100 50 50 100 50 

Acres Short-Term Disturbance from Non-BLM Actions 200 200 200 200 200 200

 Acres Reclaimed from Non-BLM Actions 80 80 80 80 80 80 

Acres Long-Term Disturbance from Non-BLM Actions 120 120 120 120 120 120
Appendix T – Surface Disturbance and Reasonable Foreseeable Actions

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS Appendix T-5 

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

Type of Disturbance Alternative 

A

Alternative 

B

Alternative 

C

Alternative 

D

Alternative 

E

Alternative 

F

Renewable Energy – Wind Energy Development

Acres Short-Term Disturbance from BLM Actions 200 200 200 200 200 200

 Acres Reclaimed from BLM Actions 150 150 150 150 150 150 

Acres Long-Term Disturbance from BLM Actions 50 50 50 50 50 50

 Acres Short-Term Disturbance from Non-BLM Actions 200 200 200 200 200 200 

Acres Reclaimed from Non-BLM Actions 150 150 150 150 150 150

 Acres Long-Term Disturbance from Non-BLM Actions 50 50 50 50 50 50 

Rights-of-Way (ROW)

Telephone and Fiber Optics

 Acres Short-Term Disturbance from BLM Actions 218 216 218 218 216 218 

 Acres Reclaimed from BLM Actions 218 216 218 218 216 218 

 Acres Long-Term Disturbance from BLM Actions 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 Acres Short-Term Disturbance from Non-BLM Actions6 168 168 168 168 168 168 

Acres Reclaimed from Non-BLM Actions 168 168 168 168 168 168

 Acres Long-Term Disturbance from Non-BLM Actions 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Pipelines (Mineral and Water)7

Acres Short-Term Disturbance from BLM Actions 2,949 2,196 3,101 2,949 2,196 1,178

 Acres Reclaimed from BLM Actions 2,949 2,196 3,101 2,949 2,196 1,178 

Acres Long-Term Disturbance from BLM Actions 0 0 0 0 0 0

 Acres Short-Term Disturbance from Non-BLM Actions 1,456 1,456 1,456 1,456 1,456 1,456 

Acres Reclaimed from Non-BLM Actions 1,456 1,456 1,456 1,456 1,456 1,456

 Acres Long-Term Disturbance from Non-BLM Actions 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Roads8

 Acres Short-Term Disturbance from BLM Actions 1,966 1,229 4,638 1,966 1,229 1,343 

Acres Reclaimed from BLM Actions 983 614 2,319 983 614 672

 Acres Long-Term Disturbance from BLM Actions 983 615 2,319 983 615 672 

Acres Short-Term Disturbance from Non-BLM Actions 1,127 1,127 1,127 1,127 1,127 1,127

 Acres Reclaimed from Non-BLM Actions 563 563 563 563 563 563 

Acres Long-Term Disturbance from Non-BLM Actions 564 564 564 564 564 564
Appendix T – Surface Disturbance and Reasonable Foreseeable Actions

Appendix T-6 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

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

Type of Disturbance Alternative 

A

Alternative 

B

Alternative 

C

Alternative 

D

Alternative 

E

Alternative 

F

Powerlines

Acres Short-Term Disturbance from BLM Actions 338 229 359 338 229 165

 Acres Reclaimed from BLM Actions 337 228 358 337 228 164 

Acres Long-Term Disturbance from BLM Actions 1 1 1 1 1 1

 Acres Short-Term Disturbance from Non-BLM Actions 200 200 200 200 200 200 

Acres Reclaimed from Non-BLM Actions 199 199 199 199 199 199

 Acres Long-Term Disturbance from Non-BLM Actions 1 1 1 1 1 1 

Communication Sites

 Acres Short-Term Disturbance from BLM Actions9 10 10 10 10 10 10 

Acres Reclaimed from BLM Actions 0 0 0 0 0 0

 Acres Long-Term Disturbance from BLM Actions 10 10 10 10 10 10 

Acres Short-Term Disturbance from Non-BLM Actions 7 7 7 7 7 7

 Acres Reclaimed from Non-BLM Actions 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Acres Long-Term Disturbance from Non-BLM Actions 7 7 7 7 7 7

Other Facilities10

Acres Short-Term Disturbance from BLM Actions 210 95 233 210 95 181

 Acres Reclaimed from BLM Actions 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Acres Long-Term Disturbance from BLM Actions 210 95 233 210 95 181

 Acres Short-Term Disturbance from Non-BLM Actions 155 74 180 155 74 155 

Acres Reclaimed from Non-BLM Actions 0 0 0 0 0 0

 Acres Long-Term Disturbance from Non-BLM Actions 155 74 180 155 74 155 

Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management

Motorized Vehicle Use

 Acres Short-Term Disturbance from BLM Actions 1,233 2,776 12,907 5,820 2,729 5,750 

Acres Reclaimed from BLM Actions 398 1,708 172 1,879 2,664 1,879

 Acres Long-Term Disturbance from BLM Actions 835 1,068 12,735 3,941 1,046 3,917 

Acres Short-Term Disturbance from Non-BLM Actions 517 517 517 517 517 517

 Acres Reclaimed from Non-BLM Actions 167 167 167 167 167 167 

Acres Long-Term Disturbance from Non-BLM Actions 350 350 350 350 350 350
Appendix T – Surface Disturbance and Reasonable Foreseeable Actions

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS Appendix T-7 

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

Type of Disturbance Alternative 

A

Alternative 

B

Alternative 

C

Alternative 

D

Alternative 

E

Alternative 

F

Recreation

Recreational Site Development

 Acres Short-Term Disturbance from BLM Actions 349.5 2,253 12,815 349.5 2,180 271 

Acres Reclaimed from BLM Actions 0 0 0 0 0 0

 Acres Long-Term Disturbance from BLM Actions 349.5 2,253 12,815 349.5 2,180 271 

Livestock Grazing

Spring Development

 Acres Short-Term Disturbance from BLM Actions 5 2.5 10 5 2.5 4.75 

Acres Reclaimed from BLM Actions 4 2 5 4 2 3.8

 Acres Long-Term Disturbance from BLM Actions 1 .5 5 1 0.5 0.9 

Acres Short-Term Disturbance from Non-BLM Actions 0 0 0 0 0 0

 Acres Reclaimed from Non-BLM Actions 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Acres Long-Term Disturbance from Non-BLM Actions 0 0 0 0 0 0

Pipeline Development

Acres Short-Term Disturbance from BLM Actions 60 30 120 60 30 57

 Acres Reclaimed from BLM Actions 57.5 28.8 115 57.5 28.8 54.7 

Acres Long-Term Disturbance from BLM Actions 2.5 1.2 5 2.5 1.2 2.37

 Acres Short-Term Disturbance from Non-BLM Actions 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Acres Reclaimed from Non-BLM Actions 0 0 0 0 0 0

 Acres Long-Term Disturbance from Non-BLM Actions 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Reservoir/Pit Development

 Acres Short-Term Disturbance from BLM Actions 40 20 80 40 20 38 

 Acres Reclaimed from BLM Actions 35 17.5 70 35 17.5 33.2 

 Acres Long-Term Disturbance from BLM Actions 5 2.5 10 5 2.5 4.75 

 Acres Short-Term Disturbance from Non-BLM Actions 17 17 17 17 17 17 

 Acres Reclaimed from Non-BLM Actions 15 15 15 15 15 15 

Acres Long-Term Disturbance from Non-BLM Actions 2 2 2 2 2 2
Appendix T – Surface Disturbance and Reasonable Foreseeable Actions

Appendix T-8 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

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

Type of Disturbance Alternative 

A

Alternative 

B

Alternative 

C

Alternative 

D

Alternative 

E

Alternative 

F

Fence Development

Acres Short-Term Disturbance from BLM Actions 250 125 500 250 125 237.5

 Acres Reclaimed from BLM Actions 240 120 480 240 120 228 

Acres Long-Term Disturbance from BLM Actions 10 5 20 10 5 9.5

 Acres Short-Term Disturbance from Non-BLM Actions 105 105 105 105 105 105 

Acres Reclaimed from Non-BLM Actions 100 100 100 100 100 100

 Acres Long-Term Disturbance from Non-BLM Actions 5 5 5 5 5 5 

Well Development

 Acres Short-Term Disturbance from BLM Actions 5 2.5 10 5 2.5 4.75 

Acres Reclaimed from BLM Actions 4 2 8 4 2 3.8

 Acres Long-Term Disturbance from BLM Actions 1 .5 2 1 0.5 0.95 

Acres Short-Term Disturbance from Non-BLM Actions 2 2 2 2 2 2

 Acres Reclaimed from Non-BLM Actions 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 

Acres Long-Term Disturbance from Non-BLM Actions 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

Reservoir Maintenance Development

Acres Short-Term Disturbance from BLM Actions 10 5 20 10 5 9.5

 Acres Reclaimed from BLM Actions 8 4 16 8 4 7.6 

Acres Long-Term Disturbance from BLM Actions 2 1 4 2 1 1.9

 Acres Short-Term Disturbance from Non-BLM Actions 4 4 4 4 4 4 

Acres Reclaimed from Non-BLM Actions 3 3 3 3 3 3

 Acres Long-Term Disturbance from Non-BLM Actions 1 1 1 1 1 1 
Appendix T – Surface Disturbance and Reasonable Foreseeable Actions

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS Appendix T-9 

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

Type of Disturbance Alternative 

A

Alternative 

B

Alternative 

C

Alternative 

D

Alternative 

E

Alternative 

F

Cumulative Disturbance

Total Acres Short-Term Disturbance from BLM Actions 136,414.5 73,919.0 245,783.0 140,507.5 71,799.3 137,568.4

 Total Acres Reclaimed from BLM Actions 120,704.5 63,037.3 204,238.0 122,064.5 61,993.3 119,683.9 

Total Acres Long-Term Disturbance from BLM Actions 15,710.0 10,881.7 41,545.0 18,443.0 10,787.0 17,866.4

 Total Acres Short-Term Disturbance from Non-BLM Actions 24,129.0 26,048.0 24,154.0 24,129.0 26,048.0 24,129.0 

Total Acres Reclaimed from Non-BLM Actions 14,493.5 16,493.5 14,493.5 14,493.5 16,493.5 14,493.5

 Total Acres Long-Term Disturbance from Non-BLM Actions 9,635.5 9,554.5 9,660.5 9,635.5 9,554.5 9,635.5 

Cumulative Long-Term Acres of Disturbance 25,346 20,436 51,206 28,079 20,342 27,502

1 Based on the Reasonable Foreseeable Development for Geothermal (BLM 2009a), development is unlikely and would only occur on previously disturbed areas. 2 Acres disturbed by mechanical fuels treatment and prescribed fire will naturally be reclaimed within 5 years.

3 Includes range enhancements and other wildlife habitat restoration actions.

4 Assumes 10 percent of the BLM actions acreages.

5 Surface disturbance activities resulting from invasive species projects will be naturally reclaimed within 5 years. Therefore long-term disturbance from BLM actions will be zero. 6 Based upon 58 percent BLM-administered surface; 42 percent private and state trust lands. 7 Actions would likely be mostly oil and gas related, including CO2 and energy pipelines. 8 Approximately 50 percent of roads would be oil and gas related (based on the Reasonable Foreseeable Development Scenario for Oil and Gas [BLM 2009b; BLM 2013]), with the rest coming from 

local demand.

9 20 sites at 0.5 acre each. 10Actions would likely be mostly oil and gas related.

AML Abandoned Mine Land

CBNG Coalbed natural gas

CO2 Carbon dioxide

BLM Bureau of Land Management

ROW Rights-of-Way
Appendix T – Surface Disturbance and Reasonable Foreseeable Actions

Appendix T-10 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Table T-2. Reasonable Foreseeable Development Assumptions

Type of Development/Disturbance Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Alternative F

Mineral Resources – Locatable

Exploration (Number of Active Claims/Acres) 3,167/188,200 - - - - - 

 Acres Under Notice (common to all) 155/year 155/year 155/year 155/year

75/year

(This number is 

decreased as ACEC 

designation in 

greater sagegrouse Key Habitat 

Areas precludes 

Notice submission 

–All 3809 

exploration 

activities are 

submitted as Plans)

75/year

(This number is 

decreased as ACEC 

designation in 

sage-grouse Core

Habitat Areas 

precludes Notice 

submission – all 

exploration 

activities are 

submitted as 

Plans)

 Acres Closed to Locatable Mineral 

Entry (surface/mineral estate) 65,090/174,354 271,370/325,102 23,916/47,846 48,728/72,031 

1,148,232/ 

1,375,585 

(Estimate of all 

land that would be 

withdrawn from 

mineral entry as 

per new 

management 

actions #67 & #68 

in SEIS; Takes into 

account acres 

already withdrawn 

in Alt B and adds 

remaining fed 

surface/mineral 

acres included in 

all SG Key Habitat 

Areas)

48,728/72,031 

As per 

management 

actions #67 and 

#68 for 

Alternative F no 

locatable mineral 

withdrawals would 

be pursued in Core 

Habitat Areas so 

Alt F = Alt D.
Appendix T – Surface Disturbance and Reasonable Foreseeable Actions

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS Appendix T-11

Table T-2. Reasonable Foreseeable Development Assumptions

Type of Development/Disturbance Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Alternative F

 Acres Available for Locatable Mineral 

Entry (surface/mineral estate)

3,124,724/ 

4,033,195 

2,918,444/ 

3,882,447 

3,165,898/ 

4,159,703 

3,141,086/ 

4,135,518 

1,976,492/ 

2,657610 

(Alt A – Alt E 

closed)

(federal surface 

and mineral estate 

acres)

3,141,086/ 

4,135,518 

As per 

management 

actions #67 and 

#68 for 

Alternative F no 

locatable mineral 

withdrawals would 

be pursued in Core 

Habitat Areas so 

Alt F = Alt D.

 Projected Additional Acres Closed to 

Locatable Mineral Entry (mineral 

estate)

21,000 45,000 21,200 21,000 876,862 

21,000 

(no mineral 

withdrawal within 

ACEC is being 

pursued under 

Alternative F)
Appendix T – Surface Disturbance and Reasonable Foreseeable Actions

Appendix T-12 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Table T-2. Reasonable Foreseeable Development Assumptions

Type of Development/Disturbance Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Alternative F

 Assumptions

All BLMadministered 

mineral estate 

except in areas 

specifically 

withdrawn or 

closed to mineral 

entry would 

remain open for 

mining claim 

location, and 

exploration and 

development of 

locatable minerals.

Any surface 

management 

operations 

proposed on claims 

that pre-date a 

withdrawal would 

require a validity 

examination.

Large acreages in 

ACECs and other 

special 

management areas 

are proposed for 

withdrawal from 

mineral entry 

under the Mining 

Laws. However, 

this would not 

significantly limit 

opportunities to 

explore for and 

develop locatable 

minerals, as many 

areas in the 

Planning Area 

where locatable 

minerals occur 

would remain open 

to locatable 

mineral entry.

Any surface 

management 

operations 

proposed on claims 

that pre-date a 

withdrawal would 

require a validity 

examination.

Same as 

assumption under 

Alternative A, 

except less acreage 

would be proposed 

for withdrawal 

from mineral entry 

under the Mining 

Laws.

Any surface 

management 

operations 

proposed on claims 

that pre-date a 

withdrawal would 

require a validity 

examination.

Same as 

assumption under 

Alternative A, 

except less acreage 

would be proposed 

for withdrawal 

from mineral entry 

under the Mining 

Laws.

Any surface 

management 

operations 

proposed on claims 

that pre-date a 

withdrawal would 

require a validity 

examination.

Locatable mineral 

exploration would 

be conducted 

under a plan of 

operation and not 

a notice under

Alt E with a Greater 

Sage-Grouse Key 

Habitat Areas ACEC 

designated in the 

Planning Area; 

Acres remain the 

same as Alt B.

Any surface 

management 

operations 

proposed on claims 

that pre-date a 

withdrawal would 

require a validity 

examination.

Locatable mineral 

exploration would 

be conducted 

under a plan of 

operation and not 

a notice under

Alt F with a 

Greater SageGrouse Core 

Habitat Areas ACEC 

designated in the 

Planning Area; 

Acres remain the 

same as Alt D.

Any surface 

management 

operations 

proposed on 

claims that predate a withdrawal 

would require a 

validity 

examination.

Development (Number of Sites/Acres) 23/31,500 - - - 23/31,500 23/31,500 

 Projected New Acres of Surface 

Disturbance 1000/year 1000/year 1000/year 1000/year 500/year 1000/year 
Appendix T – Surface Disturbance and Reasonable Foreseeable Actions

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS Appendix T-13

Table T-2. Reasonable Foreseeable Development Assumptions

Type of Development/Disturbance Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Alternative F

 Assumptions

Assumes 700 

acres/year new 

mining disturbance 

in the CYFO for 

bentonite and 

gypsum and 300 

acres/year new 

mining disturbance 

in the WFO for 

bentonite. New 

closures or 

withdrawals would 

not take place in 

areas where there 

are active 

bentonite, gypsum, 

or uranium mining 

claims. Assumes 

no new surface 

disturbance for 

uranium 

development.

Same as 

Alternative A

Same as 

Alternative A

Same as 

Alternative A

Assumes 400 

acres/year new 

mining disturbance 

in the CYFO for 

bentonite and 

gypsum and 100 

acres/year new 

mining disturbance 

in the WFO for 

bentonite. 

New closures or 

withdrawals would 

not take place in 

areas where 

exploration for or 

development of 

locatable minerals 

are taking place. 

Assumes no new 

surface 

disturbance for 

uranium 

development.

Assumes 700 

acres/year new 

mining disturbance 

in the CYFO for 

bentonite and 

gypsum and 300 

acres/year new 

mining disturbance 

in the WFO for 

bentonite. 

New closures or 

withdrawals would 

not take place in 

areas where 

exploration for or 

development of 

locatable minerals 

are taking place. 

Assumes no new 

surface 

disturbance for 

uranium 

development.

Mineral Resources – Oil and Gas

Federal Well Projections

Existing Productive Federal Wells

Number of Existing Federal Wells 2,966 2,966 2,966 2,966 2,966 2,966

Projected Number of Abandoned Existing Federal 

Wells 697 697 697 697 697 697 

Remaining Number of Existing Productive Federal 

Wells 2,269 2,269 2,269 2,269 2,269 2,269 

Projected New Federal Wells

Number of Projected New Federal Wells 1,130 509 1,257 1,032 509 973

Projected Number of Abandoned New Federal 

Wells 217 98 243 201 98 188 
Appendix T – Surface Disturbance and Reasonable Foreseeable Actions

Appendix T-14 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Table T-2. Reasonable Foreseeable Development Assumptions

Type of Development/Disturbance Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Alternative F

Projected Productive New Federal Wells 913 411 1,014 831 411 785 

Projected Total Productive Federal Wells

Remaining Number of Existing Productive Federal 

Wells 2,269 2,269 2,269 2,269 2,269 2,269 

Projected Productive New Federal Wells 913 411 1,014 831 411 785 

Total Number Productive Federal Wells 3,182 2,680 3,283 3,100 2,680 3,054

Non-federal Well Projections (State and Fee 

Minerals)

Existing Productive Non-federal Wells

Number of Existing Non-federal Wells 1,544 1,544 1,544 1,544 1,544 1,544 

Projected Number of Abandoned Non-federal 

Wells 346 346 346 346 346 346 

Remaining Number of Existing Productive Nonfederal Wells 1,198 1,198 1,198 1,198 1,198 1,198 

Projected New Non-federal Wells

Number of Projected New Non-federal Wells 511 511 511 511 511 511 

Projected Number of Abandoned New Non-federal 

Wells 98 98 98 98 98 98 

Projected Productive New Non-federal Wells 413 413 413 413 413 413 

Projected Total Productive Non-federal Wells

Remaining Number of Existing Productive Nonfederal Wells 1,198 1,198 1,198 1,198 1,198 1,198 

Projected Productive New Non-federal Wells 413 413 413 413 413 413

Total Number Productive Non-federal Wells 1,611 1,611 1,611 1,611 1,611 1,611 

Cumulative Productive Wells

Total Number Productive Federal Wells 3,182 2,680 3,283 3,100 2,680 3,054 

Total Number Productive Non-federal Wells 1,611 1,611 1,611 1,611 1,611 1,611

Total Productive Wells 4,793 4,291 4,894 4,711 4,291 4,665 
Appendix T – Surface Disturbance and Reasonable Foreseeable Actions

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS Appendix T-15

Table T-2. Reasonable Foreseeable Development Assumptions

Type of Development/Disturbance Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Alternative F

Mineral Resources – Salable

Mineral Material Disposals (Number of Sites/Acres) 77/3,760 - - - 46/800 77/3,760 

 Acres Closed to Mineral Material 

Disposals 231,854 2,541,750 348,215 184,193 

2,811,915

(Estimate of all 

public land that 

would be closed to 

mineral material 

disposals as per 

new management 

action #70 in SEIS; 

Takes into account 

acres already 

closed in Alt B and 

adds remaining fed 

surface/mineral 

acres included in 

all Key ACEC areas)

184,913 

As per 

management 

action #70 for 

Alternative F, no 

additional public 

land would be 

closed to mineral 

material disposals 

in Core Habitat 

Areas so Alt F = Alt 

D.

 Acres Open to Mineral Material 

Disposals 3,975,695 1,665,799 3,859,334 4,023,356 

1,163,780 

(Alt A - Alt E 

closed)

4,023,356 

(Alt F = Alt D)

See above

 Projected New Acres of Surface 

Disturbance 2,000 800 2,000 1,800 800 1,800 
Appendix T – Surface Disturbance and Reasonable Foreseeable Actions

Appendix T-16 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Table T-2. Reasonable Foreseeable Development Assumptions

Type of Development/Disturbance Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Alternative F

 Assumptions

Assumes a total of 

2,000 new acres of 

surface 

disturbance due to 

mineral materials 

disposal over next 

20 years = 100 

acres/year on 

public lands in the 

Planning Area.

Assumes a 60 

percent reduction 

in the amount of 

public land 

available for 

mineral material 

disposals = 800 

new acres of public 

land surface 

disturbance over 

20 years = 40 

acres/year new 

mineral materialsrelated disturbance 

on public lands in 

the Planning Area.

Assumes a total of 

2,000 new acres of 

surface 

disturbance due to 

mineral materials 

disposal over next 

20 years = 100 

acres/year on 

public lands in the 

Planning Area.

Assumes a total of 

2,000 new acres of 

surface 

disturbance due to 

mineral materials 

disposal over next 

20 years = 100 

acres/year on 

public lands in the 

Planning Area.

Assumes a 60% 

reduction in the 

amount of public 

land available for 

mineral material 

disposals = 800 

new acres public 

land disturbance 

over 20 years = 40 

ac/year new 

mineral materialsrelated disturbance 

on public lands in 

the Planning Area.

Assumes a total of 

2,000 new acres of 

surface 

disturbance due to 

mineral materials 

disposal over next 

20 years = 100 

acres/year on 

public lands in the 

Planning Area.

Mineral Resources – Geothermal

Development (Number of Sites/Acres)2 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0

0/0 

(as per Geothermal 

RFD)

0/0 

(as per Geothermal 

RFD)

Fire and Fuels Management

Prescribed Fire (acres) 2,000/year 1,000/year 4,000/year1 2,000/year 900/year 2000/year

 Assumptions

Assumes 2,000 

acres for wildlife 

and 2,000 acres 

for other 

purposes.

Alt E further 

restricts RX @ or 

below 12” precip 

zone.

No further 

restrictions from 

Alt D

Mechanical Fuels Management (acres) 1,500/year 750/year 3,000/year 1,500/year 750/year 1,500/year

Forest, Woodlands, and Forest Products

Forest Products Sales (acres) 1,500/year 1,000/year 2,000/year 1,500/year 1,000/year 1,500/year
Appendix T – Surface Disturbance and Reasonable Foreseeable Actions

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS Appendix T-17

Table T-2. Reasonable Foreseeable Development Assumptions

Type of Development/Disturbance Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Alternative F

Invasive Species and Pest Management1

 Assumptions

For all disturbed 

areas, assumes 

10 percent 

requires 

treatment. Ten 

percent is based 

on two years 

experience in 

treatment of 

previously 

disturbed areas 

for various 

resources. For 

federal oil and 

gas well 

disturbances, 

assumes 10 

percent requires 

treatment on 

short-term 

disturbance and 

10 percent 

requires 

treatment on 

long-term 

disturbance.

Same as 

Alternative A

Same as 

Alternative A

Same as 

Alternative A

Same as 

Alternative A

Same as 

Alternative A

BLM Road Maintenance No new 

disturbance

No new 

disturbance

No new 

disturbance

No new 

disturbance

No new 

disturbance

No new 

disturbance

 Assumptions

Maintenance 

actions would be 

within existing 

disturbances.

Same as 

Alternative A

Same as 

Alternative A

Same as 

Alternative A

Same as 

Alternative A

Same as 

Alternative A

Not associated with any surface disturbance 

(acres) 2,500 1,250 5,000 2,500 1,250 2,500 
Appendix T – Surface Disturbance and Reasonable Foreseeable Actions

Appendix T-18 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Table T-2. Reasonable Foreseeable Development Assumptions

Type of Development/Disturbance Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Alternative F

 Assumptions

Based on average 

treated acres per 

year regardless if 

infestation 

resulting from 

surface 

disturbance 

activities or not.

Same as 

Alternative A

Same as 

Alternative A

Same as 

Alternative A

Same as 

Alternative A

Same as 

Alternative A

Fish and Wildlife Resources

Habitat Restoration and Enhancement: 

Sagebrush (acres) 2,000 1,000 2,000 2,000 900/year 2000/year 

 Assumptions

Same areas as 

accounted for in 

prescribed fire 

disturbance 

above.

Same areas as 

accounted for in 

prescribed fire 

disturbance 

above.

This makes up 

half of the 

prescribed fire 

disturbance 

above.

Same areas as 

accounted for in 

prescribed fire 

disturbance 

above.

Alt E further 

restricts RX @ or 

below 12” precip 

zone. MA #39

No further 

restrictions from 

Alt D

Habitat Restoration and Enhancement: Aspen 

(acres) 50 100 0 50 100 50 

 Assumptions

Included as part 

of mechanical 

fuels 

management 

treatment noted 

above.

Included as part 

of mechanical 

fuels 

management 

treatment noted 

above.

Included as part 

of mechanical 

fuels 

management 

treatment noted 

above.

No further 

restrictions from 

Alt B

No further 

restrictions from 

Alt D

Watershed Restoration and Enhancement (acres) 2,050 1,100 2,000 2,050 1,100 2,050

Stream Restoration, Structure Removal, and 

Other Fisheries Enhancements (number of 

sites/acres)

0 91 0 0 91 0 
Appendix T – Surface Disturbance and Reasonable Foreseeable Actions

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS Appendix T-19

Table T-2. Reasonable Foreseeable Development Assumptions

Type of Development/Disturbance Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Alternative F

 Assumptions

Over the life of 

the plan:

80 acres lentic 

restoration;

10 miles lotic 

restoration;

assumes 

disturbance on 8 

feet on either 

side of the stream 

= 10 acres per 

site.

No further 

restrictions from 

Alt B

No further 

restrictions from 

Alt D

Culvert Replacements (number of sites/acres) 0 3/1 0 0 3/1 0 

Watershed Enhancement Projects

Seeding and Restoration Projects (acres) 1,331 2,662 616 1,331 2,662 1,331 

Assumptions

Based on 

watershed 

restoration 

projects to date.

Assumes greater 

emphasis on 

watershed 

restoration.

Assumes less 

emphasis on 

watershed 

restoration.

Based on 

watershed 

restoration 

projects to date.

Assumes greater 

emphasis on 

watershed 

restoration.

Assumes less 

emphasis on 

watershed 

restoration.

Abandoned Facilities and AML Restoration

Abandoned Facility Restoration (acres) 10 10 10 10 10 10

AML Restoration (acres) 100 200 100 100 200 100 

Paleontological

Fossil Collection (acres) 200 250 200 200 250 200 
Appendix T – Surface Disturbance and Reasonable Foreseeable Actions

Appendix T-20 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Table T-2. Reasonable Foreseeable Development Assumptions

Type of Development/Disturbance Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Alternative F

 Assumptions

Currently, less 

than 10 

acres/year are 

disturbed during 

paleontological 

excavations in the 

Planning Area. 

Assumes this rate 

would continue.

Alternative B 

promotes fossil 

collection and 

therefore will 

result in 

additional 

acreages.

Currently, less 

than 10 

acres/year are 

disturbed during 

paleontological 

excavations in the 

Planning Area. 

Assumes this rate 

would continue.

Currently, less 

than 10 

acres/year are 

disturbed during 

paleontological 

excavations in the 

Planning Area. 

Assumes this rate 

would continue.

Alternative E 

continues to 

promote fossil 

collection and 

therefore will 

result in 

additional 

acreages.

Less than 10 

acres/year are 

disturbed during 

paleontological 

excavations in 

the Planning 

Area. Alternative 

F assumes this 

rate would 

continue.

Renewable Energy

Wind Energy Development (number of 

sites/acres) 1/200 1/200 1/200 1/200 1/200 1/200 

Rights-of-Way (ROW)

Communication Site Development (number of 

sites/acres) 20/10 20/10 20/10 20/10 20/10 20/10 

Powerline Development (number of sites/acres) 196/338 132/229 208/359 196/338 132/229 165/312 

Pipeline Development (number of sites/acres) 122/2,949 90/2,196 128/3,101 122/2,949 90/2,196 122/1,178

Road Development (number of sites/acres) 220/1,966 137/1,229 519/4,638 220/1,966 137/1,229 220/1,966 

Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management

Road Maintenance No new 

disturbance

No new 

disturbance

No new 

disturbance

No new 

disturbance

No new 

disturbance

No new 

disturbance

 Assumptions

Assumes 

maintenance 

actions would be 

within existing 

disturbances.

Same as 

Alternative A

Same as 

Alternative A

Same as 

Alternative A

Same as 

Alternative A

Same as 

Alternative A

BLM Road and Trail Creation (acres) 1,233 2,776 12,907 5,820 1221 5,820 
Appendix T – Surface Disturbance and Reasonable Foreseeable Actions

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS Appendix T-21

Table T-2. Reasonable Foreseeable Development Assumptions

Type of Development/Disturbance Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Alternative F

 Methods/Assumptions

There has been 

an average of 61 

acres/year of new 

road/trail 

creation over the 

past 20 years.

Assumes 138 

acres/year of new 

road/trail 

construction over 

the life of the 

plan.

Assumes 645 

acres/year of new 

road/trail 

construction over 

the life of the 

plan.

Assumes 291 

acres/year of new 

road/trail 

construction over 

the life of the 

plan.

41% more roads 

and trails than 

Alternative B in 

WFO, and 15% 

more roads and 

trails in CYFO are 

subject to closure 

and reclamation.

Same as D.

Recreation

Campsites (number of sites/acres) 7/14 27/54 4/8 20/40 26/12 19/38

Interpretive Sites (number of sites/acres) 15/78 30/111 7/70 29/107 28/107 27/105 

Other Facilities (number of sites/acres) 29/257.5 44/2,088 16/11,232.5 45/5,750 22/2061.3 26/5672

Livestock Grazing

Reservoir/Pit Development (number of 

sites/acres) 73/40 36/20 146/80 73/40 36/20 69/38 

Well Development (number of sites/acres) 23/5 12/2.5 46/10 23/5 12/2.5 22/4.7 

Spring Development (number of sites/acres) 35/5 17/2.5 70/10 35/5 17/2.5 33/4.75

Fence Development (number of sites/acres) 176/250 88/125 352/500 176/250 88/125 167/237 

Reservoir Maintenance Development (number of 

sites/acres) 47/10 23/5 94/20 47/10 23/5 44.6/9.5 

ACEC Area of Critical Environmental Concern

Alt Alternative 

CYFO Cody Field Office

MA Management Action

RFD Reasonable Foreseeable Development

SEIS Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

WFO Worland Field Office
Appendix T – Surface Disturbance and Reasonable Foreseeable Actions

Appendix T-22 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

2.0 REFERENCES

BLM. 2009a. Reasonable Foreseeable Development Scenario for Geothermal. Bighorn Basin Planning 

Area, Wyoming. Prepared by Wyoming State Office Reservoir Management Group. March 13, 

2009.

BLM. 2009b. Reasonable Foreseeable Development Scenario for Oil and Gas. Bighorn Basin Planning 

Area, Wyoming. Prepared by Wyoming State Office Reservoir Management Group.

BLM. 2013. Reasonable Foreseeable Development Scenario for Oil and Gas, Bighorn Basin Planning Area, 

Wyoming. Prepared by Wyoming Reservoir Management Group. U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Bureau of Land Management. February.
Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Bighorn Basin Resource Management Plan Revision Project

Appendix U

Technical Support Document for Air Quality

Appendix U

Appendix U – Technical Support Document for Air Quality

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS Appendix U-i

LIST OF TABLES

SEIS Table U-2. Summary of Output - Alternative E Total Annual Emissions from Oil Wells - Year 

2015 .............................................................................................................................. U-2

SEIS Table U-3. Summary of Output - Alternative E Total Annual Emissions from Oil Wells - Year 

2024 .............................................................................................................................. U-3

SEIS Table U-4. Summary of Output - Alternative F Total Annual Emissions from Oil Wells - Year 

2015 .............................................................................................................................. U-4

SEIS Table U-5. Summary of Output - Alternative F Total Annual Emissions from Oil Wells - Year 

2024 .............................................................................................................................. U-5

SEIS Table U-6. Summary of Output - Alternative E Total Annual Emissions from Natural Gas 

Wells - Year 2015 .......................................................................................................... U-6

SEIS Table U-7. Summary of Output - Alternative E Total Annual Emissions from Natural Gas 

Wells - Year 2024 .......................................................................................................... U-7

SEIS Table U-8. Summary of Output - Alternative F Total Annual Emissions from Natural Gas 

Wells - Year 2015 .......................................................................................................... U-8

SEIS Table U-9. Summary of Output - Alternative F Total Annual Emissions from Natural Gas 

Wells - Year 2024 .......................................................................................................... U-9

SEIS Table U-10. Summary of Output - Alternative E Annual Emissions Estimation for Salable 

Minerals Equipment Usage - Year 2015...................................................................... U-10

SEIS Table U-11. Summary of Output - Alternative E Annual Emissions Estimation for Salable 

Minerals Equipment Usage - Year 2024...................................................................... U-10

SEIS Table U-12. Summary of Output - Alternative F Annual Emissions Estimation for Salable 

Minerals Equipment Usage - Year 2015...................................................................... U-11

SEIS Table U-13. Summary of Output - Alternative F Annual Emissions Estimation for Salable 

Minerals Equipment Usage - Year 2024...................................................................... U-11

SEIS Table U-14. Summary of Output - Alternative E Annual Emissions Estimation for Locatable 

Minerals Equipment Usage - Year 2015...................................................................... U-12

SEIS Table U-15. Summary of Output - Alternative E Annual Emissions Estimation for Locatable 

Minerals Equipment Usage - Year 2024...................................................................... U-12

SEIS Table U-16. Summary of Output - Alternative F Annual Emissions Estimation for Locatable 

Minerals Equipment Usage - Year 2015...................................................................... U-13

SEIS Table U-17. Summary of Output - Alternative F Annual Emissions Estimation for Locatable 

Minerals Equipment Usage - Year 2024...................................................................... U-13

SEIS Table U-18. Summary of Output - Alternative E Total Annual Emissions from Renewable 

Energy Development - Year 2015 ............................................................................... U-14

SEIS Table U-19. Summary of Output - Alternative E Total Annual Emissions from Renewable 

Energy Development - Year 2024 ............................................................................... U-14

SEIS Table U-20. Summary of Output - Alternative F Total Annual Emissions from Renewable 

Energy Development - Year 2015 ............................................................................... U-15

SEIS Table U-21. Summary of Output - Alternative F Total Annual Emissions from Renewable 

Energy Development - Year 2024 ............................................................................... U-15

SEIS Table U-22. Summary of Output - Alternative E Total Annual Emissions from Livestock 

Grazing Projects - Year 2015 ....................................................................................... U-16

SEIS Table U-23. Summary of Output - Alternative E Total Annual Emissions from Livestock 

Grazing Projects - Year 2024 ....................................................................................... U-16
Appendix U – Technical Support Document for Air Quality

Appendix U-ii Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

SEIS Table U-24. Summary of Output - Alternative F Total Annual Emissions from Livestock 

Grazing Projects - Year 2015 ....................................................................................... U-17

SEIS Table U-25. Summary of Output - Alternative F Total Annual Emissions from Livestock 

Grazing Projects - Year 2024 ....................................................................................... U-17

SEIS Table U-26. Summary of Output - Alternative E Total Annual Emissions from Vegetation 

Projects - Year 2015 .................................................................................................... U-18

SEIS Table U-27. Summary of Output - Alternative E Total Annual Emissions from Vegetation 

Projects - Year 2024 .................................................................................................... U-18

SEIS Table U-28. Summary of Output - Alternative F Total Annual Emissions from Vegetation 

Projects - Year 2015 .................................................................................................... U-19

SEIS Table U-29. Summary of Output - Alternative F Total Annual Emissions from Vegetation 

Projects - Year 2024 .................................................................................................... U-19

SEIS Table U-30. Summary of Output - Alternative E Total Annual Emissions from Vegetation 

Management of Invasive Species - Year 2015 ............................................................ U-20

SEIS Table U-31. Summary of Output - Alternative E Total Annual Emissions from Vegetation 

Management of Invasive Species - Year 2024 ............................................................ U-20

SEIS Table U-32. Summary of Output - Alternative F Total Annual Emissions from Vegetation 

Management of Invasive Species - Year 2015 ............................................................ U-21

SEIS Table U-33. Summary of Output - Alternative F Total Annual Emissions from Vegetation 

Management of Invasive Species - Year 2024 ............................................................ U-21

SEIS Table U-34. Summary of Output - Alternative E Total Annual Emissions from Fire 

Management Projects - Year 2015.............................................................................. U-22

SEIS Table U-35. Summary of Output - Alternative E Total Annual Emissions from Fire 

Management Projects - Year 2024.............................................................................. U-22

SEIS Table U-36. Summary of Output - Alternative F Total Annual Emissions from Fire 

Management Projects - Year 2015.............................................................................. U-23

SEIS Table U-37. Summary of Output - Alternative F Total Annual Emissions from Fire 

Management Projects - Year 2024.............................................................................. U-23

SEIS Table U-38. Summary of Output - Alternative E Total Annual Emissions from Forest and 

Woodlands Projects - Year 2015................................................................................. U-24

SEIS Table U-39. Summary of Output - Alternative E Total Annual Emissions from Forest and 

Woodlands Projects - Year 2024................................................................................. U-24

SEIS Table U-40. Summary of Output - Alternative F Total Annual Emissions from Forest and 

Woodlands Projects - Year 2015................................................................................. U-25

SEIS Table U-41. Summary of Output - Alternative F Total Annual Emissions from Forest and 

Woodlands Projects - Year 2024................................................................................. U-25

SEIS Table U-42. Summary of Output - Alternative E Summary of ROW and Corridors Emissions -

Year 2015 .................................................................................................................... U-26

SEIS Table U-43. Summary of Output - Alternative E Summary of ROW and Corridors Emissions -

Year 2024 .................................................................................................................... U-26

SEIS Table U-44. Summary of Output - Alternative F Summary of ROW and Corridors Emissions -

Year 2015 .................................................................................................................... U-27

SEIS Table U-45. Summary of Output - Alternative F Summary of ROW and Corridors Emissions -

Year 2024 .................................................................................................................... U-27

SEIS Table U-46. Summary of Output - Alternative E Total Annual Emissions from Road 

Maintenance Projects - Year 2015.............................................................................. U-28

SEIS Table U-47. Summary of Output - Alternative E Total Annual Emissions from Road 

Maintenance Projects - Year 2024.............................................................................. U-28
Appendix U – Technical Support Document for Air Quality

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS Appendix U-iii

SEIS Table U-48. Summary of Output - Alternative F Total Annual Emissions from Road 

Maintenance Projects - Year 2015.............................................................................. U-29

SEIS Table U-49. Summary of Output - Alternative F Total Annual Emissions from Road 

Maintenance Projects - Year 2024.............................................................................. U-29
Appendix U – Technical Support Document for Air Quality

Appendix U-iv Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

This page intentionally left blank.
Appendix U – Technical Support Document for Air Quality

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS Appendix U-1

APPENDIX U

TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT FOR AIR QUALITY

NOTE: This appendix augments Appendix U of the Draft RMP and Draft EIS with the addition of 

alternatives E and F. This supplement updates the “Summary of Emissions for All BLM Activities” and 

provides emissions calculations for alternatives E and F. The reader is referred to Appendix U of the 

original Draft RMP and Draft EIS for information related to Regulatory Framework, Agency Roles and 

Authorities, and Existing Air Quality, as well as detailed information on the emissions calculations for 

alternatives A through D.

1.1.1. Summary of Emissions for All BLM Activities

Supplementary Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) tables U-1 through U-49 summarize the 

projected total annual emissions by resource for 2005, 2015, and 2024 for alternatives E and F. To 

summarize the expected effects on air quality in the planning for all alternatives, air quality impacts 

would primarily result from minerals development and production and oil and gas activities; emissions 

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

Alternative E would result in the lowest levels of emissions in 2015 and 2024 and emissions under this 

alternative are unlikely to contribute to an exceedance of a National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

(NAAQS) or Wyoming Ambient Air Quality Standard (WAAQS). Alternatives A and C would result in 

increases for some pollutants (particulate matter [PM10], carbon monoxide [CO]) and decreases for all 

others compared to the 2005 base year. Alternative C would have the greatest potential to contribute 

to exceedances of the NAAQS or WAAQS of any alternative. Alternatives D and F would result in 

comparable impacts to the base line year (i.e., 2005), except that volatile organic compound (VOC)

emissions are expected to decrease slightly in 2015 and further by 2024; projected emissions are, 

therefore, unlikely to contribute to an exceedance of a NAAQS or WAAQS. As noted above in Section 2, 

Alternative E is essentially the same as Alternative B, except that it designates BLM-administered lands 

within greater sage-grouse Key Habitat Areas as Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs), which 

would limit resource development and other activities in these areas, and result in the least amount of 

emissions of all the alternatives. Alternative F is the nearly the same as Alternative D, except it 

designates certain areas as Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Areas, which would also limit resource 

development and other activities, but not as much as those identified in Alternative E.
Appendix U – Technical Support Document for Air Quality

Appendix U-2 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

SEIS Table U-3. Summary of Output - Alternative E

Total Annual Emissions from Oil Wells - Year 2015

Activity Annual Emissions (Tons)

PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPsb

Well Pad Construction - Fugitive Dust 1.46 0.22 --- --- --- --- ---

Heavy Equipment Combustive Emissions & Flaringa 13.30 13.30 449.47 60.15 112.31 13.70 1.37

Commuting Vehicles - Construction 41.34 4.12 0.60 0.00 0.89 0.08 0.01

Sub-total: Construction 56.10 17.65 450.07 60.15 113.19 13.78 1.38

Well Workover Operations - Fugitive Dust 0.48 0.05 --- --- --- --- ---

Well Workover Operations - Onsite Exhaust 0.79 0.79 11.16 0.74 2.40 0.92 0.09

Well Workover Operations - On-road Exhaust 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.03 0.01 0.00

Well Visits for Inspection & Repair - Operations 81.09 8.07 0.19 0.00 4.61 0.21 0.02

Sub-total: Operations 82.36 8.91 11.36 0.74 7.05 1.13 0.11

Road Maintenance 6.24 0.79 2.74 0.34 0.64 0.14 0.01

Sub-total: Maintenance 6.24 0.79 2.74 0.34 0.64 0.14 0.01

Total Emissions 144.70 27.35 464.16 61.23 120.89 15.05 1.51

a PM2.5 assumed = PM10 for this source. b HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants, assumed = VOCs*0.1
Appendix U – Technical Support Document for Air Quality

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS Appendix U-3

SEIS Table U-4. Summary of Output - Alternative E

Total Annual Emissions from Oil Wells - Year 2024

Activity Annual Emissions (Tons)

PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPsb

Well Pad Construction - Fugitive Dust 1.46 0.22 --- --- --- --- ---

Heavy Equipment Combustive Emissions & Flaringa 13.30 13.30 449.47 60.15 112.31 13.70 1.37

Commuting Vehicles - Construction 41.34 4.12 0.60 0.00 0.89 0.08 0.01

Sub-total: Construction 56.10 17.65 450.07 60.15 113.19 13.78 1.38

Well Workover Operations - Fugitive Dust 0.48 0.05 --- --- --- --- ---

Well Workover Operations - Onsite Exhaust 0.79 0.79 11.16 0.74 2.40 0.92 0.09

Well Workover Operations - On-road Exhaust 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.03 0.01 0.001

Well Visits for Inspection & Repair - Operations 91.97 9.16 0.21 0.00 5.23 0.24 0.024

Sub-total: Operations 93.25 10.00 11.38 0.74 7.67 1.16 0.12

Road Maintenance 23.61 3.00 10.36 1.268 2.44 0.53 0.053

Sub-total: Maintenance 23.61 3.00 10.36 1.268 2.44 0.53 0.053

Total Emissions 172.95 30.64 471.80 62.16 123.30 15.47 1.55

a PM2.5 assumed = PM10 for this source.

b HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants, assumed = VOCs*0.1
Appendix U – Technical Support Document for Air Quality

Appendix U-4 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

SEIS Table U-5. Summary of Output - Alternative F

Total Annual Emissions from Oil Wells - Year 2015

Activity Annual Emissions (Tons)

PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPsb

Well Pad Construction - Fugitive Dust 2.15 0.32 --- --- --- --- ---

Heavy Equipment Combustive Emissions & Flaringa 19.62 19.62 662.96 88.72 165.65 20.21 2.02

Commuting Vehicles - Construction 60.98 6.08 0.88 0.00 1.31 0.12 0.01

Sub-total: Construction 82.75 26.03 663.85 88.73 166.96 20.33 2.03

Well Workover Operations - Fugitive Dust 0.70 0.07 --- --- --- --- ---

Well Workover Operations - Onsite Exhaust 1.17 1.17 16.46 1.09 3.55 1.35 0.14

Well Workover Operations - On-road Exhaust 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.04 0.01 0.00

Well Visits for Inspection & Repair - Operations 85.11 8.47 0.20 0.00 4.84 0.22 0.02

Sub-total: Operations 86.98 9.71 16.67 1.09 8.43 1.58 0.16

Road Maintenance 6.55 0.83 2.88 0.35 0.68 0.15 0.01

Sub-total: Maintenance 6.55 0.83 2.88 0.35 0.68 0.15 0.01

Total Emissions 176.29 36.58 683.39 90.17 176.07 22.05 2.21

a PM2.5 assumed = PM10 for this source.

b HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants, assumed = VOCs*0.1
Appendix U – Technical Support Document for Air Quality

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS Appendix U-5

SEIS Table U-6. Summary of Output - Alternative F

Total Annual Emissions from Oil Wells - Year 2024

Activity Annual Emissions (Tons)

PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPsb

Well Pad Construction - Fugitive Dust 2.15 0.32 --- --- --- --- ---

Heavy Equipment Combustive Emissions & Flaringa 19.62 19.62 662.96 88.72 165.65 20.21 2.02

Commuting Vehicles - Construction 60.98 6.08 0.88 0.00 1.31 0.12 0.01

Sub-total: Construction 82.75 26.03 663.85 88.73 166.96 20.33 2.03

Well Workover Operations - Fugitive Dust 0.70 0.07 --- --- --- --- ---

Well Workover Operations - Onsite Exhaust 1.17 1.17 16.46 1.09 3.55 1.35 0.14

Well Workover Operations - On-road Exhaust 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.04 0.01 0.001

Well Visits for Inspection & Repair - Operations 101.17 10.07 0.23 0.00 5.76 0.26 0.026

Sub-total: Operations 103.04 11.31 16.71 1.09 9.35 1.62 0.16

Road Maintenance 25.96 3.30 11.39 1.394 2.68 0.59 0.059

Sub-total: Maintenance 25.96 3.30 11.39 1.394 2.68 0.59 0.059

Total Emissions 211.76 40.64 691.95 91.21 178.99 22.53 2.25

a PM2.5 assumed = PM10 for this source.

b HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants, assumed = VOCs*0.1
Appendix U – Technical Support Document for Air Quality

Appendix U-6 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

SEIS Table U-7. Summary of Output - Alternative E

Total Annual Emissions from Natural Gas Wells - Year 2015

Activity Annual Emissions (Tons)

PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPsb

Well Pad & Station Construction - Fugitive Dust 2.35 0.35 --- --- --- --- ---

Heavy Equipment Combustive Emissionsa 0.79 0.79 23.75 0.12 5.22 1.14 0.11

Well Completion Flaring 0.01 0.01 0.09 0.00 0.46 2.80 0.28

Commuting Vehicles - Construction 5.44 0.55 0.30 0.00 0.47 0.04 0.00

Sub-total: Construction 8.59 1.69 24.14 0.12 6.15 3.98 0.40

Natural Gas Compression - Operationsa 5.90 5.90 89.28 0.18 178.56 89.28 14.28

Separator, Dehydrator & Water Tank Heaters - Operationsa 4.93 4.93 64.91 0.39 54.52 691.86 72.63

Station Visits - Operations 5.67 0.56 0.01 0.00 0.32 0.01 0.00

Well Workover - Operations 0.09 0.02 0.52 0.00 0.11 0.02 0.00

Well & Pipeline visits for Inspection & Repair - Operations 12.16 1.21 0.05 0.01 0.62 0.04 0.00

Tanks Condensate and Loadout --- --- --- --- --- 66.02 6.60

Sub-total: Operations 28.75 12.63 154.77 0.58 234.13 847.23 93.52

Road Maintenance 2.70 0.25 0.05 0.00 0.04 0.02 0.00

Sub-total: Maintenance 2.70 0.25 0.05 0.00 0.04 0.02 0.00

Road ReclamationC 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Well ReclamationC 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Sub-total: Reclamation 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total Emissions 40.06 14.57 178.97 0.70 240.33 851.24 93.92

a PM2.5 assumed = PM10 for this source.

b HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants, assumed = VOCs*0.1; dehydrator unit HAP and formaldehyde HAP (gas compression) added separately. Annual Emissions for reclamation activities are estimated to 

be less than 0.01 ton in most cases and are therefore shown as 0.00 due to rounding.
Appendix U – Technical Support Document for Air Quality

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS Appendix U-7

SEIS Table U-8. Summary of Output - Alternative E

Total Annual Emissions from Natural Gas Wells - Year 2024

Activity Annual Emissions (Tons)

PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPsb

Well Pad & Station Construction - Fugitive Dust 2.35 0.35 --- --- --- --- ---

Heavy Equipment Combustive Emissionsa 0.79 0.79 23.75 0.12 5.22 1.14 0.11

Well Completion Flaring 0.01 0.01 0.09 0.00 0.46 2.80 0.28

Commuting Vehicles - Construction 5.44 0.55 0.30 0.00 0.47 0.04 0.00

Sub-total: Construction 8.59 1.69 24.14 0.12 6.15 3.98 0.40

Natural Gas Compression - Operationsa 6.69 6.69 101.27 0.20 202.55 101.27 16.20

Separator, Dehydrator & Water Tank Heaters - Operationsa 5.59 5.59 73.58 0.44 61.80 577.62 60.63

Station Visits - Operations 6.43 0.64 0.01 0.00 0.37 0.02 0.002

Well Workover - Operations 0.07 0.01 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.002

Well & Pipeline visits for Inspection & Repair - Operations 13.80 1.38 0.06 0.01 0.70 0.05 0.005

Tanks Condensate and Loadout --- --- --- --- --- 55.01 5.50

Sub-total: Operations 32.58 14.31 174.96 0.65 265.43 733.99 82.34

Road Maintenance 3.07 0.28 0.06 0.004 0.05 0.03 0.003

Sub-total: Maintenance 3.07 0.28 0.06 0.004 0.05 0.03 0.003

Road Reclamationc 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Well Reclamationc 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Sub-total: Reclamation 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total Emissions 44.25 16.28 199.16 0.78 271.63 737.99 82.74

a PM2.5 assumed = PM10 for this source.

b HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants, assumed = VOCs*0.1; dehydrator unit HAP and formaldehyde HAP (gas compression) added separately C

Annual Emissions for reclamation activities are estimated to be less than 0.01 ton in most cases and are therefore shown as 0.00 due to rounding.
Appendix U – Technical Support Document for Air Quality

Appendix U-8 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

SEIS Table U-9. Summary of Output - Alternative F

Total Annual Emissions from Natural Gas Wells - Year 2015

Activity Annual Emissions (Tons)

PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPsb

Well Pad & Station Construction - Fugitive Dust 3.52 0.53 --- --- --- --- ---

Heavy Equipment Combustive Emissionsa 1.18 1.18 35.61 0.17 7.83 1.71 0.17

Well Completion Flaring 0.01 0.01 0.13 0.00 0.71 4.32 0.43

Commuting Vehicles - Construction 8.15 0.82 0.45 0.00 0.70 0.06 0.01

Sub-total: Construction 12.86 2.54 36.20 0.18 9.24 6.09 0.61

Natural Gas Compression - Operationsa 6.20 6.20 93.94 0.19 187.89 93.94 15.03

Separator, Dehydrator & Water Tank Heaters - Operationsa 5.19 5.19 68.31 0.41 57.38 749.40 78.67

Station Visits - Operations 5.97 0.59 0.01 0.00 0.34 0.02 0.00

Well Workover - Operations 0.13 0.03 0.78 0.00 0.16 0.03 0.00

Well & Pipeline visits for Inspection & Repair - Operations 12.80 1.28 0.06 0.01 0.65 0.04 0.00

Tanks Condensate and Loadout --- --- --- --- --- 71.52 7.15

Sub-total: Operations 30.29 13.30 163.10 0.61 246.41 914.95 100.86

Road Maintenance 2.84 0.26 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.02 0.00

Sub-total: Maintenance 2.84 0.26 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.02 0.00

Road Reclamationc 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Well Reclamationc 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Sub-total: Reclamation 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total Emissions 46.01 16.10 199.35 0.79 255.70 921.07 101.47

a PM2.5 assumed = PM10 for this source.

b HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants, assumed = VOCs*0.1; dehydrator unit HAP and formaldehyde HAP (gas compression) added separately C

Annual Emissions for reclamation activities are estimated to be less than 0.01 ton in most cases and are therefore shown as 0.00 due to rounding.
Appendix U – Technical Support Document for Air Quality

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS Appendix U-9

SEIS Table U-10. Summary of Output - Alternative F

Total Annual Emissions from Natural Gas Wells - Year 2024

Activity Annual Emissions (Tons)

PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPsb

Well Pad & Station Construction - Fugitive Dust 3.52 0.53 --- --- --- --- ---

Heavy Equipment Combustive Emissionsa 1.18 1.18 35.61 0.17 7.83 1.71 0.17

Well Completion Flaring 0.01 0.01 0.13 0.00 0.71 4.32 0.43

Commuting Vehicles - Construction 8.15 0.82 0.45 0.00 0.70 0.06 0.01

Sub-total: Construction 12.86 2.54 36.20 0.18 9.24 6.09 0.61

Natural Gas Compression - Operationsa 7.39 7.39 111.93 0.22 223.87 111.93 17.91

Separator, Dehydrator & Water Tank Heaters - Operationsa 6.18 6.18 81.31 0.49 68.30 578.05 60.67

Station Visits - Operations 7.11 0.71 0.02 0.00 0.40 0.02 0.002

Well Workover - Operations 0.11 0.01 0.05 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.002

Well & Pipeline visits for Inspection & Repair - Operations 15.25 1.52 0.07 0.01 0.78 0.05 0.005

Tanks Condensate and Loadout --- --- --- --- --- 55.01 5.50

Sub-total: Operations 36.04 15.81 193.37 0.72 293.36 745.09 84.09

Road Maintenance 3.39 0.31 0.06 0.004 0.05 0.03 0.003

Sub-total: Maintenance 3.39 0.31 0.06 0.004 0.05 0.03 0.003

Road Reclamationc 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Well Reclamationc 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Sub-total: Reclamation 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0.00 0.000 0.0000

Total Emissions 52.30 18.67 229.63 0.90 302.66 751.21 84.70

a PM2.5 assumed = PM10 for this source.

b HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants, assumed = VOCs*0.1; dehydrator unit HAP and formaldehyde HAP (gas compression) added separately C

Annual Emissions for reclamation activities are estimated to be less than 0.01 ton in most cases and are therefore shown as 0.00 due to rounding.
Appendix U – Technical Support Document for Air Quality

Appendix U-10 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

SEIS Table U-11. Summary of Output - Alternative E

Annual Emissions Estimation for Salable Minerals Equipment Usage - Year 2015

Activity Annual Emissions (Tons)

PM10 PM2.5

a NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPsb

Sand Handling, Transfer, and Storage 85.86 9.44 3.40 --- --- --- ---

Unpaved Roads 243.85 24.26 --- --- --- --- ---

Commuting Vehicles - Exhaust 0.10 0.07 3.56 0.01 5.20 0.47 0.05

Batch Drop Operations 0.14 0.02 --- --- --- --- ---

Heavy Equipment - Dust 0.65 0.10 --- --- --- --- ---

Heavy Equipment - Combustive 0.03 0.03 0.72 0.05 0.23 0.31 0.03

Total Emissions 330.63 33.92 7.69 0.06 5.43 0.78 0.08

a Emission factor for PM2.5 = PM10 for combustive emissions.

b HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants; assumed = VOCs * 0.1

SEIS Table U-12. Summary of Output - Alternative E

Annual Emissions Estimation for Salable Minerals Equipment Usage - Year 2024

Activity Annual Emissions (Tons)

PM10 PM2.5

a NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPsb

Sand Handling, Transfer, and Storage 85.86 9.44 3.40 --- --- --- ---

Unpaved Roads 243.85 24.26 --- --- --- ---

Commuting Vehicles - Exhaust 0.10 0.07 3.56 0.01 5.20 0.47 0.05

Batch Drop Operations 0.14 0.02 --- --- --- --- ---

Heavy Equipment - Dust 0.65 0.10 --- --- --- --- ---

Heavy Equipment - Combustive 0.03 0.03 0.72 0.05 0.23 0.31 0.03

Total Emissions 330.63 33.92 7.69 0.06 5.43 0.78 0.08

a Emission factor for PM2.5 = PM10 for combustive emissions.

b HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants; assumed = VOCs * 0.1
Appendix U – Technical Support Document for Air Quality

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS Appendix U-11

SEIS Table U-13. Summary of Output - Alternative F

Annual Emissions Estimation for Salable Minerals Equipment Usage - Year 2015

Activity Annual Emissions (Tons)

PM10 PM2.5

a NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPsb

Sand Handling, Transfer, and Storage 78.86 8.67 3.12 --- --- --- ---

Unpaved Roads 223.96 22.28 --- --- --- --- ---

Commuting Vehicles - Exhaust 0.09 0.07 3.27 0.01 4.78 0.43 0.04

Batch Drop Operations 0.13 0.02 --- --- --- --- ---

Heavy Equipment - Dust 1.56 0.23 --- --- --- --- ---

Heavy Equipment - Combustive 0.02 0.02 0.67 0.05 0.21 0.29 0.03

Total Emissions 304.63 31.30 7.06 0.06 4.99 0.72 0.07

a Emission factor for PM2.5 = PM10 for combustive emissions.

b HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants; assumed = VOCs * 0.1

SEIS Table U-14. Summary of Output - Alternative F

Annual Emissions Estimation for Salable Minerals Equipment Usage - Year 2024

Activity Annual Emissions (Tons)

PM10 PM2.5

a NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPsb

Sand Handling, Transfer, and Storage 78.86 8.67 3.12 --- --- --- ---

Unpaved Roads 223.96 22.28 --- --- --- ---

Commuting Vehicles - Exhaust 0.09 0.07 3.27 0.01 4.78 0.43 0.04

Batch Drop Operations 0.13 0.02 --- --- --- --- ---

Heavy Equipment - Dust 1.56 0.23 --- --- --- --- ---

Heavy Equipment - Combustive 0.02 0.02 0.67 0.05 0.21 0.29 0.03

Total Emissions 304.63 31.30 7.06 0.06 4.99 0.72 0.07

a Emission factor for PM2.5 = PM10 for combustive emissions.

b HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants; assumed = VOCs * 0.1
Appendix U – Technical Support Document for Air Quality

Appendix U-12 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

SEIS Table U-15. Summary of Output - Alternative E

Annual Emissions Estimation for Locatable Minerals Equipment Usage - Year 2015

Activity Annual Emissions (Tons)

PM10 PM2.5

a NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPsb

Product Handling, Transfer, and Storage 858.95 94.48 34.04 --- --- --- ---

Unpaved Roads 202.21 20.12 --- --- --- --- ---

Commuting - Exhaust 0.14 0.09 4.58 0.02 11.74 0.82 0.08

Batch Drop Operations 1.39 0.21 --- --- --- --- ---

Heavy Equipment - Dust 13.00 1.95 --- --- --- --- ---

Heavy Equipment - Combustive 0.09 0.09 2.40 0.17 0.78 1.12 0.11

Total Emissions 1,075.78 116.95 41.02 0.19 12.52 1.94 0.19

a Emission factor for PM2.5 = PM10 for combustive emissions.

b HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants; assumed = VOCs * 0.1

SEIS Table U-16. Summary of Output - Alternative E

Annual Emissions Estimation for Locatable Minerals Equipment Usage - Year 2024

Activity Annual Emissions (Tons)

PM10 PM2.5

a NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPsb

Product Handling, Transfer, and Storage 858.95 94.48 34.04 --- --- --- ---

Unpaved Roads 202.21 20.12 --- --- --- --- ---

Commuting - Exhaust 0.14 0.09 4.58 0.02 11.74 0.82 0.08

Batch Drop Operations 1.39 0.21 --- --- --- --- ---

Heavy Equipment - Dust 13.00 1.95 --- --- --- --- ---

Heavy Equipment - Combustive 0.09 0.09 0.75 0.17 0.78 1.12 0.11

Total Emissions 1075.78 116.95 39.36 0.19 12.52 1.94 0.19

a Emission factor for PM2.5 = PM10 for combustive emissions.

b HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants; assumed = VOCs * 0.1
Appendix U – Technical Support Document for Air Quality

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS Appendix U-13

SEIS Table U-17. Summary of Output - Alternative F

Annual Emissions Estimation for Locatable Minerals Equipment Usage - Year 2015

Activity Annual Emissions (Tons)

PM10 PM2.5

a NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPsb

Product Handling, Transfer, and Storage 1,196.82 131.65 47.42 --- --- --- ---

Unpaved Roads 202.21 20.12 --- --- --- --- ---

Commuting - Exhaust 0.14 0.09 4.58 0.02 11.74 0.82 0.08

Batch Drop Operations 1.94 0.29 --- --- --- --- ---

Heavy Equipment - Dust 19.50 2.93 --- --- --- --- ---

Heavy Equipment - Combustive 0.09 0.09 2.40 0.17 0.78 1.12 0.11

Total Emissions 1,420.69 155.17 54.40 0.19 12.52 1.94 0.19

a Emission factor for PM2.5 = PM10 for combustive emissions.

b HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants; assumed = VOCs * 0.1

SEIS Table U-18. Summary of Output - Alternative F

Annual Emissions Estimation for Locatable Minerals Equipment Usage - Year 2024

Activity Annual Emissions (Tons)

PM10 PM2.5

a NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPsb

Product Handling, Transfer, and Storage 1,196.82 131.65 47.42 --- --- --- ---

Unpaved Roads 202.21 20.12 --- --- --- --- ---

Commuting - Exhaust 0.14 0.09 4.58 0.02 11.74 0.82 0.08

Batch Drop Operations 1.94 0.29 --- --- --- --- ---

Heavy Equipment - Dust 19.50 2.93 --- --- --- --- ---

Heavy Equipment - Combustive 0.09 0.09 0.75 0.17 0.78 1.12 0.11

Total Emissions 1,420.69 155.17 52.75 0.19 12.52 1.94 0.19

a Emission factor for PM2.5 = PM10 for combustive emissions.

b HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants; assumed = VOCs * 0.1
Appendix U – Technical Support Document for Air Quality

Appendix U-14 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

SEIS Table U-19. Summary of Output - Alternative E

Total Annual Emissions from Renewable Energy Development - Year 2015

Activity Annual Emissions (Tons)

PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPsb

Heavy Equipment - Fugitive Dust 54.08 8.11 --- --- --- --- ---

Heavy Equipment - Vehicle Exhausta 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.00

Sub-total: Heavy Equipment 54.08 8.12 0.09 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.00

Commuting Vehicles - Fugitive Dust 5.27 0.52 --- --- --- --- ---

Commuting Vehicles - Vehicle Exhaust 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.27 0.02 0.00

Sub-total: Commuting Vehicles 5.28 0.53 0.10 0.00 0.27 0.02 0.00

Total Emissions 59.36 8.64 0.19 0.01 0.30 0.06 0.01

a PM2.5 assumed = PM10 for this source.

b HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants; assumed = VOCs * 0.1

SEIS Table U-20. Summary of Output - Alternative E

Total Annual Emissions from Renewable Energy Development - Year 2024

Activity Annual Emissions (Tons)

PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPsb

Heavy Equipment - Fugitive Dust 54.08 8.11 --- --- --- --- ---

Heavy Equipment - Vehicle Exhausta 0.01 0.01 0.14 0.01 0.05 0.07 0.01

Sub-total: Heavy Equipment 54.09 8.12 0.14 0.01 0.05 0.07 0.01

Commuting Vehicles - Fugitive Dust 5.27 0.52 --- --- --- --- ---

Commuting Vehicles - Vehicle Exhaust 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.38 0.03 0.00

Sub-total: Commuting Vehicles 5.28 0.53 0.14 0.00 0.38 0.03 0.00

Total Emissions 59.36 8.64 0.28 0.01 0.43 0.09 0.01

a PM2.5 assumed = PM10 for this source.

b HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants; assumed = VOCs * 0.1
Appendix U – Technical Support Document for Air Quality

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS Appendix U-15

SEIS Table U-21. Summary of Output - Alternative F

Total Annual Emissions from Renewable Energy Development - Year 2015

Activity Annual Emissions (Tons)

PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPsb

Heavy Equipment - Fugitive Dust 54.08 8.11 --- --- --- --- ---

Heavy Equipment - Vehicle Exhausta 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.00

Sub-total: Heavy Equipment 54.08 8.12 0.09 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.00

Commuting Vehicles - Fugitive Dust 5.27 0.52 --- --- --- --- ---

Commuting Vehicles - Vehicle Exhaust 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.27 0.02 0.00

Sub-total: Commuting Vehicles 5.28 0.53 0.10 0.00 0.27 0.02 0.00

Total Emissions 59.36 8.64 0.19 0.01 0.30 0.06 0.01

a PM2.5 assumed = PM10 for this source.

b HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants; assumed = VOCs * 0.1

SEIS Table U-22. Summary of Output - Alternative F

Total Annual Emissions from Renewable Energy Development - Year 2024

Activity Annual Emissions (Tons)

PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPsb

Heavy Equipment - Fugitive Dust 54.08 8.11 --- --- --- --- ---

Heavy Equipment - Vehicle Exhausta 0.01 0.01 0.14 0.01 0.05 0.07 0.01

Sub-total: Heavy Equipment 54.09 8.12 0.14 0.01 0.05 0.07 0.01

Commuting Vehicles - Fugitive Dust 5.27 0.52 --- --- --- --- ---

Commuting Vehicles - Vehicle Exhaust 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.38 0.03 0.00

Sub-total: Commuting Vehicles 5.28 0.53 0.14 0.00 0.38 0.03 0.00

Total Emissions 59.36 8.64 0.28 0.01 0.43 0.09 0.01

a PM2.5 assumed = PM10 for this source.

b HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants; assumed = VOCs * 0.1
Appendix U – Technical Support Document for Air Quality

Appendix U-16 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

SEIS Table U-23. Summary of Output - Alternative E

Total Annual Emissions from Livestock Grazing Projects - Year 2015

Activity Annual Emissions (Tons)

PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPsb

Heavy Equipment - Fugitive Dust 11.23 1.68 --- --- --- --- ---

Heavy Equipment - Vehicle Exhausta 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00

Sub-total: Heavy Equipment 11.23 1.68 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00

Commuting Vehicles - Fugitive Dust 0.72 0.07 --- --- --- --- ---

Commuting Vehicles - Vehicle Exhaust 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.07 0.01 0.00

Sub-total: Commuting Vehicles 0.73 0.07 0.03 0.00 0.07 0.01 0.00

Total Emissions 11.95 1.76 0.05 0.00 0.08 0.02 0.00

a PM2.5 assumed = PM10 for this source.

b HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants; assumed = VOCs * 0.1

SEIS Table U-24. Summary of Output - Alternative E

Total Annual Emissions from Livestock Grazing Projects - Year 2024

Activity Annual Emissions (Tons)

PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPsb

Heavy Equipment - Fugitive Dust 11.23 1.68 --- --- --- --- ---

Heavy Equipment - Vehicle Exhausta 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00

Sub-total: Heavy Equipment 11.23 1.68 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00

Commuting Vehicles - Fugitive Dust 0.72 0.07 --- --- --- --- ---

Commuting Vehicles - Vehicle Exhaust 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.07 0.01 0.00

Sub-total: Commuting Vehicles 0.73 0.07 0.03 0.00 0.07 0.01 0.00

Total Emissions 11.95 1.76 0.05 0.00 0.08 0.02 0.00

a PM2.5 assumed = PM10 for this source.

b HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants; assumed = VOCs * 0.1
Appendix U – Technical Support Document for Air Quality

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS Appendix U-17

SEIS Table U-25. Summary of Output - Alternative F

Total Annual Emissions from Livestock Grazing Projects - Year 2015

Activity Annual Emissions (Tons)

PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPsb

Heavy Equipment - Fugitive Dust 11.23 1.68 --- --- --- --- ---

Heavy Equipment - Vehicle Exhausta 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00

Sub-total: Heavy Equipment 11.23 1.69 0.05 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00

Commuting Vehicles - Fugitive Dust 1.38 0.14 --- --- --- --- ---

Commuting Vehicles - Vehicle Exhaust 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.14 0.01 0.00

Sub-total: Commuting Vehicles 1.38 0.14 0.05 0.00 0.14 0.01 0.00

Total Emissions 12.61 1.82 0.10 0.00 0.15 0.03 0.00

a PM2.5 assumed = PM10 for this source.

b HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants; assumed = VOCs * 0.1

SEIS Table U-26. Summary of Output - Alternative F

Total Annual Emissions from Livestock Grazing Projects - Year 2024

Activity Annual Emissions (Tons)

PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPsb

Heavy Equipment - Fugitive Dust 11.23 1.68 --- --- --- --- ---

Heavy Equipment - Vehicle Exhausta 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00

Sub-total: Heavy Equipment 11.23 1.69 0.05 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00

Heavy Equipment - Fugitive Dust 1.38 0.14 --- --- --- --- ---

Commuting Vehicles - Vehicle Exhaust 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.14 0.01 0.00

Sub-total: Commuting Vehicles 1.38 0.14 0.05 0.00 0.14 0.01 0.00

Total Emissions 12.61 1.82 0.10 0.00 0.15 0.03 0.00

a PM2.5 assumed = PM10 for this source.

b HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants; assumed = VOCs * 0.1
Appendix U – Technical Support Document for Air Quality

Appendix U-18 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

SEIS Table U-27. Summary of Output - Alternative E

Total Annual Emissions from Vegetation Projects - Year 2015

Activity Annual Emissions (Tons)

PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPsb

Heavy Equipment - Fugitive Dust 3.60 0.54 --- --- --- --- ---

Heavy Equipment - Vehicle Exhausta 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Sub-total: Heavy Equipment 3.60 0.54 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Commuting Vehicles - Fugitive Dust 0.68 0.07 --- --- --- --- ---

Commuting Vehicles - Vehicle Exhaust 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00

Sub-total: Commuting Vehicles 0.68 0.07 0.01 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00

Total Emissions 4.28 0.61 0.01 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00

a PM2.5 assumed = PM10 for this source.

b HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants; assumed = VOCs * 0.1

SEIS Table U-28. Summary of Output - Alternative E

Total Annual Emissions from Vegetation Projects - Year 2024

Activity Annual Emissions (Tons)

PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPsb

Heavy Equipment - Fugitive Dust 3.60 0.54 --- --- --- --- ---

Heavy Equipment - Vehicle Exhausta 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Sub-total: Heavy Equipment 3.60 0.54 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Commuting Vehicles - Fugitive Dust 0.68 0.07 --- --- --- --- ---

Commuting Vehicles - Vehicle Exhaust 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00

Sub-total: Commuting Vehicles 0.68 0.07 0.01 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00

Total Emissions 4.28 0.61 0.01 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00

a PM2.5 assumed = PM10 for this source.

b HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants; assumed = VOCs * 0.1
Appendix U – Technical Support Document for Air Quality

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS Appendix U-19

SEIS Table U-29. Summary of Output - Alternative F

Total Annual Emissions from Vegetation Projects - Year 2015

Activity Annual Emissions (Tons)

PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPsb

Heavy Equipment - Fugitive Dust 1.87 0.28 --- --- --- --- ---

Heavy Equipment - Vehicle Exhausta 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Sub-total: Heavy Equipment 1.87 0.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Commuting Vehicles - Fugitive Dust 0.34 0.03 --- --- --- --- ---

Commuting Vehicles - Vehicle Exhaust 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00

Sub-total: Commuting Vehicles 0.34 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00

Total Emissions 2.21 0.31 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00

a PM2.5 assumed = PM10 for this source.

b HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants; assumed = VOCs * 0.1

SEIS Table U-30. Summary of Output - Alternative F

Total Annual Emissions from Vegetation Projects - Year 2024

Activity Annual Emissions (Tons)

PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPsb

Heavy Equipment - Fugitive Dust 1.87 0.28 --- --- --- --- ---

Heavy Equipment - Vehicle Exhausta 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Sub-total: Heavy Equipment 1.87 0.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Commuting Vehicles - Fugitive Dust 0.34 0.03 --- --- --- --- ---

Commuting Vehicles - Vehicle Exhaust 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00

Sub-total: Commuting Vehicles 0.34 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00

Total Emissions 2.21 0.31 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00

a PM2.5 assumed = PM10 for this source.

b HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants; assumed = VOCs * 0.1
Appendix U – Technical Support Document for Air Quality

Appendix U-20 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

SEIS Table U-31. Summary of Output - Alternative E

Total Annual Emissions from Vegetation Management of Invasive Species - Year 2015

Activity Annual Emissions (Tons)

PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPsb

Heavy Equipment - Fugitive Dust 0.39 0.06 --- --- --- --- ---

Heavy Equipment - Vehicle Exhausta 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.02 0.00

Sub-total: Heavy Equipment 0.39 0.06 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.02 0.00

Commuting Vehicles - Fugitive Dust 6.08 0.61 --- --- --- --- ---

Commuting Vehicles - Vehicle Exhaust 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.28 0.02 0.00

Sub-total: Commuting Vehicles 6.08 0.61 0.12 0.00 0.28 0.02 0.00

Total Emissions 6.47 0.67 0.16 0.00 0.32 0.04 0.00

a PM2.5 assumed = PM10 for this source.

b HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants; assumed = VOCs * 0.1

SEIS Table U-32. Summary of Output - Alternative E

Total Annual Emissions from Vegetation Management of Invasive Species - Year 2024

Activity Annual Emissions (Tons)

PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPsb

Heavy Equipment - Fugitive Dust 0.39 0.06 --- --- --- --- ---

Heavy Equipment - Vehicle Exhausta 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.02 0.00

Sub-total: Heavy Equipment 0.39 0.06 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.02 0.00

Commuting Vehicles - Fugitive Dust 6.08 0.61 --- --- --- --- ---

Commuting Vehicles - Vehicle Exhaust 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.28 0.02 0.00

Sub-total: Commuting Vehicles 6.08 0.61 0.12 0.00 0.28 0.02 0.00

Total Emissions 6.47 0.67 0.16 0.00 0.32 0.04 0.00

a PM2.5 assumed = PM10 for this source.

b HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants; assumed = VOCs * 0.1
Appendix U – Technical Support Document for Air Quality

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS Appendix U-21

SEIS Table U-33. Summary of Output - Alternative F

Total Annual Emissions from Vegetation Management of Invasive Species - Year 2015

Activity Annual Emissions (Tons)

PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPsb

Heavy Equipment - Fugitive Dust 0.78 0.12 --- --- --- --- ---

Heavy Equipment - Vehicle Exhausta 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.02 0.00

Sub-total: Heavy Equipment 0.78 0.12 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.02 0.00

Commuting Vehicles - Fugitive Dust 12.15 1.21 --- --- --- --- ---

Commuting Vehicles - Vehicle Exhaust 0.01 0.00 0.23 0.00 0.57 0.04 0.00

Sub-total: Commuting Vehicles 12.16 1.21 0.23 0.00 0.57 0.04 0.00

Total Emissions 12.94 1.33 0.27 0.00 0.60 0.06 0.01

a PM2.5 assumed = PM10 for this source.

b HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants; assumed = VOCs * 0.1

SEIS Table U-34. Summary of Output - Alternative F

Total Annual Emissions from Vegetation Management of Invasive Species - Year 2024

Activity

Annual Emissions (Tons)

PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPsb

Heavy Equipment - Fugitive Dust 0.78 0.12 --- --- --- --- ---

Heavy Equipment - Vehicle Exhausta 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.02 0.00

Sub-total: Heavy Equipment 0.78 0.12 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.02 0.00

Commuting Vehicles - Fugitive Dust 12.15 1.21 --- --- --- --- ---

Commuting Vehicles - Vehicle Exhaust 0.01 0.00 0.23 0.00 0.57 0.04 0.00

Sub-total: Commuting Vehicles 12.16 1.21 0.23 0.00 0.57 0.04 0.00

Total Emissions 12.94 1.33 0.27 0.00 0.60 0.06 0.01

a PM2.5 assumed = PM10 for this source.

b HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants; assumed = VOCs * 0.1
Appendix U – Technical Support Document for Air Quality

Appendix U-22 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

SEIS Table U-35. Summary of Output - Alternative E

Total Annual Emissions from Fire Management Projects - Year 2015

Activity Annual Emissions (Tons)

PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPsb

Heavy Equipment - Fugitive Dust 148.20 22.23 --- --- --- --- ---

Heavy Equipment - Vehicle Exhausta 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.00 3.39 0.60 0.06

Sub-total: Heavy Equipment 148.29 22.32 0.08 0.00 3.39 0.60 0.06

Commuting Vehicles - Fugitive Dust 18.02 1.79 --- --- --- --- ---

Commuting Vehicles - Vehicle Exhaust 0.08 0.08 0.42 0.00 2.46 1.84 0.18

Sub-total: Commuting Vehicles 18.10 1.87 0.42 0.00 2.46 1.84 0.18

Total Emissions 166.39 24.19 0.50 0.01 5.86 2.44 0.24

a PM2.5 assumed = PM10 for this source.

b HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants; assumed = VOCs * 0.1

SEIS Table U-36. Summary of Output - Alternative E

Total Annual Emissions from Fire Management Projects - Year 2024

Activity Annual Emissions (Tons)

PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPsb

Heavy Equipment - Fugitive Dust 148.20 22.23 --- --- --- --- ---

Heavy Equipment - Vehicle Exhausta 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.00 3.39 0.60 0.06

Sub-total: Heavy Equipment 148.29 22.32 0.08 0.00 3.39 0.60 0.06

Commuting Vehicles - Fugitive Dust 18.02 1.79 --- --- --- --- ---

Commuting Vehicles - Vehicle Exhaust 0.08 0.08 0.42 0.00 2.46 1.84 0.18

Sub-total: Commuting Vehicles 18.10 1.87 0.42 0.00 2.46 1.84 0.18

Total Emissions 166.39 24.19 0.50 0.01 5.86 2.44 0.24

a PM2.5 assumed = PM10 for this source.

b HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants; assumed = VOCs * 0.1
Appendix U – Technical Support Document for Air Quality

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS Appendix U-23

SEIS Table U-37. Summary of Output - Alternative F

Total Annual Emissions from Fire Management Projects - Year 2015

Activity Annual Emissions (Tons)

PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPsb

Heavy Equipment - Fugitive Dust 296.40 44.46 --- --- --- --- ---

Heavy Equipment - Vehicle Exhausta 0.19 0.19 0.16 0.01 6.79 1.21 0.12

Sub-total: Heavy Equipment 296.59 44.65 0.16 0.01 6.79 1.21 0.12

Commuting Vehicles - Fugitive Dust 37.02 3.68 --- --- --- --- ---

Commuting Vehicles - Vehicle Exhaust 0.16 0.16 0.87 0.00 4.96 3.68 0.37

Sub-total: Commuting Vehicles 37.18 3.84 0.87 0.00 4.96 3.68 0.37

Total Emissions 333.77 48.49 1.03 0.01 11.75 4.89 0.49

a PM2.5 assumed = PM10 for this source.

b HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants; assumed = VOCs * 0.1

SEIS Table U-38. Summary of Output - Alternative F

Total Annual Emissions from Fire Management Projects - Year 2024

Activity Annual Emissions (Tons)

PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPsb

Heavy Equipment - Fugitive Dust 296.40 44.46 --- --- --- --- ---

Heavy Equipment - Vehicle Exhausta 0.19 0.19 0.16 0.01 6.79 1.21 0.12

Sub-total: Heavy Equipment 296.59 44.65 0.16 0.01 6.79 1.21 0.12

Commuting Vehicles - Fugitive Dust 37.02 3.68 --- --- --- --- ---

Commuting Vehicles - Vehicle Exhaust 0.16 0.16 0.87 0.00 4.96 3.68 0.37

Sub-total: Commuting Vehicles 37.18 3.84 0.87 0.00 4.96 3.68 0.37

Total Emissions 333.77 48.49 1.03 0.01 11.75 4.89 0.49

a PM2.5 assumed = PM10 for this source.

b HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants; assumed = VOCs * 0.1
Appendix U – Technical Support Document for Air Quality

Appendix U-24 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

SEIS Table U-39. Summary of Output - Alternative E

Total Annual Emissions from Forest and Woodlands Projects - Year 2015

Activity Annual Emissions (Tons)

PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPsb

Heavy Equipment - Fugitive Dust 12.64 1.90 --- --- --- --- ---

Heavy Equipment - Vehicle Exhausta 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.37 0.06 0.01

Sub-total: Heavy Equipment 12.65 1.91 0.02 0.00 0.37 0.06 0.01

Commuting Vehicles - Fugitive Dust 1.98 0.20 --- --- --- --- ---

Commuting Vehicles - Vehicle Exhaust 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.07 0.02 0.00

Sub-total: Commuting Vehicles 1.99 0.20 0.07 0.00 0.07 0.02 0.00

Total Emissions 14.63 2.11 0.08 0.00 0.44 0.09 0.01

a PM2.5 assumed = PM10 for this source.

b HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants; assumed = VOCs * 0.1

SEIS Table U-40. Summary of Output - Alternative E

Total Annual Emissions from Forest and Woodlands Projects - Year 2024

Activity Annual Emissions (Tons)

PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPsb

Heavy Equipment - Fugitive Dust 12.64 1.90 --- --- --- --- ---

Heavy Equipment - Vehicle Exhausta 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.48 0.08 0.01

Sub-total: Heavy Equipment 12.65 1.91 0.02 0.00 0.48 0.08 0.01

Commuting Vehicles - Fugitive Dust 1.98 0.20 --- --- --- --- ---

Commuting Vehicles - Vehicle Exhaust 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.07 0.02 0.00

Sub-total: Commuting Vehicles 1.99 0.20 0.07 0.00 0.07 0.02 0.00

Total Emissions 14.64 2.11 0.08 0.00 0.55 0.11 0.01

a PM2.5 assumed = PM10 for this source.

b HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants; assumed = VOCs * 0.1
Appendix U – Technical Support Document for Air Quality

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS Appendix U-25

SEIS Table U-41. Summary of Output - Alternative F

Total Annual Emissions from Forest and Woodlands Projects - Year 2015

Activity Annual Emissions (Tons)

PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPsb

Heavy Equipment - Fugitive Dust 19.14 2.87 --- --- --- --- ---

Heavy Equipment - Vehicle Exhausta 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.32 0.06 0.01

Sub-total: Heavy Equipment 19.15 2.88 0.02 0.00 0.32 0.06 0.01

Commuting Vehicles - Fugitive Dust 3.14 0.31 --- --- --- --- ---

Commuting Vehicles - Vehicle Exhaust 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.09 0.03 0.00

Sub-total: Commuting Vehicles 3.14 0.32 0.11 0.00 0.09 0.03 0.00

Total Emissions 22.29 3.19 0.14 0.00 0.41 0.09 0.01

a PM2.5 assumed = PM10 for this source.

b HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants; assumed = VOCs * 0.1

SEIS Table U-42. Summary of Output - Alternative F

Total Annual Emissions from Forest and Woodlands Projects - Year 2024

Activity Annual Emissions (Tons)

PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPsb

Heavy Equipment - Fugitive Dust 19.14 2.87 --- --- --- --- ---

Heavy Equipment - Vehicle Exhausta 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.73 0.13 0.01

Sub-total: Heavy Equipment 19.16 2.89 0.03 0.00 0.73 0.13 0.01

Commuting Vehicles - Fugitive Dust 3.14 0.31 --- --- --- --- ---

Commuting Vehicles - Vehicle Exhaust 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.09 0.03 0.00

Sub-total: Commuting Vehicles 3.14 0.32 0.11 0.00 0.09 0.03 0.00

Total Emissions 22.30 3.21 0.14 0.00 0.81 0.16 0.02

a PM2.5 assumed = PM10 for this source.

b HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants; assumed = VOCs * 0.1
Appendix U – Technical Support Document for Air Quality

Appendix U-26 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

SEIS Table U-43. Summary of Output - Alternative E

Summary of ROW and Corridors Emissions - Year 2015

Activity Annual Emissions (Tons)

PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPsb

Heavy Equipment - Fugitive Dust 1.03 0.16 --- --- --- --- ---

Heavy Equipment - Vehicle Exhausta 0.01 0.01 0.26 0.02 0.07 0.10 0.01

Sub-total: Heavy Equipment 1.04 0.16 0.26 0.02 0.07 0.10 0.01

Commuting Vehicles - Fugitive Dust 3.06 0.30 --- --- --- --- ---

Commuting Vehicles - Vehicle Exhaust 0.02 0.02 0.76 0.00 1.21 0.11 0.01

Sub-total: Commuting Vehicles 3.09 0.32 0.76 0.00 1.21 0.11 0.01

Total Emissions 4.13 0.48 1.02 0.02 1.28 0.21 0.02

a PM2.5 assumed = PM10 for this source.

b HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants; assumed = VOCs * 0.1

SEIS Table U-44. Summary of Output - Alternative E

Summary of ROW and Corridors Emissions - Year 2024

Activity Annual Emissions (Tons)

PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPsb

Heavy Equipment - Fugitive Dust 1.03 0.16 --- --- --- --- ---

Heavy Equipment - Vehicle Exhausta 0.01 0.01 0.26 0.02 0.07 0.10 0.01

Sub-total: Heavy Equipment 1.04 0.16 0.26 0.02 0.07 0.10 0.01

Commuting Vehicles - Fugitive Dust 3.06 0.30 --- --- --- --- ---

Commuting Vehicles - Vehicle Exhaust 0.02 0.02 0.76 0.00 1.21 0.11 0.01

Sub-total: Commuting Vehicles 3.09 0.32 0.76 0.00 1.21 0.11 0.01

Total Emissions 4.13 0.48 1.02 0.02 1.28 0.21 0.02

a PM2.5 assumed = PM10 for this source.

b HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants; assumed = VOCs * 0.1
Appendix U – Technical Support Document for Air Quality

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS Appendix U-27

SEIS Table U-45. Summary of Output - Alternative F

Summary of ROW and Corridors Emissions - Year 2015

Activity Annual Emissions (Tons)

PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPsb

Heavy Equipment - Fugitive Dust 0.84 0.13 --- --- --- --- ---

Heavy Equipment - Vehicle Exhausta 0.01 0.01 0.19 0.01 0.05 0.08 0.01

Sub-total: Heavy Equipment 0.85 0.13 0.19 0.01 0.05 0.08 0.01

Commuting Vehicles - Fugitive Dust 3.14 0.31 --- --- --- --- ---

Commuting Vehicles - Vehicle Exhaust 0.02 0.02 0.81 0.00 1.10 0.10 0.01

Sub-total: Commuting Vehicles 3.16 0.33 0.81 0.00 1.10 0.10 0.01

Total Emissions 4.01 0.46 1.00 0.01 1.15 0.18 0.02

a PM2.5 assumed = PM10 for this source.

b HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants; assumed = VOCs * 0.1

SEIS Table U-46. Summary of Output - Alternative F

Summary of ROW and Corridors Emissions - Year 2024

Activity Annual Emissions (Tons)

PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPsb

Heavy Equipment - Fugitive Dust 0.84 0.13 --- --- --- --- ---

Heavy Equipment - Vehicle Exhausta 0.01 0.01 0.19 0.01 0.05 0.08 0.01

Sub-total: Heavy Equipment 0.85 0.13 0.19 0.01 0.05 0.08 0.01

Commuting Vehicles - Fugitive Dust 3.14 0.31 --- --- --- --- ---

Commuting Vehicles - Vehicle Exhaust 0.02 0.02 0.81 0.00 1.10 0.10 0.01

Sub-total: Commuting Vehicles 3.16 0.33 0.81 0.00 1.10 0.10 0.01

Total Emissions 4.01 0.46 1.00 0.01 1.15 0.18 0.02

a PM2.5 assumed = PM10 for this source.

b HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants; assumed = VOCs * 0.1
Appendix U – Technical Support Document for Air Quality

Appendix U-28 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

SEIS Table U-47. Summary of Output - Alternative E

Total Annual Emissions from Road Maintenance Projects - Year 2015

Activity Annual Emissions (Tons)

PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPsb

Road Maintenance - Fugitive Dust 60.61 6.50 --- --- --- --- ---

Road Maintenance - Combustive Emissionsa 0.01 0.01 0.24 0.02 0.08 0.11 0.01

Total Emissions 60.62 6.51 0.24 0.02 0.08 0.11 0.01

a PM2.5 assumed = PM10 for this source.

b HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants; assumed = VOCs * 0.1

SEIS Table U-48. Summary of Output - Alternative E

Total Annual Emissions from Road Maintenance Projects - Year 2024

Activity Annual Emissions (Tons)

PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPsb

Road Maintenance - Fugitive Dust 60.61 6.50 --- --- --- --- ---

Road Maintenance - Combustive Emissionsa 0.01 0.01 0.24 0.02 0.08 0.11 0.01

Total Emissions 60.62 6.51 0.24 0.02 0.08 0.11 0.01

a PM2.5 assumed = PM10 for this source.

b HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants; assumed = VOCs * 0.1
Appendix U – Technical Support Document for Air Quality

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS Appendix U-29

SEIS Table U-49. Summary of Output - Alternative F

Total Annual Emissions from Road Maintenance Projects - Year 2015

Activity Annual Emissions (Tons)

PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPsb

Road Maintenance - Fugitive Dust 79.77 8.55 --- --- --- --- ---

Road Maintenance - Combustive Emissionsa 0.01 0.01 0.32 0.02 0.10 0.15 0.01

Total Emissions 79.78 8.56 0.32 0.02 0.10 0.15 0.01

a PM2.5 assumed = PM10 for this source.

b HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants; assumed = VOCs * 0.1

SEIS Table U-50. Summary of Output - Alternative F

Total Annual Emissions from Road Maintenance Projects - Year 2024

Activity Annual Emissions (Tons)

PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPsb

Road Maintenance - Fugitive Dust 79.77 8.55 --- --- --- --- ---

Road Maintenance - Combustive Emissionsa 0.01 0.01 0.32 0.02 0.10 0.15 0.01

Total Emissions 79.78 8.56 0.32 0.02 0.10 0.15 0.01

a PM2.5 assumed = PM10 for this source.

b HAPs = Hazardous Air Pollutants; assumed = VOCs * 0.1
Appendix U – Technical Support Document for Air Quality

Appendix U-30 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

This page intentionally left blank.
Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Bighorn Basin Resource Management Plan Revision Project

Appendix V

Water Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP)

Technical Support Document

Appendix V

Appendix V – Water Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP)

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS Appendix V-1

APPENDIX V

WATER EROSION PREDICTION PROJECT (WEPP)

TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT

NOTE: Replace Appendix V of the Draft RMP and Draft EIS with the revised Appendix V below, which 

incorporates WEPP analyses for new alternatives E and F.

1.0 WEPP ANALYSIS

This appendix describes the process and results of the quantitative analysis conducted by the Bureau of 

Land Management (BLM) using the Water Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP) model for the Bighorn 

Basin Resource Management Plan (RMP) revision. The WEPP model was used to predict how 

management under each alternative would impact erosion in the Planning Area. WEPP simulates the 

conditions that impact erosion, such as the amount of vegetation canopy and soil water content. 

Specifically, the BLM used the WEPP model to calculate runoff amounts and erosion rates which were 

based on a series of parameters designed to estimate conditions in the Planning Area and model the 

impacts of management actions. The results of the analysis are described in the Soil and Water section 

of Chapter 4 of the Draft RMP and Environmental Impact Statement.

The WEPP model used by the BLM is a web-based interface designed by the United States Forest 

Service. The WEPP model can be accessed at: http://forest.moscowfsl.wsu.edu/fswepp/. Erosion rates 

are inherently difficult to predict, and the rates of erosion predicted by WEPP are within +/-50 percent. 

Despite this lack of precision, these rates are appropriate for comparing and analyzing impacts of the 

alternatives on the soil resource. Erosion rates were calculated for different resource programs using 

surface disturbance acreage figures as projected in Appendix T.

Two modules available in the WEPP interface were used by the BLM to estimate erosion rates: WEPP 

Road and Disturbed WEPP. The WEPP Road module was used to predict erosion rates for new roads 

built in the Planning Area over the life of the plan. Disturbed WEPP was used to estimate runoff 

amounts and all other erosion rates as a result of surface-disturbing activity in the Planning Area. WEPP 

allows users to predict erosion rates for numerous forest and rangeland erosion conditions. In order to 

estimate these conditions, the BLM used certain assumptions and input parameters for the analysis.

Climate parameters used by the WEPP model were developed using Worland, Wyoming precipitation 

data at 5,000 feet of elevation in order to represent the entire Planning Area. Both the Disturbed WEPP 

and WEPP Road modules are limited to four soil textures (clay loam, silt loam, sandy loam, and loam); a 

loam soil texture was used for all erosion predictions.

All WEPP erosion analyses were conducted using a 50-year simulation to represent the return interval.

The following parameters were used to simulate conditions in the Planning Area:

• Slopes used in Disturbed WEPP: Upper slope 0 to 25 percent; lower slope 5 to 25 percent

• Slope lengths used in Disturbed WEPP: 300 feet (standard length used for environmental 

analysis in the Planning Area)

• Gradients used in WEPP Road: Road gradient 4 percent; fill gradient 30 percent; buffer gradient 

15 percent
Appendix V – Water Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP)

Appendix V-2 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

• Lengths used in WEPP Road: Road length 200 feet; fill length 15 feet; buffer length 130 feet

• Width used in WEPP Road: Road width 12 feet

• Rock cover used in Disturbed WEPP and WEPP Road: 5 percent

In addition to simulating conditions in the Planning Area the BLM needed to model the conditions for 

short-term and long-term surface disturbances. Disturbed WEPP has eight vegetative treatment options 

available: 20-year-old forest, 5-year-old forest, shrub-dominated rangeland, tall-grass prairie, shortgrass prairie, low-severity fire, high-severity fire, and skid trail. By adjusting cover parameters, these 

vegetative treatment options can be applied to a wide variety of vegetative communities and land uses. 

In order to simulate short-term and long-term disturbances, the following vegetation treatment and 

cover parameters were used:

• Short-term disturbance: high-severity fire with zero percent cover

• Long-term disturbance: short-grass prairie with 40 percent cover

The WEPP model, using these input parameters, calculated an initial average erosion rate of 4.165 tons 

per acre per year for short-term disturbances and a rate of 1.602 tons per acre per year for postreclamation disturbances in the long term. Runoff amounts were calculated using the same parameters. 

The WEPP model estimated that areas impacted by short-term surface disturbance would experience 

0.34 inches of runoff per year, and in the long term, average runoff would drop to 0.19 inches per year. 

The WEPP model estimated that with no disturbance there would be only trace amounts of annual 

runoff.

The WEPP Road module simulates road conditions using options for road design, road surface, and 

traffic level. Road design has four options including insloped, bare ditch; insloped, vegetated or rocked 

ditch; outsloped, rutted; and outsloped, unrutted. WEPP Road module options for road surface include 

native, graveled, or paved, and traffic level can be represented by a high, low, or no traffic option. For 

this analysis, the insloped, bare ditch road design, native road surface, and high traffic level were used. 

Using these parameters, the BLM calculated the erosion rate associated with road development to be 

292.4 pounds per year per 200 foot long, 12 foot wide stretch of road.

Using these average erosion rates and the surface disturbance acreage figures as projected in 

Appendix T, the BLM calculated the erosion figures displayed in Table V-1.
Appendix V – Water Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP)

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS Appendix V-3

Table V-1. Summary of Projected Tons of Erosion by Resource from BLM Actions

Type of Disturbance Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Alternative F

Mineral Resources – Leasable Oil and Gas (includes CBNG)

Tons of Erosion from Disturbance in Short Term 14,119 6,360 15,706 12,895 6,360 12,162

Tons of Erosion from Disturbance in Long Term 2,193 988 2,435 1,996 988 1,887

Mineral Resources – Locatable Minerals

Tons of Erosion from Disturbance in Short Term 83,300 62,475 83,300 83,300 62,475 83,300

Tons of Erosion from Disturbance in Long Term 16,020 8,010 16,020 16,020 8,010 16,020

Mineral Resources – Salable Minerals

Tons of Erosion from Disturbance in Short Term 8,330 3,332 8,330 7,497 332 7,497

Tons of Erosion from Disturbance in Long Term 2,563 961 2,563 2,163 961 2,163

Mineral Resources – Other Solid Leasables

Tons of Erosion from Disturbance in Short Term 0 0 0 0 0 0

Tons of Erosion from Disturbance in Long Term 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mineral Resources – Leasable Geothermal

Tons of Erosion from Disturbance in Short Term 0 0 0 0 0 0

Tons of Erosion from Disturbance in Long Term 0 0 0 0 0 0

Fire and Fuels Management1,2

Prescribed Fire

Tons of Erosion from Disturbance in Short Term 166,600 83,300 333,200 166,600 74,970 166,600

Tons of Erosion from Disturbance in Long Term 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mechanical Fuels Treatment

Tons of Erosion from Disturbance in Short Term 124,950 20,825 249,900 124,950 20,825 124,950

Tons of Erosion from Disturbance in Long Term 0 0 0 0 0 0
Appendix V – Water Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP)

Appendix V-4 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Table V-1. Summary of Projected Tons of Erosion by Resource from BLM Actions (Continued)

Type of Disturbance Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Alternative F

Forest, Woodlands, and Forest Products

Tons of Erosion from Disturbance in Short Term 124,950 83,300 166,600 124,950 83,300 124,950

Tons of Erosion from Disturbance in Long Term 0 0 0 0 0 0

Invasive Species3

Tons of Erosion from Disturbance in Short Term 8,330 417 16,660 8,330 417 8,330

Tons of Erosion from Disturbance in Long Term 0 0 0 0 0 0

Fish and Wildlife Resources

Fisheries and Stream Enhancement Activities

Tons of Erosion from Disturbance in Short Term 0 379 0 0 379 0

Tons of Erosion from Disturbance in Long Term 0 0 0 0 0 0

Watershed Enhancement Projects

Tons of Erosion from Disturbance in Short Term 3,253 6,506 1,629 3,253 6,506 3,253

Tons of Erosion from Disturbance in Long Term 370 740 266 370 740 266

Health and Safety – Abandoned Facilities and AML

Abandoned Facilities

Tons of Erosion from Disturbance in Short Term 833 833 833 833 833 833

Tons of Erosion from Disturbance in Long Term 0 0 0 0 0 0

Abandoned Mine Lands Restoration

Tons of Erosion from Disturbance in Short Term 0 0 0 0 0 0

Tons of Erosion from Disturbance in Long Term 0 0 0 0 0 0
Appendix V – Water Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP)

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS Appendix V-5

Table V-1. Summary of Projected Tons of Erosion by Resource from BLM Actions (Continued)

Type of Disturbance Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Alternative F

Paleontological

Tons of Erosion from Disturbance in Short Term 833 1,041 833 833 1,041 833

Tons of Erosion from Disturbance in Long Term 80 160 80 80 160 80

Renewable Energy – Wind Energy Development

Tons of Erosion from Disturbance in Short Term 833 833 833 833 833 833

Tons of Erosion from Disturbance in Long Term 80 80 80 80 80 80

Rights-of-Way (ROW)

Telephone and Fiber Optics

Tons of Erosion from Disturbance in Short Term 908 900 908 908 900 908

Tons of Erosion from Disturbance in Long Term 0 0 0 0 0 0

Pipelines (Mineral and Water)4

Tons of Erosion from Disturbance in Short Term 12,283 9,146 12,916 12,283 9,146 4,906

Tons of Erosion from Disturbance in Long Term 0 0 0 0 0 0

Roads5,6

Tons of Erosion from Disturbance in Short Term 5,217 3,261 12,307 5,217 3,261 3,564

Tons of Erosion from Disturbance in Long Term 2,608 1,632 6,154 2,608 1,629 1,783

Powerlines

Tons of Erosion from Disturbance in Short Term 1,408 954 1,495 1,408 954 687

Tons of Erosion from Disturbance in Long Term 2 2 2 2 2 2

Communication Sites

Tons of Erosion from Disturbance in Short Term 42 42 42 42 42 42

Tons of Erosion from Disturbance in Long Term 16 16 16 16 16 16
Appendix V – Water Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP)

Appendix V-6 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Table V-1. Summary of Projected Tons of Erosion by Resource from BLM Actions (Continued)

Type of Disturbance Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Alternative F

Other Facilities7

Tons of Erosion from Disturbance in Short Term 875 396 970 875 396 754

Tons of Erosion from Disturbance in Long Term 336 152 373 336 152 290

Comprehensive Trails and Travel Management

Motorized Vehicle Use

Tons of Erosion from Disturbance in Short Term 5,135 11,562 53,758 24,240 11,366 23,949

Tons of Erosion from Disturbance in Long Term 1,338 1,711 20,401 6,313 1,676 6,275

Recreation

Recreational Site Development

Tons of Erosion from Disturbance in Short Term 1,456 9,384 53,374 1,456 9,080 1,129

Tons of Erosion from Disturbance in Long Term 560 3,609 20,530 560 3,493 434

Livestock Grazing

Spring Development

Tons of Erosion from Disturbance in Short Term 21 10 42 21 10 20

Tons of Erosion from Disturbance in Long Term 2 1 8 2 1 1

Pipeline Development

Tons of Erosion from Disturbance in Short Term 250 125 500 250 125 237

Tons of Erosion from Disturbance in Long Term 4 2 8 4 2 4

Reservoir/Pit Development

Tons of Erosion from Disturbance in Short Term 167 83 333 167 83 158

Tons of Erosion from Disturbance in Long Term 8 4 16 8 4 8
Appendix V – Water Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP)

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS Appendix V-7

Table V-1. Summary of Projected Tons of Erosion by Resource from BLM Actions (Continued)

Type of Disturbance Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Alternative F

Fence Development

Tons of Erosion from Disturbance in Short Term 1,041 521 2,083 1,041 521 989

Tons of Erosion from Disturbance in Long Term 16 8 32 16 8 15

Well Development

Tons of Erosion from Disturbance in Short Term 21 10 42 21 10 20

Tons of Erosion from Disturbance in Long Term 2 1 3 2 1 2

Reservoir Maintenance Development

Tons of Erosion from Disturbance in Short Term 42 21 83 42 21 35

Tons of Erosion from Disturbance in Long Term 3 2 6 3 4 8

Cumulative Disturbance

Total Tons of Erosion from Disturbance in Short Term 568,166 307,873 1,023,686 585,214 299,044 572,972

Total Tons of Erosion from Disturbance in Long Term 25,167 17,432 66,555 29,546 17,281 28,622

1

Acres disturbed by mechanical fuels treatment and prescribed fire will naturally be reclaimed within 5 years. Therefore long-term erosion will be zero. 2

Includes range enhancements and other wildlife habitat restoration actions.

3

Surface disturbance activities resulting from invasive species projects will be naturally reclaimed within 5 years. Therefore long-term erosion will be zero. 4

Actions would likely be mostly oil and gas related, including carbon dioxide and energy pipeline. 5

Calculated using WEPP Road module and parameters. 6

Approximately 50 percent of roads would be oil and gas related, with the rest coming from local demand.

7

Actions would likely be mostly oil and gas related.

AML Abandoned Mine Land

BLM Bureau of Land Management

CBNG coalbed natural gas

WEPP Water Erosion Prediction Project
Appendix V – Water Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP)

Appendix V-8 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

This page intentionally left blank.
Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Bighorn Basin Resource Management Plan Revision Project

Appendix X

Economic Impact Analysis Methodology

Appendix W

Appendix X

Appendix X – Economic Impact Analysis Methodology

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS Appendix X-1 

APPENDIX X 

ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY

NOTE: The following tables from the Draft RMP and Draft EIS are augmented to include the addition of 

the new alternatives E and F: Table X-1 (which lists the total projected well numbers for each 

alternative), Table X-2 (which presents the projected quantity of oil and gas produced on federal 

surface), Table X-3 (which presents the projected quantity of oil and gas produced from federal, state, 

and private [fee] surface), and Table X-8 (which provides a summary of initial AUMs and total AUMs lost 

by 2027 due to surface-disturbing activities). Refer to Appendix X of Draft RMP and Draft EIS for 

methodologies, assumptions, and other contextual information supporting these tables.

Table X-1. Oil and Gas Well Numbers

Item Conventional 

Infill

Exploratory 

Deep

Coalbed

Natural Gas Total

Federal Surface

Alternative A – Wells Drilled 934 111 85 1,130 

Alternative A – Wells Completed 803 32 77 913 

Alternative B – Wells Drilled 420 50 39 509 

Alternative B – Wells Completed 361 15 35 411 

Alternative C – Wells Drilled 1,053 125 79 1,257 

Alternative C – Wells Completed 906 36 71 1,013 

Alternative D – Wells Drilled 875 104 53 1,032 

Alternative D – Wells Completed 753 30 48 831 

Alternative E – Wells Drilled 420 50 39 509 

Alternative E – Wells Completed 361 15 35 411

Alternative F – Wells Drilled 802 95 76 973

Alternative F – Wells Completed 690 28 68 786 

Federal, State, and Fee Surface

Alternative A – Wells Drilled 1,351 160 130 1,641 

Alternative A – Wells Completed 1,162 46 117 1,326 

Alternative B – Wells Drilled 837 99 84 1,020 

Alternative B – Wells Completed 720 29 75 824 

Alternative C – Wells Drilled 1,470 174 124 1,768 

Alternative C – Wells Completed 1,264 50 112 1,427 

Alternative D – Wells Drilled 1,284 152 98 1,534 

Alternative D – Wells Completed 1,104 44 88 1,237 
Appendix X – Economic Impact Analysis Methodology

Appendix X-2 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Table X-1. Oil and Gas Well Numbers

Item Conventional 

Infill

Exploratory 

Deep

Coalbed

Natural Gas Total

Alternative E – Wells Drilled 837 99 84 1,020

Alternative E – Wells Completed 720 29 75 824 

Alternative F – Wells Drilled 1219 144 115 1,478 

Alternative F – Wells Completed 1049 42 104 1,194 

Sources: BLM 2009a; BLM 2009b; BLM 2013
Appendix X – Economic Impact Analysis Methodology

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS Appendix X-3 

Table X-2. Projected Oil and Gas Production (Federal Surface)

Year

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Alternative F

Gas

(BCF)

Oil

(MMBO)

Gas

(BCF)

Oil

(MMBO)

Gas

(BCF)

Oil

(MMBO)

Gas

(BCF)

Oil

(MMBO)

Gas

(BCF)

Oil

(MMBO)

Gas

(BCF)

Oil

(MMBO)

2009 11.5 6.9 5.2 3.1 13.0 7.8 10.8 6.5 5.2 3.1 10.0 6.0

2010 11.2 6.6 5.0 3.0 12.6 7.4 10.5 6.2 5.0 3.0 9.7 5.7 

2011 10.9 6.2 4.9 2.8 12.2 7.0 10.2 5.8 4.9 2.8 9.5 5.4

2012 10.5 5.9 4.7 2.7 11.9 6.7 9.9 5.5 4.7 2.7 9.2 5.2

2013 10.2 5.6 4.6 2.5 11.5 6.3 9.6 5.3 4.6 2.5 8.9 4.9 

2014 9.9 5.3 4.5 2.4 11.2 6.0 9.3 5.0 4.5 2.4 8.7 4.7

2015 9.7 5.1 4.3 2.3 10.9 5.7 9.0 4.8 4.3 2.3 8.4 4.4 

2016 9.4 4.8 4.2 2.2 10.6 5.4 8.8 4.5 4.2 2.2 8.2 4.2 

2017 9.1 4.6 4.1 2.1 10.3 5.2 8.5 4.3 4.1 2.1 7.9 4.0

2018 8.8 4.3 4.0 2.0 10.0 4.9 8.3 4.1 4.0 2.0 7.7 3.8 

2019 8.6 4.1 3.9 1.9 9.7 4.7 8.0 3.9 3.9 1.9 7.5 3.6

2020 8.3 3.9 3.8 1.8 9.4 4.4 7.8 3.7 3.8 1.8 7.3 3.4 

2021 8.1 3.7 3.6 1.7 9.1 4.2 7.6 3.5 3.6 1.7 7.1 3.2 

2022 7.9 3.5 3.5 1.6 8.9 4.0 7.4 3.3 3.5 1.6 6.9 3.1

2023 7.6 3.4 3.4 1.5 8.6 3.8 7.2 3.1 3.4 1.5 6.7 2.9 

2024 7.4 3.2 3.3 1.4 8.4 3.6 7.0 3.0 3.3 1.4 6.5 2.8

2025 7.2 3.0 3.2 1.4 8.1 3.4 6.8 2.8 3.2 1.4 6.3 2.6

2026 7.0 2.9 3.1 1.3 7.9 3.2 6.6 2.7 3.1 1.3 6.1 2.5 

2027 6.8 2.7 3.1 1.2 7.7 3.1 6.4 2.6 3.1 1.2 5.9 2.4

2028 6.6 2.6 3.0 1.2 7.4 2.9 6.2 2.4 3.0 1.2 5.8 2.3 

Sources: BLM 2009a; BLM 2009b; BLM 2013

BCF billion cubic feet

MMBO million barrels of oil
Appendix X – Economic Impact Analysis Methodology

Appendix X-4 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Table X-3. Projected Oil and Gas Production (Federal, State, and Fee Surface)

Year

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Alternative F

Gas

(BCF)

Oil

(MMBO)

Gas

(BCF)

Oil

(MMBO)

Gas

(BCF)

Oil

(MMBO)

Gas

(BCF)

Oil

(MMBO)

Gas

(BCF)

Oil

(MMBO)

Gas

(BCF)

Oil

(MMBO)

2009 16.6 10.0 10.3 6.2 18.1 10.9 15.8 9.5 10.3 6.2 15.2 9.2

2010 16.2 9.5 10.0 5.9 17.6 10.3 15.4 9.0 10.0 5.9 14.8 8.7 

2011 15.7 9.0 9.7 5.6 17.1 9.8 14.9 8.6 9.7 5.6 14.4 8.3

2012 15.2 8.6 9.4 5.3 16.6 9.3 14.5 8.1 9.4 5.3 14.0 7.8

2013 14.8 8.1 9.2 5.0 16.1 8.9 14.1 7.7 9.2 5.0 13.6 7.5 

2014 14.4 7.7 8.9 4.8 15.6 8.4 13.7 7.3 8.9 4.8 13.2 7.1

2015 14.0 7.3 8.7 4.5 15.2 8.0 13.3 7.0 8.7 4.5 12.8 6.7 

2016 13.6 7.0 8.4 4.3 14.8 7.6 12.9 6.6 8.4 4.3 12.4 6.4 

2017 13.2 6.6 8.2 4.1 14.3 7.2 12.5 6.3 8.2 4.1 12.1 6.1

2018 12.8 6.3 7.9 3.9 13.9 6.8 12.2 6.0 7.9 3.9 11.7 5.8 

2019 12.4 6.0 7.7 3.7 13.5 6.5 11.8 5.7 7.7 3.7 11.4 5.5

2020 12.1 5.7 7.5 3.5 13.1 6.2 11.5 5.4 7.5 3.5 11.1 5.2 

2021 11.7 5.4 7.3 3.3 12.8 5.9 11.1 5.1 7.3 3.3 10.7 4.9 

2022 11.4 5.1 7.1 3.2 12.4 5.6 10.8 4.9 7.1 3.2 10.4 4.7

2023 11.1 4.9 6.9 3.0 12.0 5.3 10.5 4.6 6.9 3.0 10.1 4.4 

2024 10.7 4.6 6.7 2.9 11.7 5.0 10.2 4.4 6.7 2.9 9.8 4.2

2025 10.4 4.4 6.5 2.7 11.3 4.8 9.9 4.2 6.5 2.7 9.5 4.0

2026 10.1 4.2 6.3 2.6 11.0 4.5 9.6 4.0 6.3 2.6 9.3 3.8 

2027 9.8 4.0 6.1 2.4 10.7 4.3 9.4 3.8 6.1 2.4 9.0 3.6

2028 9.6 3.8 5.9 2.3 10.4 4.1 9.1 3.6 5.9 2.3 8.7 3.4 

Sources: BLM 2009a; BLM 2009b; BLM 2013

BCF billion cubic feet

MMBO million barrels of oil
Appendix X – Economic Impact Analysis Methodology

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS Appendix X-5 

Table X-8. Estimated Animal Unit Month Losses

Item

Alternative 

A

Alternative 

B

Alternative 

C

Alternative 

D 

Alternative 

E 

Alternative 

F

Active AUMs

Initial AUMs (active use) 305,887 305,887 305,887 305,887 305,887 305,887 

AUMs lost from surface-disturbing 

activities (total, long-term 

disturbance)

1,496 1,036 3,957 1,756 1,027 1,702 

AUMs withdrawn by BLM actions 173 162,890 173 173 162,890 173 

Total AUMs lost from surfacedisturbing activities and withdrawn 1,670 163,927 4,130 1,930 163,917 1,875 

AUMs lost from surface-disturbing 

activities and withdrawn (estimated 

annual)

83 8,196 206 96 8,196 94 

Net AUMs in 2027 (active use) 304,217 141,960 301,757 303,957 141,970 304,012 

AUMs Authorized (64.21 percent of active use AUMs)

Initial AUMs (authorized) 196,410 196,410 196,410 196,410 196,410 196,410 

AUMs lost from surface-disturbing 

activities (total, long-term 

disturbance)

961 665 2,541 1,128 659 1,093 

AUMs withdrawn by BLM actions 111 104,592 111 111 104,592 111

Total AUMs lost from surfacedisturbing activities and withdrawn 1,072 105,257 2,652 1,239 105,251 1,204 

AUMs lost from surface-disturbing 

activities and withdrawn (estimated 

annual)

54 5,263 133 62 5,263 60 

Net AUMs in 2027 (authorized) 195,338 91,153 193,758 195,171 91,159 195,206 

Sources: BLM 2009c; BLM 2010b

AUM Animal Unit Month

6.0 REFERENCES

BLM. 2009a. Reasonable Foreseeable Development Scenario for Oil and Gas, Bighorn Basin Planning 

Area, Wyoming. Prepared by Wyoming Reservoir Management Group. May 6, 2009. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management.

BLM. 2009b. Personal communication from G. Hurley, Minerals Specialist, BLM Cody Field Office, to 

R. Fetter, Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC). October.

BLM. 2009c. Personal communication from J. Tietmeyer, Livestock Grazing Specialist, BLM Worland 

Field Office, to A. Tkach, BLM Worland Field Office. September.

BLM. 2010a. Bighorn Basin RMP, Grazing Economic Analysis. February 17.

BLM. 2010b. Bighorn Basin RMP, Livestock Grazing Allotment Acre Closures and AUM Change. June 16.
Appendix X – Economic Impact Analysis Methodology

Appendix X-6 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

BLM. 2013. Reasonable Foreseeable Development Scenario for Oil and Gas, Bighorn Basin Planning Area, 

Wyoming. Prepared by Wyoming Reservoir Management Group. U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Bureau of Land Management. February.
Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Bighorn Basin Resource Management Plan Revision Project

Appendix Y

Leasing Reform and Master Leasing Plans

Appendix Y

Appendix Y – Leasing Reform and Master Leasing Plans

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS Appendix Y-1

APPENDIX Y

LEASING REFORM AND MASTER LEASING PLANS

NOTE: Table Y-1 (which summarizes proposed land use decisions within evaluation areas) from the Draft 

RMP and Draft EIS (page Y-6) is augmented to include the addition of the new alternatives E and F. 

Because these new alternatives only differ from alternatives B and D from the Draft RMP and Draft EIS in 

the addition of the Greater Sage-Grouse Key and Core Habitat Areas ACECs, only proposed land use 

decisions related to ACECs are included below, with alternatives A through D retained for comparison 

purposes. These new travel management designations are appended to the travel management matrix 

from the draft NEPA document.

In addition, Figures Y-4 to Y-6 (which depict oil and gas constraints within each evaluation area by 

alternative) from the Draft RMP and Draft EIS (pages Y-7 to Y-8) have been updated to include 

alternatives E and F.

Table Y-1. Summary of Proposed Land Use Decisions within Evaluation Areas

Topic Absaroka Front Fifteen Mile Big Horn Front

Total Acreage 402,683 243,936 445,348

Acres BLM-administered 

Mineral Estate Minerals 253,603 230,945 377,783

Acres Existing Leases

(Refer to Map 7 of the Draft 

RMP and Draft EIS)

23,199 68,907 1,886

Resources of Concern

Wildlife habitat including 

white tail and mule deer, elk, 

sheep, mountain goat, Grizzly 

bears, and wolves

Recreational opportunities, 

scenic, remote, sagebrush, 

salt desert habitats, 

badlands, vertebrate fossils

Wildlife habitat, recreational 

opportunities, and rare 

plants

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

Associated Management 

Actions

Refer to Chapter 2 Management Actions beginning with Record # 7000 and the Management 

Actions in Table 2-5 in Volume 1 of this Supplement, which includes Management Actions for 

the Greater Sage-Grouse Key and Core Habitat Areas ACECs.

Alternative A

(Refer to Map 67 of the Draft 

RMP and Draft EIS)

Carter Mountain / 10,947

Upper Owl Creek / 13,565 None

Brown/Howe Dinosaur / 

5,226

Five Springs Falls / 148

Little Mountain / 20,973

Red Gulch Dinosaur Tracksite 

/ 1,710

Spanish Point / 8,459

Alternative B

(Refer to Map 68 of the Draft 

RMP and Draft EIS)

Carter Mountain / 22,203

Clark's Fork Canyon / 14, 056

Rattle Snake Mountain / 

21,259

Sheep Mountain / 72,421

Upper Owl Creek / 33,285

None

Brown/Howe Dinosaur / 

20,284

Five Springs Falls / 1,730

Little Mountain / 87,518

Red Gulch Dinosaur Tracksite 

/ 1,710

Spanish Point / 8,459
Appendix Y – Leasing Reform and Master Leasing Plans

Appendix Y-2 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Table Y-1. Summary of Proposed Land Use Decisions within Evaluation Areas (Continued)

Topic Absaroka Front Fifteen Mile Big Horn Front

Alternative C

(Refer to Map 69 of the Draft 

RMP and Draft EIS)

None None

Brown/Howe Dinosaur / 

5,226

Spanish Point / 8,459

Alternative D

(Refer to Map 70 of the Draft 

RMP and Draft EIS)

Carter Mountain / 10,947

Clark's Fork Canyon / 2,880

Sheep Mountain / 25,960

Upper Owl Creek / 13,565

None

Brown/Howe Dinosaur / 

5,226

Five Springs Falls / 148

Little Mountain / 20,973

Red Gulch Dinosaur Tracksite 

/ 1,710

Spanish Point / 8,459

Alternative E

(Map SEIS - 30)

Carter Mountain / 22,203

Clark's Fork Canyon / 14, 056

Rattle Snake Mountain / 

21,259

Sheep Mountain / 72,421

Upper Owl Creek / 33,285

Greater Sage-Grouse Key 

Habitat Area/18,055

Greater Sage-Grouse Key 

Habitat Area/45,102

Brown/Howe Dinosaur / 

20,284

Five Springs Falls / 1,730

Little Mountain / 87,518

Red Gulch Dinosaur Tracksite 

/ 1,710

Spanish Point / 8,459

Greater Sage-Grouse Key 

Habitat Area/149,499

Alternative F

(Map SEIS - 31)

Carter Mountain / 10,947

Clark's Fork Canyon / 2,880

Sheep Mountain / 25,960

Upper Owl Creek / 13,565

Greater Sage-Grouse Core 

Habitat Area/9,696

Greater Sage-Grouse Core 

Habitat Area/61,584

Brown/Howe Dinosaur / 

5,226

Five Springs Falls / 148

Little Mountain / 20,973

Red Gulch Dinosaur Tracksite 

/ 1,710

Spanish Point / 8,459

Greater Sage-Grouse Core 

Habitat Area/155,067

Oil and gas constraints within each Evaluation Area vary by alternative (Figures Y-4 to Y-6). The oil and 

gas constraints are depicted in maps 17-20 of the Draft RMP and Draft EIS, and Supplement maps 

SEIS - 7 through SEIS - 8.
Appendix Y – Leasing Reform and Master Leasing Plans

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS Appendix Y-3

Figure Y-4. Absaroka Front Evaluation Area Oil and Gas Constraints by Alternative

Figure Y-5. Fifteen Mile Evaluation Area Oil and Gas Constraints by Alternative

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

Alternative 

A

Alternative 

B

Alternative 

C

Alternative 

D

Alternative 

E

Alternative 

F

Closed

Major

Moderate

Standard Lease Terms

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

Alternative 

A

Alternative 

B

Alternative 

C

Alternative 

D

Alternative 

E

Alternative 

F

Closed

Major

Moderate

Standard Lease Terms
Appendix Y – Leasing Reform and Master Leasing Plans

Appendix Y-4 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Figure Y-6. Big Horn Front Evaluation Area Oil and Gas Constraints by Alternative

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

Alternative 

A

Alternative 

B

Alternative 

C

Alternative 

D

Alternative 

E

Alternative 

F

Closed

Major

Moderate

Standard Lease Terms
Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

Bighorn Basin Resource Management Plan Revision Project

Glossary

Glossary

Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS Glossary-1

GLOSSARY

NOTE: The Glossary from the Draft RMP and Draft EIS is augmented to include the following new terms.

Floristic province: Areas of ecological and biological issues similarity (Stiver et al. 2006).

Management Zone (greater sage-grouse): Biologically based management areas determined using 

sage-grouse populations and sub-populations identified within distinct floristic provinces. Management 

Zones reflect ecological and biological issues and similarities, not political boundaries. In addition, the 

vegetation communities found in the floristic provinces, as well as the management challenges within a 

given Management Zone, are similar and sage-grouse and their habitats are likely responding similarly to 

environmental factors and management actions (Stiver et al. 2006).

Priority habitat area (greater sage-grouse): Habitat designated to maintain sage-grouse distribution 

and population sustainability. In this document, management for priority habitat is based on areas 

encompassed by either Core Habitat Areas or Key Habitat Areas.

1.0 REFERENCES

Stiver, S.J., A.D. Apa, J.R. Bohne, S.D. Bunnell, P.A. Deibert, S.C. Gardner, M.A. Hilliard, C.W. McCarthy, 

and M.A. Schroeder. 2006. Greater Sage-Grouse Comprehensive Conservation Strategy. 

Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. Unpublished Report. Cheyenne, WY.
Glossary

Glossary-2 Supplement to the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP and Draft EIS

This page intentionally left blank.