FEIS

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

Wyoming 

Go 

Wyoming

● Programs

● Information

● Resources

BLM>Wyoming>Field Offices>Rock Springs>Jack Morrow Hills CAP>2004 FEIS Print Page

Rock Springs Field Office 

ROD

SDEIS

DEIS

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan & 

Proposed Green River RMP Amendment 

Final EIS

Greater Sage-Grouse Information 

Although greater sage-grouse nesting habitat data and information were included as part of the Surface Disturbance and 

Seasonal Limitations map (Map 50), the nest habitat boundary was not clearly depicted. Likewise, many readers expected to find 

the nesting habitat boundary as part of Map 17 (Sensitive Avian Resources). To address these concerns, a map of the nesting 

habitat has been made available on the JMH CAP website.

Other Updates 

Other inquires have been received concerning the need to enlarge Figures A17-1 and A17-2 depicted in Appendix 17 

(Implementation, Monitoring and Evaluation Process - see Final EIS, Volume 2) for closer review. To address this need, links to 

the two enlarged versions of the figures follow. 

● 

enlarged Fig.A17-1

● 

enlarged Fig.A17-2

Volume 1

● Cover - 46kb, 2pgs 

● Dear Reader - 117kb, 3pgs 

● Title Page - 6kb, 1pg 

● Abstract - 12kb, 1pg 

● Summary - 109kb, 9pgs 

● Table of Contents - 32kb, 9pgs 

● Chapter 1 - Purpose and Need - 40kb, 11pgs 

● Chapter 2 - Description of Alternatives - 806kb, 255pgs 

● Chapter 3 - Affected Environment - 322kb, 87pgs 

● Chapter 4 - Environmental Consequences - 662kb, 186pgs 

http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/field_offices/Rock_Springs/jmhcap/2004final.html (1 of 2)5/9/2007 8:14:03 AM
FEIS

● Chapter 5 - Consultation and Coordination - 59kb, 15pgs 

● Acronyms - 12kb, 4pgs 

● Glossary - 59kb, 16pgs 

● Literature - 72kb, 15pgs

Volume 2 

● Cover - 46kb, 2pg 

● Figures 1-18 - 370kb, 12pgs 

● Maps

● Appendices

USA.GOV | No Fear Act | DOI | Disclaimer | About BLM | Notices | Get Adobe Reader® 

Privacy Policy | FOIA | Kids Policy | Contact Us | Accessibility | Site Map | Home 

http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/field_offices/Rock_Springs/jmhcap/2004final.html (2 of 2)5/9/2007 8:14:03 AM
Bureau of Land Management

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

National 

Go 

National

● Programs

● Information

● Resources

Print Page

In the Spotlight 

● New Geothermal Rule Published May 2, 2007, effective June 

1, 2007 

● Healthy Lands Initiative: Immediate Funding Announced 

by Interior Secretary Kempthorne 

 

● Jim Hughes Named Acting Director of BLM 

 

● Implementation of The Energy Policy Act 

 

● New Study Measures Restrictions on Oil and Gas 

Development on Federal Lands 

 

● Sale and Adoption of Wild Horses and Burros 

● BLM Helps Kids and Families "Take It Outside!" on the 

Public Lands

To be taken to a State's web site, click on the State. 

Links to National Centers are in the Directory, under 

Information.

We are redesigning and reorganizing our Web sites to create a more user-friendly environment. There are now two ways to 

access our information and services. The first is to click on the map to navigate by organizational boundary (i.e. if you want to 

access Wyoming’s home page, click on the state of Wyoming) or if you want information about BLM’s natural resource 

management programs, simply click on the left menu. However, because we are relocating files and pages, some of your 

bookmarks or "Favorite" pages may no longer work. We apologize for any inconvenience and hope the new look will make it 

easier for you to find information about the BLM. You'll be linked automatically to our older website, as needed, until the 

reorganization is completed.

USA.GOV | No Fear Act | DOI | Disclaimer | About BLM | Notices | Get Adobe Reader® 

Privacy Policy | FOIA | Kids Policy | Contact Us | Accessibility | Site Map | Home 

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en.html5/9/2007 8:14:05 AM
BLM Wyoming

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

Wyoming 

Go 

Wyoming

● Programs

● Information

● Resources

BLM>Wyoming Print Page

In the Spotlight 

Pinedale BLM Invites Public to On-site Visit May 21

Chuck Otto named BLM Pinedale Field Manager

Cody Interagency Dispatch Center Open House Set 

for May 24, 2007

BLM, Wyoming DEQ Require Test of Water Wells 

Within the Pinedale Anticline & Jonah Fields

BLM Releases Catalina Unit CBNG Produced Water 

Disposal Project EA for Public Comment

Pinedale BLM Closing May 7-14 to Move In to New 

Offices

Frequently Requested 

● Corporate Name Change & Merger Index

● Fire Management

● MTPs

● NEPA Documents

● Office Directory 

● Oil & Gas Leasing

● Site Map

● Wild Horses

BLM Wyoming Field Offices

BLM Wyoming Centers & Interagency Sites 

● National Historic Trails Interpretive Center

● National Sign Center

● Interagency Fire Restrictions

● Jonah Interagency Office

● Powder River Basin Interagency Working Group

● RMCG Fuels & Fire Use Committee

● Wyoming Landscape Conservation Initiative

● Wyoming Wildland Fire Plan Action Team

http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en.html (1 of 2)5/9/2007 8:14:07 AM
BLM Wyoming

BLM Wyoming State Office | PO Box 1828 | Cheyenne,WY 82003

5353 Yellowstone | Cheyenne, WY 82009 | 307-775-6256 | Fax: 307-775-6129

Office hours: 7:45am - 4:30pm, M-F | Public Room hours: 9:00am - 4:00pm, M-F

USA.GOV | No Fear Act | DOI | Disclaimer | About BLM | Notices | Get Adobe Reader® 

Privacy Policy | FOIA | Kids Policy | Contact Us | Accessibility | Site Map | Home 

http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en.html (2 of 2)5/9/2007 8:14:07 AM
FEIS

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

Wyoming 

Go 

Wyoming

● Programs

❍ Energy

❍ Fire

❍ Grazing

❍ Planning

❍ Recreation

❍ BLM Special Areas

❍ Wild Horses

❍ More....

● Information

● Resources

BLM>Wyoming>Field Offices>Rock Springs>Jack Morrow Hills CAP>2004 FEIS Print Page

Rock Springs Field Office 

ROD

SDEIS

DEIS

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan & 

Proposed Green River RMP Amendment 

Final EIS

Greater Sage-Grouse Information 

Although greater sage-grouse nesting habitat data and information were included as part of the Surface Disturbance and 

Seasonal Limitations map (Map 50), the nest habitat boundary was not clearly depicted. Likewise, many readers expected to find 

the nesting habitat boundary as part of Map 17 (Sensitive Avian Resources). To address these concerns, a map of the nesting 

habitat has been made available on the JMH CAP website.

Other Updates 

Other inquires have been received concerning the need to enlarge Figures A17-1 and A17-2 depicted in Appendix 17 

(Implementation, Monitoring and Evaluation Process - see Final EIS, Volume 2) for closer review. To address this need, links to 

the two enlarged versions of the figures follow. 

● 

enlarged Fig.A17-1

● 

enlarged Fig.A17-2

Volume 1

● Cover - 46kb, 2pgs 

● Dear Reader - 117kb, 3pgs 

● Title Page - 6kb, 1pg 

● Abstract - 12kb, 1pg 

● Summary - 109kb, 9pgs 

● Table of Contents - 32kb, 9pgs 

● Chapter 1 - Purpose and Need - 40kb, 11pgs 

● Chapter 2 - Description of Alternatives - 806kb, 255pgs 

● Chapter 3 - Affected Environment - 322kb, 87pgs 

● Chapter 4 - Environmental Consequences - 662kb, 186pgs 

http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/field_offices/Rock_Springs/jmhcap/2004final.1.html (1 of 2)5/9/2007 8:14:09 AM
FEIS

● Chapter 5 - Consultation and Coordination - 59kb, 15pgs 

● Acronyms - 12kb, 4pgs 

● Glossary - 59kb, 16pgs 

● Literature - 72kb, 15pgs

Volume 2 

● Cover - 46kb, 2pg 

● Figures 1-18 - 370kb, 12pgs 

● Maps

● Appendices

USA.GOV | No Fear Act | DOI | Disclaimer | About BLM | Notices | Get Adobe Reader® 

Privacy Policy | FOIA | Kids Policy | Contact Us | Accessibility | Site Map | Home 

http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/field_offices/Rock_Springs/jmhcap/2004final.1.html (2 of 2)5/9/2007 8:14:09 AM
FEIS

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

Wyoming 

Go 

Wyoming

● Programs

● Information

❍ Newsroom 

❍ NEPA 

❍ Publications

❍ Field Offices 

❍ Directory

❍ eFOIA 

❍ About BLM

❍ Laws, Regulations & 

Policies

❍ More....

● Resources

BLM>Wyoming>Field Offices>Rock Springs>Jack Morrow Hills CAP>2004 FEIS Print Page

Rock Springs Field Office 

ROD

SDEIS

DEIS

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan & 

Proposed Green River RMP Amendment 

Final EIS

Greater Sage-Grouse Information 

Although greater sage-grouse nesting habitat data and information were included as part of the Surface Disturbance and 

Seasonal Limitations map (Map 50), the nest habitat boundary was not clearly depicted. Likewise, many readers expected to find 

the nesting habitat boundary as part of Map 17 (Sensitive Avian Resources). To address these concerns, a map of the nesting 

habitat has been made available on the JMH CAP website.

Other Updates 

Other inquires have been received concerning the need to enlarge Figures A17-1 and A17-2 depicted in Appendix 17 

(Implementation, Monitoring and Evaluation Process - see Final EIS, Volume 2) for closer review. To address this need, links to 

the two enlarged versions of the figures follow. 

● 

enlarged Fig.A17-1

● 

enlarged Fig.A17-2

Volume 1

● Cover - 46kb, 2pgs 

● Dear Reader - 117kb, 3pgs 

● Title Page - 6kb, 1pg 

● Abstract - 12kb, 1pg 

● Summary - 109kb, 9pgs 

● Table of Contents - 32kb, 9pgs 

● Chapter 1 - Purpose and Need - 40kb, 11pgs 

● Chapter 2 - Description of Alternatives - 806kb, 255pgs 

● Chapter 3 - Affected Environment - 322kb, 87pgs 

● Chapter 4 - Environmental Consequences - 662kb, 186pgs 

http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/field_offices/Rock_Springs/jmhcap/2004final.2.html (1 of 2)5/9/2007 8:14:11 AM
FEIS

● Chapter 5 - Consultation and Coordination - 59kb, 15pgs 

● Acronyms - 12kb, 4pgs 

● Glossary - 59kb, 16pgs 

● Literature - 72kb, 15pgs

Volume 2 

● Cover - 46kb, 2pg 

● Figures 1-18 - 370kb, 12pgs 

● Maps

● Appendices

USA.GOV | No Fear Act | DOI | Disclaimer | About BLM | Notices | Get Adobe Reader® 

Privacy Policy | FOIA | Kids Policy | Contact Us | Accessibility | Site Map | Home 

http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/field_offices/Rock_Springs/jmhcap/2004final.2.html (2 of 2)5/9/2007 8:14:11 AM
FEIS

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

Wyoming 

Go 

Wyoming

● Programs

● Information

● Resources

❍ Public Room 

❍ Jobs 

❍ Volunteers 

❍ Ecommerce

❍ Environmental Education

❍ NHTIC

❍ Nat'l Sign Center

❍ Forms 

❍ More....

BLM>Wyoming>Field Offices>Rock Springs>Jack Morrow Hills CAP>2004 FEIS Print Page

Rock Springs Field Office 

ROD

SDEIS

DEIS

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan & 

Proposed Green River RMP Amendment 

Final EIS

Greater Sage-Grouse Information 

Although greater sage-grouse nesting habitat data and information were included as part of the Surface Disturbance and 

Seasonal Limitations map (Map 50), the nest habitat boundary was not clearly depicted. Likewise, many readers expected to find 

the nesting habitat boundary as part of Map 17 (Sensitive Avian Resources). To address these concerns, a map of the nesting 

habitat has been made available on the JMH CAP website.

Other Updates 

Other inquires have been received concerning the need to enlarge Figures A17-1 and A17-2 depicted in Appendix 17 

(Implementation, Monitoring and Evaluation Process - see Final EIS, Volume 2) for closer review. To address this need, links to 

the two enlarged versions of the figures follow. 

● 

enlarged Fig.A17-1

● 

enlarged Fig.A17-2

Volume 1

● Cover - 46kb, 2pgs 

● Dear Reader - 117kb, 3pgs 

● Title Page - 6kb, 1pg 

● Abstract - 12kb, 1pg 

● Summary - 109kb, 9pgs 

● Table of Contents - 32kb, 9pgs 

● Chapter 1 - Purpose and Need - 40kb, 11pgs 

● Chapter 2 - Description of Alternatives - 806kb, 255pgs 

● Chapter 3 - Affected Environment - 322kb, 87pgs 

● Chapter 4 - Environmental Consequences - 662kb, 186pgs 

http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/field_offices/Rock_Springs/jmhcap/2004final.3.html (1 of 2)5/9/2007 8:14:13 AM
FEIS

● Chapter 5 - Consultation and Coordination - 59kb, 15pgs 

● Acronyms - 12kb, 4pgs 

● Glossary - 59kb, 16pgs 

● Literature - 72kb, 15pgs

Volume 2 

● Cover - 46kb, 2pg 

● Figures 1-18 - 370kb, 12pgs 

● Maps

● Appendices

USA.GOV | No Fear Act | DOI | Disclaimer | About BLM | Notices | Get Adobe Reader® 

Privacy Policy | FOIA | Kids Policy | Contact Us | Accessibility | Site Map | Home 

http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/field_offices/Rock_Springs/jmhcap/2004final.3.html (2 of 2)5/9/2007 8:14:13 AM
Field Offices

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

Wyoming 

Go 

Wyoming

● Programs

● Information

● Resources

BLM>Wyoming>Field Offices Print Page

Field Offices 

BLM Wyoming is organized into 10 Field Offices.

● Buffalo

● Casper

● Cody

● Kemmerer

● Lander

● Newcastle

● Pinedale

● Rawlins

● Rock Springs

● Worland

BLM Wyoming Field Offices

USA.GOV | No Fear Act | DOI | Disclaimer | About BLM | Notices | Get Adobe Reader® 

Privacy Policy | FOIA | Kids Policy | Contact Us | Accessibility | Site Map | Home 

http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/field_offices.html5/9/2007 8:14:15 AM
Rock Springs

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

Wyoming 

Go 

Wyoming

● Programs

● Information

● Resources

BLM>Wyoming>Field Offices>Rock Springs Print Page

Rock Springs Field Office 

The Rock Springs Field Office manages over 3.6 million acres of public land surface and 3.5 

million acres of public subsurface minerals in the southwestern part of Wyoming. The Field 

Office administers a variety of programs including mineral exploration and development, 

wildlife habitat, outdoor recreation, wild horses, livestock grazing, and historic trails.

In the Spotlight

● 

BLM Schedules April 24 to Begin Vermillion Basin Prescribed Burn

● BLM Resumes Salt Wells Basin Prescribed Burn

● April 2007 Report - Jack Morrow Hills CAP area 

● BLM Plans Prescribed Burns in Spring 2007 

● BLM Rock Springs Reminds Public of Permanent WSA Closures 

● BLM Firefighting Opportunities Now Available On-Line 

● Crookston Ranch Emergency Closure - indefinite closure adjacent to Sand Dunes 

Recreation Area

Energy & 

Minerals

Fisheries

Grazing

Historic 

Trails

Jack 

Morrow Hills

Lands & 

Realty

NEPA

Overview

Planning

Recreation

Watershed/

Soils

Wild Horses

WLCI

Rock Springs Field Office | 280 Highway 191 North | Rock Springs, Wyoming 82901

 Phone: 307-352-0256 | Fax: 307-352-0329 | Office hours: 7:45am - 4:30pm, M-F

USA.GOV | No Fear Act | DOI | Disclaimer | About BLM | Notices | Get Adobe Reader® 

Privacy Policy | FOIA | Kids Policy | Contact Us | Accessibility | Site Map | Home 

http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/field_offices/Rock_Springs.html5/9/2007 8:14:17 AM
Jack Morrow Hills

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

Wyoming 

Go 

Wyoming

● Programs

● Information

● Resources

BLM>Wyoming>Field Offices>Rock Springs>Jack Morrow Hills CAP Print Page

Rock Springs Field Office 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 

and Green River RMP Amendment 

In the Spotlight

● April 2007 Report

● ROD/Approved CAP/Green River RMP Amendment - July 2006 

● Final EIS - July 2004 

● Supplemental DEIS - February 2003

Documents

FAQs

Location Map

Photo Map

Photo Gallery

Public 

Participation

USA.GOV | No Fear Act | DOI | Disclaimer | About BLM | Notices | Get Adobe Reader® 

Privacy Policy | FOIA | Kids Policy | Contact Us | Accessibility | Site Map | Home 

http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/field_offices/Rock_Springs/jmhcap.html5/9/2007 8:14:18 AM
FEIS

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIORBUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 

Wyoming 

Rock Springs Field Office 

ROD

SDEIS

DEIS

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan & 

Proposed Green River RMP Amendment 

Final EIS

Greater Sage-Grouse Information 

Although greater sage-grouse nesting habitat data and information were included as part of the Surface 

Disturbance and Seasonal Limitations map (Map 50), the nest habitat boundary was not clearly depicted. 

Likewise, many readers expected to find the nesting habitat boundary as part of Map 17 (Sensitive Avian 

Resources). To address these concerns, a map of the nesting habitat has been made available on the JMH 

CAP website.

Other Updates 

Other inquires have been received concerning the need to enlarge Figures A17-1 and A17-2 depicted in 

Appendix 17 (Implementation, Monitoring and Evaluation Process - see Final EIS, Volume 2) for closer review. 

To address this need, links to the two enlarged versions of the figures follow. 

● 

enlarged Fig.A17-1

● 

enlarged Fig.A17-2

Volume 1

● Cover - 46kb, 2pgs 

● Dear Reader - 117kb, 3pgs 

● Title Page - 6kb, 1pg 

● Abstract - 12kb, 1pg 

● Summary - 109kb, 9pgs 

● Table of Contents - 32kb, 9pgs 

● Chapter 1 - Purpose and Need - 40kb, 11pgs 

● Chapter 2 - Description of Alternatives - 806kb, 255pgs 

● Chapter 3 - Affected Environment - 322kb, 87pgs 

● Chapter 4 - Environmental Consequences - 662kb, 186pgs 

● Chapter 5 - Consultation and Coordination - 59kb, 15pgs 

● Acronyms - 12kb, 4pgs 

● Glossary - 59kb, 16pgs 

● Literature - 72kb, 15pgs

Volume 2 

● Cover - 46kb, 2pg 

● Figures 1-18 - 370kb, 12pgs 

● Maps

● Appendices

http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/field_offices/Rock_Springs/jmhcap/2004final.print.html5/9/2007 8:14:19 AM
ROD

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

Wyoming 

Go 

Wyoming

● Programs

● Information

● Resources

BLM>Wyoming>Field Offices>Rock Springs>Jack Morrow Hills CAP>ROD Print Page

Rock Springs Field Office 

Jack Morrow Hills CAP & Green River RMP Amendment 

Record of Decision & Approved Coordinated Activity Plan

News Release

Summary

Q&As

Fact Sheets

Consolidated ROD documents 

● Record of Decision & Coordinated Activity Plan - 192pgs, 2.44mb 

● Maps - 25pgs, 3.52mb 

● Appendices - 108pgs, 937kb 

Section-by-section ROD documents

● Record of Decision - 48pgs, 1.47mb 

● Coordinated Activity Plan - 144pgs, 1.02mb 

● Map A: Land Status, ACECs & Other Management Areas - 1.65mb 

● Map B: Implementation Areas - 1.19mb 

● Map 1: Planning Area Location - 101kb 

● Map 2: Land Ownership - 107kb 

● Map 3: Federal Mineral Status - 105kb 

● Map 4: Surface Disturance/Disruptive Activity Limitation Area - 175kb 

● Map 5: Heritage Resources - 119kb 

● Map 6: Sensitive Plant Resources - 129kb 

● Map 7: Water Resources & Watersheds - 128kb 

● Map 8: Sensitive Avian Resources - 110kb 

● Map 9: Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat - 141kb 

● Map 10: Sensitive Big Game Areas - 134kb 

● Map 11: Oil & Gas Lease Stipulations - 149kb 

● Map 12: Areas Closed to Mineral Material Disposals - 103kb 

● Map 13: OHV Use Designations - 160kb 

● Map 14: Recreation Sites & Points of Interest - 133kb 

● Map 15: Right-of-Way Avoidance & Exclusion Areas - 105kb 

● Map 16: Visual Resource Management Classifications - 105kb 

● Map 17: Grazing Allotments & Improvements - 176kb 

● Map 18: Wild Horse Herd Management Area - 99kb 

http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/field_offices/Rock_Springs/jmhcap/rod.html (1 of 2)5/9/2007 8:14:20 AM
ROD

● Map 19: Areas Closed to Coal & Sodium Exploration - 129kb 

● Map 20: Coal Management - 115kb 

● Map 21: Withdrawals - 100kb 

● Map 22: Recreation Opportunity Spectrum - 102kb 

● Map 23: Preliminary Transportation Plan (for Steamboat Mtn. ACEC & White Mtn.) - 110kb 

● Appendix 1: List of Appendices Incorporated by Reference from the Final EIS - 2pgs, 18kb 

● Appendix 2: Implementation, Monitoring & Evaluation Process - 20pgs, 208kb 

● Appendix 3: Reclamation & Monitoring - 12pgs, 81kb 

● Appendix 4: Procedures for Granting Exceptions in Areas of Seasonal Restrictions - 6pgs, 47kb 

● Appendix 5: Clarifications to Standard Practices, BMPs & Guidelines for Surface Disturbing Activities - 10pgs, 65kb 

● Appendix 6: Air Quality Regulations - 26pgs, 360kb 

● Appendix 7: Oil & Gas Lease Stipulations for the JMH CAP Area - 26pgs, 175kb 

● Appendix 8: ACEC Criteria - 6pgs, 46kb

USA.GOV | No Fear Act | DOI | Disclaimer | About BLM | Notices | Get Adobe Reader® 

Privacy Policy | FOIA | Kids Policy | Contact Us | Accessibility | Site Map | Home 

http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/field_offices/Rock_Springs/jmhcap/rod.html (2 of 2)5/9/2007 8:14:20 AM
SDEIS

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

Wyoming 

Go 

Wyoming

● Programs

● Information

● Resources

BLM>Wyoming>Field Offices>Rock Springs>Jack Morrow Hills CAP>SDEIS Print Page

Rock Springs Field Office 

Jack Morrow Hills CAP & Draft Green River RMP Amendment 

Supplemental Draft EIS

Please note that some figures are not included in the document to reduce file size and download time. To view, click on the figure 

title. 

Volume 1

● Cover, Dear Reader, Abstract and Summary - 225kb, 10pgs 

● Table of Contents - 28kb, 8pgs 

● Chapter 1 - Purpose and Need - 48kb, 11pgs 

● Chapter 2 - Description of Alternatives - 459kb, 130pgs 

● Chapter 3 - Affected Environment - 306kb, 68pgs 

● Chapter 4 - Environmental Consequences - 605kb, 169pgs

Volume 2

● Cover - 53kb, 2pg 

● Chapter 5 - Consultation and Coordination - 54kb, 12pgs 

● Acronyms - 9kb, 3pgs 

● Glossary - 58kb, 14pgs 

● Literature Cited - 69kb, 15pgs 

● Figures - 374kb, 13pgs 

● Map List - 103kb, 3pgs (71 maps) 

● Appendix 1 - Planning Criteria - 139kb, 9pgs 

● Appendix 2 - Green River Land Use Plan(s) Objectives and Actions - 176kb, 39pgs 

● Appendix 3 - Biological Assessment - 206kb, 18pgs 

● Appendix 4 - Procedures for Processing Applications in Areas of Seasonal Restriction - 94kb, 4pgs 

● Appendix 5 - WY BLM Mitigation Guidelines - 92kb, 7pgs 

● Appendix 6 - Standard Practices, BMPS, and Guidelines for Surface Disturbing Activities - 139kb, 12pgs 

● Appendix 7 - Heritage Resources Management - 164kb, 16pgs 

● Appendix 8 - Standard Operating Procedures for Range Improvements and Vegetation Manipulation - 122kb, 8pgs 

● Appendix 9 - Reclamation and Monitoring - 118kb, 6pgs 

http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/field_offices/Rock_Springs/jmhcap/sdeis.html (1 of 2)5/9/2007 8:14:22 AM
SDEIS

● Appendix 10 - Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands - 138kb, 9pgs 

● Appendix 11 - Wyoming State Species of Concern - 103kb, 4pgs 

● Appendix 12 - Draft Transportation Plan - 112kb, 6pgs 

● Appendix 13 - Hydrocarbon Occurrence and Development Potential Report - 643kb,38pgs 

● Appendix 14 - Oil and Gas Operations - 121kb, 10pgs 

● Appendix 15 - Air Quality Regulations - 150kb, 13pgs 

● Appendix 16 - Socioeconomic Data and Assumptions - 777kb, 34pgs 

● Appendix 17 - Preliminary Adaptive Management Implementation Strategy - 295kb, 8pgs 

● Appendix 18 - Wilderness Study Areas and Proposals - 268kb, 5pgs

USA.GOV | No Fear Act | DOI | Disclaimer | About BLM | Notices | Get Adobe Reader® 

Privacy Policy | FOIA | Kids Policy | Contact Us | Accessibility | Site Map | Home 

http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/field_offices/Rock_Springs/jmhcap/sdeis.html (2 of 2)5/9/2007 8:14:22 AM
DEIS

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

Wyoming 

Go 

Wyoming

● Programs

● Information

● Resources

BLM>Wyoming>Field Offices>Rock Springs>Jack Morrow Hills CAP>2000 DEIS Print Page

Rock Springs Field Office 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 

June 2000 Draft EIS

● 

Chapter 1 - Table of Contents, Summary, Purpose and Need - 38 pages, 471kb 

● Chapter 2 - Alternatives - 197 pages, 488kb 

● Chapter 3 - Affected Environment - 84 pages, 305kb 

● Chapter 4 - Environmental Consequences - 192 pages, 598kb 

● Chapter 5 - Consultation and Coordination, Glossary, Literature Cited - 16 pages, 56kb 

● Figures - 16 pages, 1.1mb 

● Maps 1-5 - 6 pages, 1.7mb 

● Maps 6-22 - 17 pages, 2.76mb 

● Maps 23-40 - 17 pages, 4.8mb 

● Maps 41-56 - 15 pages, 2.7mb 

● Maps 57-66 - 10 pages, 2.8mb 

● Appendix 1 - Planning Criteria - 5 pages, 62kb 

● Appendix 2 - Wyoming Bureau of Land Management Mitigation Guidelines for Surface Disturbing and Disruptive Activities - 

4 pages, 15kb 

● Appendix 3 - Green River Land Use Plan Objectives and Actions - 40 pages, 121kb 

● Appendix 4 - Procedures for Processing Applications in Areas of Seasonal Restriction - 3 pages, 10kb 

● Appendix 5 - Draft Transportation Plan - 3 pages, 13kb 

● Appendix 6 - Reclamation and Monitoring - 4 pages, 15kb 

● Appendix 7 - Air Quality Tables - 4 pages, 19kb 

● Appendix 8 - Standards for Healthy Rangelands and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing for Public Lands Administered by the 

Bureau of Land Management in the State of Wyoming - 6 pages, 20kb 

● Appendix 9 - Oil and Gas Operations - 5 pages, 25kb 

● Appendix 10 - Assumptions for Impact Analysis - 29 pages, 185kb 

● Appendix 11 - Biological Assessment - 10 pages, 38kb 

● Appendix 12 - Standard Practices, Best Management Practices, and Guidelines for Surface Disturbing Activities - 7 pages, 

28kb 

● Appendix 13 - Oil and Gas and Coalbed Methane Resources in the Jack Morrow Hills Planning Area - 9 pages, 32kb

http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/field_offices/Rock_Springs/jmhcap/deis2000.html (1 of 2)5/9/2007 8:14:23 AM
DEIS

USA.GOV | No Fear Act | DOI | Disclaimer | About BLM | Notices | Get Adobe Reader® 

Privacy Policy | FOIA | Kids Policy | Contact Us | Accessibility | Site Map | Home 

http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/field_offices/Rock_Springs/jmhcap/deis2000.html (2 of 2)5/9/2007 8:14:23 AM


Jack Morrow Hills 

8 4 0 8 Miles 

Legend 

Existing Leases 

NSO AREA 3 

NSO Drainage 

WSA 

Area 1 

Area 2 

Area 3 

Area 3 (NSO) NSO Area NSO Drainage 

Leased 15694 21671 

Unleased 19800 29313 
U.S. Department of the Interior 

Bureau of Land Management 

Wyoming State Office 

Rock Springs Field Office July 2004 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 

FINAL 

Environmental Impact Statement for the 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity 

Plan/Proposed Green River Resource 

Management Plan Amendment

Volume 1 of 2 
MISSION STATEMENT 

It is the mission of the Bureau of Land Management to sustain the health, diversity, 

and productivity of the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future 

generations. 

BLM/WY/PL-04/019+1610 
June 22, 2004 


FINAL

Environmental Impact Statement

for the

Jack Morrow Hills

Coordinated Activity Plan/Proposed

Green River Resource Management

Plan Amendment

for 

Public Lands Administered 

by the 

Bureau of Land Management

Rock Springs Field Office

Rock Springs, Wyoming

Prepared by 

United States Department of the Interior

Bureau of Land Management

Rock Springs Field Office

In cooperation with 

The State of Wyoming (including Sublette County,

Popo Agie Conservation District, Sublette County Conservation District, 

and Sweetwater County Conservation District)

Fremont County

Sweetwater County

June 2004 
Final EIS Abstract 

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE JACK

MORROW HILLS COORDINATED ACTIVITY PLAN

ROCK SPRINGS, WYOMING

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

Type of Action: Administrative 

Jurisdiction: Portions of Sweetwater, Fremont, and Sublette Counties 

Abstract: This final environmental impact statement (EIS) addresses alternative coordinated activity plans 

(CAP) for the Jack Morrow Hills (JMH) planning area. When completed, the JMH CAP will provide more 

specific management direction to prevent or address conflicts among potential development of energy 

resources, recreational activities and facilities, and wildlife and wildlife habitat and provide more specific 

management direction for other land and resource uses in the planning area, including livestock grazing, 

important wildlife habitat, and other important resources. The planning area comprises approximately 

574,800 acres of federal land and federal mineral estate in southwestern Wyoming. This final EIS contains 

five alternative coordinated activity plans, including a Proposed JMH CAP, that provide management 

direction for the protection of certain resources (e.g., desert elk and other big game habitat, unique sand dune– 

mountain shrub habitat, unstabilized and stabilized sand dunes, cultural sites) and allow leasing and 

development of energy resources, recreational activities, grazing practices, and other activities at varying 

levels. 

When the JMH CAP planning effort is completed, it will provide an integrated multiple use activity plan for 

a balanced level of resource uses and provide protection for sensitive and important resource values on the 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM)-administered public lands in the area. The fluid minerals leasing 

decisions and locatable mineral decisions for the JMH CAP planning area, which were deferred in the Green 

River Resource Management Plan (RMP), will be determined in the JMH CAP, which will result in 

amendment of the Green River RMP. Other management prescriptions resulting from this planning effort 

include some refinement of designations of roads for use, grazing practices, surface disturbance practices, 

cultural resource management prescriptions, recreational activities and facilities, identification of right-of-way 

windows and concentration areas, and prescriptions for managing wildlife habitat. Determining some of these 

prescriptions might also result in amendment of the Green River RMP. 

Five alternatives that address the issues in the JMH CAP planning area have been considered. They are 

continuation of present management (No Action Alternative) and four other alternatives, including a Proposed 

JMH CAP, that provide a variety of management choices ranging from restricting management actions or 

development to actively mitigating the effects of resource management actions or development. The 

Proposed JMH CAP is, in part, a combination of the No Action Alternative and Alternatives 1, 2, and 3. The 

five alternatives presented in Chapter 2 of the final EIS focus on allocating public lands and resources among 

the uses and prescribing the general management actions that would be taken. The various impacts that would 

be expected from implementing each of the alternatives are documented in Chapter 4. 

When the JMH CAP is completed, it will provide a comprehensive framework for managing the BLMadministered public lands and resources and allocating their uses in the planning area. Further information 

regarding this final EIS can be obtained from the address below. Protests will be accepted for 30 days 

following the date that the Environmental Protection Agency publishes the notice of filing for this final EIS 

in the Federal Register. Protests should be mailed to: 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Director (210) 

Attn: Ms. Brenda Williams, Protest Coordinator 

P.O. Box 66538

Washington, DC 20035 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan i 
Final EIS Summary 

SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION 

This final environmental impact statement (EIS) and coordinated 

activity plan (CAP) will provide more specific management 

direction to address potential conflicts among development of 

energy resources, recreational activities and facilities, and land 

uses in the Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan (JMH 

CAP) planning area (Map 1). The planning area encompasses 

about 622,430 acres of federal, state, and private land in 

southwest Wyoming. Approximately 574,800 acres of public 

land surface and federal mineral estate are administered by the 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) through its Rock Springs 

Field Office (RSFO) in Rock Springs, Wyoming. The JMH 

CAP planning area includes the Steamboat Mountain, Greater 

Sand Dunes, White Mountain Petroglyphs, and Oregon Buttes 

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC); a portion of 

the South Pass Historic Landscape ACEC; the Oregon Buttes, 

Honeycomb Buttes, Greater Sand Dunes, Buffalo Hump, 

Whitehorse Creek, South Pinnacles, and Alkali Draw 

Wilderness Study Areas (WSA); and three special recreation 

management areas (Greater Sand Dunes; Continental Divide 

National Scenic Trail; and the Oregon, Mormon Pioneer, Pony 

Express, and California National Historic Trails). Parts of Fremont, Sweetwater, and Sublette Counties in 

southwest Wyoming are within the planning area. 

Special Management Areas Approximate Acres* 

Wilderness Study Areas 119,000 

ACECs & SRMAs 147,000 

*

These areas may overlap and acreages do not total. See Table 3-1. 

When completed, the JMH CAP will provide a framework for managing BLM-administered public lands and 

resources and for allocating uses in the planning area. Specifically, this CAP is focused on resolving four 

resource management issues: minerals resource management and related rights-of-way; resource uses 

affecting vegetation, soils, air, watershed, and wildlife values; recreation and heritage resources management; 

and special management areas. It is anticipated that the JMH CAP will be implemented over a 20-year 

planning period. 

The JMH CAP will make land and resource management decisions for fluid mineral leasing and mineral 

location. Because of concerns raised by the public and BLM regarding these decisions during preparation of 

the Green River Resource Management Plan (RMP) in 1997, the decisions were deferred to the JMH CAP. 

Concerns in 1997 included the need for more site specific and detailed information and analysis. Thus, this 

effort will make the Green River RMP fluid minerals leasing decisions (and modify some existing decisions) 

and mineral location decisions for the JMH CAP planning area and will determine the appropriate levels and 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan iii 
Final EIS 

timing of leasing and development of energy resources, while sustaining the other important land and 

resource uses in the area. The deferred Green River RMP decisions will result in amendment of the Green 

River RMP. Other management prescriptions resulting from this planning effort include some refinement of 

road use designations, grazing practices, recreational activities and facilities, identification of right-of-way 

windows and concentration areas, and prescriptions for managing wildlife habitat. 

BACKGROUND 

The BLM issued the original draft Environmental 

Impact Statement (EIS) for the JMH CAP in July 

2000 and received more than 12,000 comment 

letters and postcards. About 96 percent of the 

comments were submitted as form letters and 

postcards advocating no commodity use and formal 

designation of the entire area as a National 

Monument. 

During a November 15, 2000, visit to the area, 

then-Secretary of the Interior Babbitt announced 

that the BLM would prepare a supplemental draft 

EIS for the JMH CAP to include a new preferred 

alternative (a “conservation” alternative) that would 

focus on the protection of the area’s outstanding 

wildlife, cultural and aesthetic resources. The BLM prepared the supplemental draft EIS and released it for 

public comment on February 23, 2003. The comment period closed on May 23, 2003. More than 69,000 

comments were received. 

ISSUES AND CONFLICTS 

The identified issues are based upon the demands, concerns, conflicts, or problems involving the use or 

management of the public lands and resources in the JMH planning area. The planning issues were identified 

through the scoping process and other public outreach efforts. Planning issues and conflicts between various 

resources and activities include: 

• Mineral development (i.e., oil/gas, coalbed methane, coal, diamonds, and gold) and big game (i.e., 

moose, elk, deer, antelope) crucial habitat (crucial winter range and birthing areas), and other 

important wildlife species (e.g., plovers, sage-grouse, raptors) 

• Visitor health and safety and mineral development (i.e., ORV recreation area and oil/gas 

development) 

• Recreation activities and big game crucial habitat 

• Livestock grazing/range projects and big game habitat (especially in elk parturition areas) 

• Linear rights-of-way and other land use authorizations and big game crucial habitat 

• Surface disturbance, visual and noise intrusions, and cultural sites and Native American Respected 

Places. 

iv Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Summary 

OVERVIEW OF PROPOSED PLAN 

Key points of the Proposed Plan are listed below. Management of resources such as air quality are included 

in the Green River RMP and referenced in the CAP, but not specifically listed here. 

Land and Water Resources 

The Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands 

(standards) would apply to all resource uses on BLMadministered lands. These standards are the minimal 

acceptable conditions that address the health, 

productivity, and sustainability of the rangeland. The 

standards would direct the management of public lands 

and would focus the implementation of this activity plan 

toward the maintenance or attainment of healthy 

rangelands. 

Vegetation treatments would be designed by 

interdisciplinary teams on a case-by-case basis. Appropriate rest for treated areas would be provided (up to 

one year prior to treatment, and 24 months after treatment unless an onsite analysis determines this time frame 

should be more or less). Native vegetation would be managed to allow native plant succession to continue. 

A monitoring plan would be developed by an interdisciplinary team and adjustments made based upon 

monitoring information. 

Wild Horses 

The current appropriate management level (AML) and wild horse herd management area boundary would 

remain unchanged from the Green River RMP (1997). 

Livestock Grazing 

Current preference for livestock grazing AUMs would remain unchanged. Appropriate actions would be 

applied to meet rangeland health standards. 

Wildlife Management 

The proposed plan would require appropriate mitigation for protection of wildlife habitat such as seasonal 

restrictions, avoidance and no surface occupancy. Key habitats include crucial winter ranges, birthing areas, 

migratory corridors, sage grouse strutting grounds, nesting and winter concentration areas, and mountain 

plover nesting habitat. Management of T&E species would continue 

to be done in consultation with USFWS. A Biological Assessment 

(BA) is being developed for submission to the USFWS. The USFWS 

has participated in the development of the BA. 

The Proposed Plan would implement recent BLM management 

direction regarding greater sage-grouse habitat. The CAP is 

consistent with the recent “Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse 

Conservation Plan” which was developed by the Wyoming Game 

and Fish Department with a broad range of stakeholders. The JMH 

CAP proposes to maintain and enhance sage-grouse habitat through 

an implementation, monitoring, and evaluation approach. 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan v 
Final EIS 

Heritage Resources 

Consultation would continue with tribal leaders for activities proposed around respected places. The BLM 

would conduct research and mapping of the Indian Gap Trail and develop an interpretation strategy in 

consultation with the tribes. 

The Paleosol Deposition area would be designated as the West Sand Dunes Archaeological District 

Management Area. The proposed management strategy would provide for multiple-use activities with 

appropriate inventory, testing, and evaluation to define impacts and site-specific mitigation. 

National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) sites would be protected from surface disturbing activities. 

Other historic properties would be protected through mitigation, including distance and site restrictions. 

Travel Management, Access, and Realty 

A transportation plan specific to the JMH area would be developed with interested parties. Emphasis would 

be placed on providing access while ensuring watershed health and protection of crucial wildlife habitats and 

sensitive resources. 

OHV designations for open and closed areas and areas limited to existing or designated roads and trails are 

identified. Seasonal closures would continue. Rights-of-way placement would coincide with transportation 

planning. 

Recreation Resources 

Recreation resources would be managed to provide for a wide diversity of recreation opportunities. Project 

plans would be developed for backcountry byways, Sand Dunes ORV recreation site, Crookston Ranch 

Historic Site, Boars Tusk, Oregon Buttes, Honeycomb Buttes, Steamboat Mountain, National Historic Trails, 

White Mountain Petroglyphs, and Native American sites including Indian Gap. 

Minerals and Oil and Gas Leasing 

Valid existing lease rights would be recognized. 

Lease suspensions on existing oil and gas leases 

would be lifted 3 years from the signing of the 

ROD or upon approval of a plan of operation, 

whichever occurs first. The planning area would 

be divided into three areas (see attached map). 

Area One would be open to oil and gas leasing. 

Area Two would be open to leasing, but BLM 

may require potential lessees to share data (such 

as reservoir data or geologic data) or plans related 

to the development of the potential oil and gas 

resource prior to leasing. Permits (e.g., APDs) 

within this area would be considered on a caseby-case basis, with appropriate NEPA analysis 

and conditions of approval. However, additional 

conditions of approval designed to protect sensitive resources would be likely within this area. Area Three 

would have limited areas open to leasing with NSO stipulations; the remaining areas would be 

administratively closed to new leasing. Applications for activities on existing leases (e.g., APDs) within 

Area Three would be considered on a case-by-case basis with appropriate NEPA analysis and conditions of 

approval. However, additional mitigation to protect sensitive resources would be likely within this area. To 

the extent that laws and regulations allow, those portions of Area 3 that are closed to oil and gas leasing will 

remain closed to leasing of oil and gas unless BLM determines that an NSO lease is appropriate and meets 

vi Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Summary 

management objectives. For example, an NSO lease may be offered if production on adjacent private or state 

lands results in a loss of federal minerals through drainage or is necessary to protect correlative rights. At this 

time it is not anticipated that an NSO lease for these lands would extend further than one-half mile from the 

boundary of the involved private or state lease. However, this may change as new information and 

technological advances become available. 

Salable Minerals 

Sensitive resources would be protected through avoidance or mitigation. Mineral materials activity would 

occur in conjunction with development activity, if needed. 

Locatable Minerals 

Two elk calving areas and a part of the Steamboat Mountain ACEC would be withdrawn from locatable 

mineral entry, in addition to the withdrawals identified in the GRRMP. 

VRM 

Visual Resource Management would maintain or improve scenic value by managing impacts and intrusions 

through mitigation. 

Special Management Areas 

Four of the existing five ACEC designations would remain unchanged. The fifth, Steamboat Mountain 

ACEC, would be expanded to include the Indian Gap historic trail and key habitats with the rare 

sagebrush/scurfpea vegetation type. The combined resource values in the expanded area contain relevant and 

important values consistent with those in the existing ACEC area. 

The West Sand Dunes Archaeological District would be established as a new management area to protect 

important scientific values involving the earliest stages of human occupation of North America (7,000 to 

12,000 years ago). Management objectives would include education and interpretation opportunities while 

still allowing development of natural gas and other resources that occur in the area. 

The Steamboat Mountain Management area would be established to improve management of important 

Native American cultural values, important watershed values, unique wildlife habitat features and crucial and 

overlapping big game habitat. The management area would include the existing Steamboat Mountain ACEC 

and the proposed ACEC expansion area. This management area proposal is based on concerns and 

recommendations expressed by the public and Governor of Wyoming during the 90-day comment period; 

new information from the ongoing elk study in the JMH CAP area; input from the Wyoming Game and Fish 

Department; and increased awareness and involvement of the Native American community and the 

significance of their concerns for Native American respected places in the area. Management objectives 

include: 1) Enhancing and maintaining the water quality, 

vegetation, soil, and wildlife resources to ensure biological 

diversity and a healthy ecosystem; 2) Maintaining the 

unique diverse habitats (big sagebrush, aspen, limber pine, 

and mountain shrub communities) in the Steamboat 

Mountain area, especially on stabilized sand dunes along 

Steamboat Rim, Indian Gap, and in the Johnson, Lafonte, 

and Box Canyon areas; 3) Providing suitable habitat to 

maintain the continued existence of the Steamboat elk herd 

and other big game populations; and 4) Protecting important 

heritage resources (cultural, historic, archaeological, and 

unique geological features) while allowing for educational 

research and appropriate interpretive uses. 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan vii 
Final EIS 

Wilderness 

Updates on wilderness information are provided in the final EIS in conformance with the Department’s policy 

on wilderness and recent Bureau guidance. Two alternatives in the supplemental draft EIS that addressed 

WSAs were modified in the final EIS to reflect the new guidance. The final EIS incorporates a discussion 

regarding the removal of the WSA reference in those two alternatives. The planning area includes 7 existing 

WSAs (about 119,000 acres). These WSAs would continue to be managed in accordance with the “Interim 

Management Policy and Guidelines for Lands Under Wilderness Review” until Congress acts on designation. 

Implementation Strategy Management 

The final proposed Bureau of Land Management (BLM) management direction is based on the review of 

public comments and incorporation of new information. The reformulated implementation strategy for the 

JMH CAP planning area includes many of the same principles of adaptive management contained in the draft 

document, but applies a more traditional monitoring and adjustment approach. The approach to timing and 

sequencing of all activities in the JMH CAP has been modified to recognize valid existing rights of existing 

oil and gas leases. The BLM maintains its commitment to monitoring, adjusting to changes, and participation 

and communication including establishment of a JMH CAP working group. 

GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE FINAL EIS ALTERNATIVES 

Five alternatives are analyzed in detail, all of them multiple-use oriented. Each alternative provides for 

resource production and environmental protection. The management prescriptions of the five alternatives are 

described in Chapter 2 and are summarized and compared in Table 2-1, Summary Comparison of Alternatives 

(found at the end of Chapter 2). 

Alternatives developed for this analysis were formulated to address the full range of management actions that 

could be implemented for the planning area, including: a No Action Alternative; the Proposed JMH CAP; 

and, three additional alternatives. The previous planning actions and the alternatives developed for the Green 

River RMP and the original draft EIS for the JMH CAP were reviewed along with consideration of 

management and resource issues identified by BLM technical staff in the RSFO. New information regarding 

the resources in the planning area obtained since the preparation of the original draft EIS was considered in 

the development of alternatives, along with public comments and input from cooperating agencies and users 

of the lands and resources in the JMH CAP planning area. 

No Action Alternative 

The No Action Alternative is defined as the continuation of present management. Ongoing programs initiated 

under existing legislation and regulations and the Green River RMP would continue, even as new plans are 

developed or new planning efforts are conducted within the 

RMP area. Thus, this alternative describes the current 

resource and land management direction for the JMH CAP 

planning area, represented by the decisions set forth in the 

Green River RMP (October 1997) which provides for 

multiple-use management of public lands and resources to 

meet foreseeable needs. The No Action Alternative 

recognizes valid existing rights. No additional lands would 

be considered for leasing for fluid minerals in what is 

known as the “core” area, and there would not be any 

changes proposed for ACECs. The No Action Alternative 

is the baseline to which the other alternatives are compared. 

Suspended leases in the planning area would be reinstated. Existing leases could be developed consistent 

with lease rights and a case-by-case review with appropriate mitigation as needed. 

viii Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Summary 

Alternative 1 (Development) 

Alternative 1 provides for expanded opportunities to use and develop the planning area. Resources would be 

protected to the extent required by applicable laws and regulations. Alternative 1 would authorize new leases 

and permits for oil, gas, and mineral development throughout the planning area consistent with existing 

regulatory requirements and statutory withdrawals and closures. Additional lands would be considered for 

fluid mineral leasing in the core area. There would be no changes proposed for ACECs. This alternative 

could result in modifications or amendments to previous land management decisions represented by the 1997 

Green River RMP decisions. 

Alternative 2 (Preservation) 

Alternative 2 reduces opportunities to use and develop the planning area from the No Action Alternative. 

This alternative emphasizes improving and protecting habitat for wildlife and sensitive plant and animal 

species; improving riparian areas and water quality; and protecting historic, cultural, and Native American 

sites. Boundaries of existing ACECs would be expanded as necessary to protect sensitive resources, and 

Research Natural Area designations would be pursued as appropriate. Two new ACECs would be designated. 

Additional lands would not be considered for fluid mineral leasing in the core area. Alternative 2 would not 

allow development in areas with competing resource uses and would close or designate portions of the 

planning area to restrict some land uses. Development or activities could occur in specified portions of the 

planning area, with appropriate mitigation measures. 

Alternative 3 (Conservation) 

Alternative 3 provides opportunities to use and develop the 

planning area while ensuring resource protection. This 

alternative would allow development and activities to occur 

throughout the planning area provided that sensitive 

resources were protected and mitigation requirements were 

met. Mitigation requirements necessary to ensure the 

stability of the sensitive resource indicators would be 

determined through an adaptive management approach to 

resource use and protection. Additional lands would be 

considered for fluid mineral leasing in the core area. 

Boundaries of existing ACECs would be expanded as 

necessary to protect sensitive resources. 

Proposed Plan 

The BLM’s Proposed JMH CAP provides opportunities to 

use and develop the planning area by providing a balance of 

uses. The Proposed Plan comprises a complementary mix of 

appropriate elements from each alternative; however, the 

Proposed JMH CAP also contains management actions not 

included in any of the other alternatives. As part of the 

implementation, monitoring and evaluation management 

strategy (Appendix 17), portions of the planning area would 

be available for development and other activities, with 

appropriate mitigation. Some portions of the planning area 

would be unavailable to new fluid mineral leasing consideration. An implementation strategy would be 

initiated, and monitoring and evaluation of activities would occur. The strategy provides for adjusting to 

change, and for further public participation and establishment of a JMH CAP working group. Boundaries of 

one existing ACEC would be expanded in order to better protect sensitive resources. 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan ix 
Final EIS 

Environmental Consequences 

The environmental consequences that could result from the management prescriptions of the five alternatives 

are described in Chapter 4 and are summarized and compared in Table 2-4, Summary of Impacts. These 

potential consequences are discussed for each resource program, providing an analysis of environmental 

effects resulting from management of all resources and resource uses. This includes an analysis of cumulative 

effects, which are defined as the impacts that result from the incremental impact of an action when added to 

other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future actions. 

COOPERATING AGENCY SUMMARY 

The State of Wyoming was granted Cooperating Agency status along with Sublette County and three 

Conservation Districts under the State’s umbrella status. Fremont County and later Sweetwater County were 

granted individual Cooperating Agency status. During this project, the BLM and cooperating agencies have 

participated in more than 20 joint meetings and work sessions, public informational and scoping meetings, 

and public hearings. The cooperators reviewed the preliminary final EIS concurrently with BLM. Their 

comments have been incorporated into the final EIS. 

COORDINATION WITH NATIVE AMERICANS 

Coordination with Tribes has been ongoing throughout the planning process. Several letters were sent as part 

of the consultation process with Native American tribal councils asking them to identify places of concern, 

and requesting contact information for any other people with whom the BLM should consult concerning 

sacred sites or other places of concern. The BLM followed up with a series of telephone calls to tribal 

councils. BLM and Native Americans also participated in numerous field trips, meetings, school visits, and 

presentations. This level of coordination is anticipated to continue as implementation of the JMH CAP 

occurs. 

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 

Over 40 public meetings, open houses, field tours, and hearings have been held. Additionally, information 

has been provided through the JMH CAP website, news releases, and newsletters. Interviews with numerous 

media have also been conducted. Prior to the release of the supplemental draft EIS in February of 2003, 

several open houses and scoping meetings were held. Additional meetings on preliminary alternatives 

occurred providing public input into the 

alternative formulation process. Following 

the release of the supplemental draft EIS, two 

hearings and two open houses were held, 

along with media outreach and interviews. 

More than 69,000 comments (mostly as form 

letters) were received during the 90-day 

comment period. Key issues raised in the 

comment period included: wilderness policy 

change; Native American consultation; 

Citizen’s Wildlife and Wildlands Alternative 

evaluation; cumulative effects analysis; lack 

of baseline data on select resources (e.g., 

water, wildlife, cultural); consultation with 

USFWS regarding Biological Assessment; and justification and effective implementation of adaptive 

management plan. The comments have been addressed and responded to in the development of the final EIS. 

Once published, the final EIS will be subject to a 30-day protest period. 

x Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Summary 

MODIFICATIONS IN THE FINAL EIS 

The modifications in the final EIS are a result of public comment, incorporation of new information, internal 

review, and changes in management direction and policy. The Proposed JMH CAP is essentially a 

modification of the Preferred Alternative presented in the supplemental draft EIS. Modifications to the other 

alternatives were also made due to changes in policy and direction for WSAs and greater sage-grouse 

management. 

The following are the areas for which modifications have occurred: 

• Adaptive Management Strategy: Proposed changes in the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

management direction based on the review of public comments and the incorporation of new 

information has resulted in reformulation of the implementation strategy for the Jack Morrow Hills 

Coordinated Activity Plan (JMH CAP) planning area. In light of the review, the adaptive 

management approach has been modified. A more traditional approach (in which many of the 

decisions are made up front and would require plan modification to change) has been adopted 

(Appendix 17). 

• Cumulative Impact Analysis: Updated information relating to the cumulative impact analysis was 

included in the final EIS. 

• Greater Sage-Grouse Management: Updated information and clarification regarding greater sagegrouse habitat were included in the final EIS. This led to consideration of the implementation of a 

management approach based on location of suitable habitat. 

• Management of the Steamboat Mountain ACEC: The boundary of the ACEC would be modified to 

include the highest concentration and overlap of unique habitat features, natural systems, and cultural 

values. 

• Designation of WSAs: Updated information and clarification regarding new direction for WSAs 

were included in the final EIS. As a result, the proposed designation of the Pinnacles WSA was not 

included in Alternatives 2 and 3 of the final EIS. However, the management actions for this area are 

still included in these alternatives. 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan xi 
Final EIS Table of Contents 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

CHAPTER 1—PURPOSE AND NEED.................................................................................................1-1 

1.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE PLANNING AREA ........................................................................................1-1 

1.2 INTERRELATIONSHIPS WITH THE GREEN RIVER RMP..................................................................1-2 

1.3 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE JMH CAP ......................................................................................1-2 

1.4 BLM PLANNING PROCESS.............................................................................................................1-3 

1.5 PLANNING ISSUES AND CRITERIA .................................................................................................1-3 

1.5.1 Planning Issues.....................................................................................................................1-3 

1.5.2 Planning Criteria ..................................................................................................................1-5 

1.6 RELEVANT STATUTES, LIMITATIONS, AND GUIDELINES ..............................................................1-5 

1.6.1 Environmental Policy...........................................................................................................1-5 

1.6.2 Land Use and Natural Resources Management ...................................................................1-6 

1.6.3 Air Quality ...........................................................................................................................1-7 

1.6.4 Water Quality.......................................................................................................................1-7 

1.6.5 Cultural Resources ...............................................................................................................1-8 

1.6.6 Hazardous Materials.............................................................................................................1-9 

CHAPTER 2—DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES ......................................................................2-1 

2.1 DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVES ................................................................................................2-1 

2.1.1 Alternatives Development Process ........................................................................................2-1

2.1.2 Management Objectives.........................................................................................................2-2 

2.1.3 Alternatives and Management Options Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Analysis 2-3 

2.2 MANAGEMENT ACTIONS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES.........................................................2-8 

2.2.1 Land and Water Resources Management...............................................................................2-8 

2.2.2 Heritage Resources Management.........................................................................................2-14

2.2.3 Travel, Access, and Realty Management.............................................................................2-15 

2.2.4 Recreation Resources Management .....................................................................................2-16 

2.2.5 Minerals and Alternative Energy Resources Management..................................................2-17 

2.2.6 Visual Resources Management............................................................................................2-18

2.2.7 Management of Special Management Areas and Other Management Areas.......................2-19 

2.2.8 Air Resources Management.................................................................................................2-20

2.3 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE...........................................................................................................2-20 

2.3.1 Management Actions Common to All Resource or Land Use Programs ............................2-21 

2.3.2 Land and Water Resources Management.............................................................................2-21 

2.3.3 Heritage Resources Management.........................................................................................2-26

2.3.4 Travel, Access, and Realty Management.............................................................................2-27 

2.3.5 Recreation Resources Management .....................................................................................2-28 

2.3.6 Minerals and Alternative Energy Resources Management..................................................2-29 

2.3.7 Visual Resources Management............................................................................................2-32

2.3.8 Management of Special Management Areas and Other Management Areas.......................2-32 

2.4 ALTERNATIVE 1 ...........................................................................................................................2-36

2.4.1 Management Actions Common to All Resource or Land Use Programs ............................2-36 

2.4.2 Land and Water Resources Management.............................................................................2-36 

2.4.3 Heritage Resources Management.........................................................................................2-40

2.4.4 Travel, Access, and Realty Management.............................................................................2-40 

2.4.5 Recreation Resources Management .....................................................................................2-41 

2.4.6 Minerals and Alternative Energy Resources Management..................................................2-42 

2.4.7 Visual Resources Management............................................................................................2-44

2.4.8 Management of Special Management Areas and Other Management Areas.......................2-44 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan i 
Table of Contents Final EIS 

2.5 ALTERNATIVE 2 ...........................................................................................................................2-47

2.5.1 Management Actions Common to All Resource or Land Use Programs ............................2-47 

2.5.2 Land and Water Resources Management.............................................................................2-47 

2.5.3 Heritage Resources Management.........................................................................................2-52

2.5.4 Travel, Access, and Realty Management.............................................................................2-53 

2.5.5 Recreation Resources Management .....................................................................................2-55 

2.5.6 Minerals and Alternative Energy Resources Management..................................................2-56 

2.5.7 Visual Resources Management............................................................................................2-57

2.5.8 Management of Special Management Areas and Other Management Areas.......................2-58 

2.6 ALTERNATIVE 3 ...........................................................................................................................2-62

2.6.1 Management Actions Common to All Resource or Land Use Programs ............................2-62 

2.6.2 Land and Water Resources Management.............................................................................2-62 

2.6.3 Heritage Resources Management.........................................................................................2-66

2.6.4 Travel, Access, and Realty Management.............................................................................2-68 

2.6.5 Recreation Resources Management .....................................................................................2-69 

2.6.6 Minerals and Alternative Energy Resources Management..................................................2-70 

2.6.7 Visual Resources Management............................................................................................2-73

2.6.8 Management of Special Management Areas and Other Management Areas.......................2-73 

2.7 PROPOSED JMH CAP ...................................................................................................................2-77 

2.7.1 Management Actions Common to All Resource or Land Use Programs ............................2-77 

2.7.2 Land and Water Resources Management.............................................................................2-79 

2.7.3 Heritage Resources Management.........................................................................................2-89

2.7.4 Travel, Access, and Realty Management.............................................................................2-92 

2.7.5 Recreation Resources Management .....................................................................................2-94 

2.7.6 Minerals and Alternative Energy Resources Management..................................................2-95 

2.7.7 Visual Resources Management..........................................................................................2-100

2.7.8 Management of Special Management Areas and Other Management Areas.....................2-100 

2.7.9 Air Resources Management...............................................................................................2-107

CHAPTER 3—AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT....................................................................................3-1 

3.1 LAND AND WATER RESOURCES....................................................................................................3-1 

3.1.1 Fire .......................................................................................................................................3-1 

3.1.2 Water Resources...................................................................................................................3-2 

3.1.3 Wild Horses..........................................................................................................................3-6 

3.1.4 Livestock Grazing ................................................................................................................3-7 

3.1.5 Vegetation ..........................................................................................................................3-10 

3.1.6 Wildlife ..............................................................................................................................3-15 

3.2 HERITAGE RESOURCES ...............................................................................................................3-28 

3.2.1 Historic Trails.....................................................................................................................3-28 

3.2.2 Native American Sites........................................................................................................3-30 

3.2.3 Paleontological and Archaeological Resources .................................................................3-33 

3.2.4 Other Cultural and Historical Resources............................................................................3-35 

3.2.5 Unique Geological Features...............................................................................................3-37

3.3 TRAVEL, ACCESS, AND REALTY .................................................................................................3-37 

3.3.1 Travel Management ...........................................................................................................3-37 

3.3.2 Off-Highway Use ...............................................................................................................3-38 

3.3.3 Access and Realty Actions.................................................................................................3-39 

3.3.4 Hazardous Materials...........................................................................................................3-41 

3.4 RECREATION RESOURCES ...........................................................................................................3-41 

3.4.1 Off-Highway Vehicle Use..................................................................................................3-42

ii Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Table of Contents 

3.4.2 Hunting...............................................................................................................................3-43 

3.4.3 Special Recreational Management Areas...........................................................................3-44 

3.4.4 Continental Divide National Scenic Trail ..........................................................................3-44 

3.4.5 Recreation Opportunity Spectrum......................................................................................3-45

3.5 MINERALS AND ALTERNATIVE ENERGY RESOURCES.................................................................3-47 

3.5.1 Regional Geologic Setting .................................................................................................3-47 

3.5.2 Present-Day Land Forms....................................................................................................3-48 

3.5.3 Geologic Hazards ...............................................................................................................3-49 

3.5.4 Leasable Minerals ..............................................................................................................3-49 

3.5.5 Salable Minerals.................................................................................................................3-52 

3.5.6 Locatable Minerals.............................................................................................................3-53 

3.5.7 Alternative Energy Resources............................................................................................3-54

3.6 VISUAL RESOURCES....................................................................................................................3-55 

3.6.1 Visual Resource Inventory.................................................................................................3-55 

3.6.2 Visual Resource Management............................................................................................3-56

3.7 SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREAS AND OTHER MANAGEMENT AREAS.........................................3-56 

3.7.1 Special Management Areas................................................................................................3-57

3.7.1.2 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern..........................................................................3-59 

3.7.2 Other Management Areas...................................................................................................3-62

3.8 AIR RESOURCES ..........................................................................................................................3-63 

3.8.1 Climate and Meteorology...................................................................................................3-63 

3.8.2 Air Quality .........................................................................................................................3-63 

3.9 SOCIOECONOMICS .......................................................................................................................3-67 

3.9.1 County Characteristics .......................................................................................................3-67 

3.9.2 Demographic Characteristics .............................................................................................3-67

3.9.3 Economic Characteristics...................................................................................................3-69 

3.9.4 Property Valuation and Taxation .......................................................................................3-71

3.10 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE..........................................................................................................3-75 

CHAPTER 4—ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES...................................................................4-1 

4.1 TYPES OF IMPACTS........................................................................................................................4-1 

4.2 DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE ..............................................................................................4-2 

4.3 ANALYSIS METHODS.....................................................................................................................4-2 

4.4 LAND AND WATER RESOURCES....................................................................................................4-3 

4.4.1 Potential Impacts on Fire......................................................................................................4-3 

4.4.2 Potential Impacts on Water Resources.................................................................................4-9 

4.4.3 Potential Impacts on Wild Horses......................................................................................4-20

4.4.4 Potential Impacts on Livestock Grazing ............................................................................4-27 

4.4.5 Potential Impacts on Vegetation ........................................................................................4-38

4.4.6 Potential Impacts on Wildlife.............................................................................................4-53 

4.5 HERITAGE RESOURCES ...............................................................................................................4-80 

4.5.1 Potential Impacts on Heritage Resources...........................................................................4-80 

4.6 TRAVEL, ACCESS, AND REALTY .................................................................................................4-94 

4.6.1 Potential Impacts on Travel, Access, and Realty ...............................................................4-94 

4.7 RECREATION RESOURCES .........................................................................................................4-101 

4.7.1 Potential Impacts on Recreation Resources .....................................................................4-101 

4.8 MINERALS AND ALTERNATIVE ENERGY RESOURCES...............................................................4-108 

4.8.1 Potential Impacts on Leasable Fluid Minerals .................................................................4-108 

4.8.2 Potential Impacts on Leasable Solid Minerals .................................................................4-116 

4.8.3 Potential Impacts on Locatable Minerals .........................................................................4-118 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan iii 
Table of Contents Final EIS 

4.8.4 Potential Impacts on Salable Minerals .............................................................................4-120 

4.8.5 Potential Impacts on Alternative Energy Development...................................................4-122 

4.9 VISUAL RESOURCES..................................................................................................................4-122 

4.9.1 Potential Impacts on Visual Resources ............................................................................4-122 

4.10 SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREAS................................................................................................4-131 

4.10.1 Potential Impacts on Special Management Areas ............................................................4-131 

4.11 AIR RESOURCES ........................................................................................................................4-138 

4.11.1 Potential Impacts on Air Quality......................................................................................4-138

4.12 SOCIOECONOMICS .....................................................................................................................4-141 

4.12.1 Significance Criteria.........................................................................................................4-141 

4.12.2 Analysis Methods.............................................................................................................4-142 

4.12.3 Impacts Common to All Alternatives...............................................................................4-145 

4.12.4 Potential Impacts on Employment ...................................................................................4-146 

4.12.5 Potential Impacts on Earnings..........................................................................................4-147

4.12.6 Potential Fiscal Impacts ...................................................................................................4-148 

4.13 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS .............................................................................................................4-149 

4.13.1 Land and Water Resources...............................................................................................4-153

4.13.2 Heritage Resources...........................................................................................................4-162 

4.13.3 Travel, Access, and Realty...............................................................................................4-162 

4.13.4 Recreation Resources .......................................................................................................4-163 

4.13.5 Minerals and Alternative Energy Resources....................................................................4-164 

4.13.6 Visual Resources..............................................................................................................4-164 

4.13.7 Special Management Areas and Other Management Areas.............................................4-165 

4.13.8 Air Resources...................................................................................................................4-165 

4.13.9 Socioeconomics................................................................................................................4-167 

CHAPTER 5—CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION..............................................................5-1 

5.1 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION...........................................................................................5-3 

5.1.1 Coordination and Consistency .............................................................................................5-3

5.1.2 Cooperating Agencies ..........................................................................................................5-5 

5.1.3 Native American Interests....................................................................................................5-6 

5.2 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION.................................................................................................................5-8 

5.2.1 Public Meetings....................................................................................................................5-8 

5.2.2 Public Hearings ....................................................................................................................5-9 

5.2.3 Public Comments .................................................................................................................5-9 

5.2.4 Mailing List........................................................................................................................5-10 

5.2.5 Newsletters.........................................................................................................................5-10 

5.2.6 Web Site .............................................................................................................................5-10 

5.3 DISTRIBUTION LIST.....................................................................................................................5-10 

5.4 LIST OF PREPARERS.....................................................................................................................5-13 

iv Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Table of Contents 

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 1. Structural Elements of the Greater Green River Basin............................................................. F-1

Figure 2. Generalized Stratigraphic Nomenclature Chart........................................................................ F-2

Figure 3. Land Ownership—1996 ........................................................................................................... F-3 

Figure 4. Population Estimates—1970–2000 .......................................................................................... F-3 

Figure 5. Unemployment Rate—1991–2000........................................................................................... F-4 

Figure 6. Employment by Industry in Study Area—1999 ....................................................................... F-4 

Figure 7. Gross Earnings by Industry in Study Area—1999 ................................................................... F-5 

Figure 8. State Assessed Property............................................................................................................ F-5 

Figure 9. Locally Assessed Property........................................................................................................ F-6 

Figure 10. Estimated Ad Valorem Taxes—1985–2000 (1995 dollars) ................................................... F-7 

Figure 11. Percent of Minority Population by County—2000................................................................. F-8 

Figure 12. Median Household Income ($)—2000 and Poverty Rate (%)—2000.................................... F-9 

Figure 13. Total Employment Trend...................................................................................................... F-10 

Figure 14. Total Real Earnings Trend (2001 dollars) ............................................................................ F-10 

Figure 15. Estimated Ad Valorem Taxes for Natural Gas Production (2001 dollars) ........................... F-11 

Figure 16. Average Annual Employment by Alternative ...................................................................... F-11 

Figure 17. Total Earnings by Alternative............................................................................................... F-12 

Figure 18. Estimated Ad Valorem Tax Revenues From JMH— 2003–2020 ........................................ F-12 

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1-1. Land and Mineral Ownerships and Administrative Jurisdictions Within the JMH CAP 

Planning Area...................................................................................................................................1-10 

Table 2-1. Summary Comparison of Alternatives ................................................................................2-108

Table 2-2. Areas of Fluid Mineral Lease Conditional Requirements by Hydrocarbon Potential 

(Approximate Acres) .....................................................................................................................2-211 

Table 2-3. Wildlife Limitations by Alternative.....................................................................................2-219 

Table 2-4. Summary of Impacts............................................................................................................2-221 

Table 3-1. Estimated Acres for JMH Resources.....................................................................................3-77 

Table 3-2. PFC Assessment ......................................................................................................................3-3 

Table 3-3. JMH Stream PFC Summary for Lotic Systems.......................................................................3-3 

Table 3-4. JMH Stream PFC Summary for Lentic Systems.....................................................................3-4 

Table 3-5. Suggested Use For Streams Within the JMH CAP Planning Area Based on Limited 

Historic TDS Concentrations.............................................................................................................3-6 

Table 3-6. Underground Water Class .....................................................................................................3-80 

Table 3-7. Allotment/Operator Data .......................................................................................................3-82 

Table 3-8. Rangeland Standards Not Met (N) Or Unknown (U)..............................................................3-9 

Table 3-9. Jack Morrow Hills Exclosures...............................................................................................3-10 

Table 3-10. Vegetation Communities and Associated Species...............................................................3-11 

Table 3-11. Wyoming BLM Sensitive Plant Species..............................................................................3-13

Table 3-12. Noxious and Invasive Weeds ..............................................................................................3-15 

Table 3-13. Big Game Habitat Use and Size ..........................................................................................3-16 

Table 3-14. Characteristics of Sagebrush Rangeland Needed for Productive High Quality Greater 

Sage-Grouse Habitat in Wyoming ...................................................................................................3-22 

Table 3-15. Raptor Species.....................................................................................................................3-23 

Table 3-16. Waterways and Fish Species ...............................................................................................3-23 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan v 
Table of Contents Final EIS 

Table 3-17. Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Wildlife Species that May Occur in the 

 Planning Area...................................................................................................................................3-25 

Table 3-18. Wyoming BLM Sensitive Wildlife Species ........................................................................3-27

Table 3-19. Road Classifications............................................................................................................3-38 

Table 3-20. OHV Use Designations .......................................................................................................3-39 

Table 3-21. Estimated Annual Nonconsumptive Recreational Visitor Days..........................................3-42 

Table 3-22. Hunting Seasons [2000].......................................................................................................3-43 

Table 3-23. Estimated Annual Average Hunting Days...........................................................................3-44

Table 3-24. Wells Drilled in the JMH.....................................................................................................3-84 

Table 3-25. Visual Resource Management Class Objectives .................................................................3-56 

Table 3-26. Wilderness Study Area Determinations...............................................................................3-57 

Table 3-27. Background Concentrations of Criteria Air Pollutants........................................................3-64 

Table 3-28. Air Quality Summary ..........................................................................................................3-67 

Table 3-29. Estimated Personal Income .................................................................................................3-68 

Table 3-30. Assessed Value of Oil and Gas Production and Property Fiscal Year 2001 ......................3-72 

Table 3-31. Estimated Mineral Ad Valorem Tax Revenues Fiscal Year 2001......................................3-72 

Table 3-32. Estimated Ad Valorem Tax Revenues on Oil and Gas Property Fiscal Year 2001.............3-72 

Table 3-33. Oil and Gas Tax Revenues As Percentage of Total County Property Taxes for 

Fiscal Year 2001 ..............................................................................................................................3-73 

Table 3-34. Total Severance Tax Distributions for Government Entities Fiscal Year 2001 .................3-73 

Table 3-35. Severance Tax Revenue Fiscal Year 2001 ..........................................................................3-73

Table 3-36. Estimated Ad Valorem Tax Production From JMH............................................................3-74 

Table 3-37. Estimated Severance Tax Production from JMH ................................................................3-74 

Table 3-38. Estimated Federal Royalties Production From JMH ...........................................................3-75 

Table 3-39. Percent Population By County ............................................................................................3-76 

Table 4-1. Summary of Visual Resource Management Classifications................................................4-169 

Table 4-2. Summary of Special Management Area Designations........................................................4-171 

Table 4-3. Summary of Oil and Gas Leases .........................................................................................4-172 

Table 4-4. Summary of Coal and Sodium Exploration.........................................................................4-173

Table 4-5. Summary of Coal Occurrence and Development Potential.................................................4-174 

Table 4-6. Summary of Salable Mineral Development (Mineral Material Sales) ................................4-175 

Table 4-7. Summary of Locatable Mineral Development ....................................................................4-176 

Table 4-8. Summary of Surface Disturbance and Seasonal Limitations...............................................4-177 

Table 4-9. Summary of Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) Use Designations............................................4-181 

Table 4-10. Summary of Rights-of-Way (ROW) Limitations..............................................................4-183 

Table 4-11. Grazing Utilization ............................................................................................................4-185 

Table 4-12: Total Traffic Miles by Year for Oil and Gas Development (in thousands of miles).........4-186 

Table 4-13. Economic Model Inputs.....................................................................................................4-143 

Table 4-14. Estimated Oil and Gas Development for JMH..................................................................4-144 

Table 4-15. Total Estimated Mineral Royalties and Taxes from JMH (2001 dollars) .........................4-148 

Table 4-16. Summary of Oil and Gas Development Projects Previously or Currently Being 

Analyzed Under NEPA in Southwestern Wyoming ......................................................................4-150 

Table 4-17. Summary of Reasonably Foreseeable Actions ..................................................................4-151 

Table 5-1. JMH CAP Draft EIS (2000) Public Events .............................................................................5-1

Table 5-2. JMH CAP Supplemental Draft EIS and Final EIS Public Events ...........................................5-2 

Table 5-3. Key Coordination Actions.......................................................................................................5-4 

Table 5-4. Cooperating Agency Meeting Schedule ..................................................................................5-6 

Table 5-5. List of Preparers ....................................................................................................................5-13 

vi Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Table of Contents 

LIST OF MAPS 

Map 1 – Jack Morrow Hills Planning Area Location 

Map 2 – Recreation Sites and Points of Interest 

Map 3 – Land Ownership 

Map 4 – Mineral Status 

Map 5 – No Action Locatable Minerals 

Map 6 – No Action Coal Occurrence and Development Potential Area 

Map 7 – No Action Surface Disturbance and Seasonal Limitations 

Map 8 – No Action Rights-of-Way Limitations 

Map 9 – No Action OHV Use Designations 

Map 10 – No Action Oil and Gas Leases 

Map 11 – No Action Coal and Sodium Exploration 

Map 12 – No Action Areas Closed to Mineral Material Sales 

Map 13 – No Action Visual Resource Management Classifications 

Map 14 – Special Management Areas 

Map 15 – Sensitive Plant Resources 

Map 16 – Alternative 1 Surface Disturbance and Seasonal Limitations 

Map 17 – Sensitive Avian Resources 

Map 18 – Alternative 1 Rights-of-Way Limitations 

Map 19 – Alternative 1 OHV Use Designations 

Map 20 – Alternative 1 Oil and Gas Leases 

Map 21 – Alternative 1 Coal and Sodium Exploration 

Map 22 – Alternative 1 Coal Occurrence and Development Potential Area 

Map 23 – Alternative 1 Locatable Minerals 

Map 24 – Alternative 1 Areas Closed to Mineral Material Sales 

Map 25 – Alternative 1 Visual Resource Management Classifications 

Map 26 – Alternative 1 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

Map 27 – Alternative 2 Rights-of-Way Limitations 

Map 28 – Alternative 2 Surface Disturbance and Seasonal Limitations 

Map 29 – Alternative 2&3 Sample Travel Plan 

Map 30 – Alternative 2 OHV Use Designations 

Map 31 – Alternative 2 Oil and Gas Leases 

Map 32 – Alternative 2 Coal and Sodium Exploration 

Map 33 – Alternative 2 Coal Occurrence and Development Potential Area 

Map 34 – Alternative 2 Locatable Minerals 

Map 35 – Alternative 2 Areas Closed to Mineral Material Sales 

Map 36 – Alternative 2 Visual Resource Management Classifications 

Map 37 – Alternative 2 Special Management Area Expansions 

Map 38 – Alternative 3 Wild Horse Herd Management Area 

Map 39 – Alternative 3 Surface Disturbance and Seasonal Limitations 

Map 40 – Alternative 3 Rights-of-way Limitations 

Map 41 – Alternative 3 OHV Use Designations 

Map 42 – Alternative 3 Oil and Gas Leases 

Map 43 – Alternative 3 Coal and Sodium Exploration 

Map 44 – Alternative 3 Coal Occurrence and Development Potential Area 

Map 45 – Alternative 3 Locatable minerals 

Map 46 – Alternative 3 Areas Closed to Mineral Material Sales 

Map 47 – Alternative 3 Visual Resource Management Classifications 

Map 48 – Alternative 3 Special Management Area Expansions 

Map 49 – Proposed JMH CAP Rights-of-Way Limitations 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan vii 
Table of Contents Final EIS 

Map 50 – Proposed JMH CAP Surface Disturbance and Seasonal Limitations 

Map 51 – Sensitive Big Game Areas 

Map 52 – Proposed JMH CAP OHV Use Designations 

Map 53 – Proposed JMH CAP Locatable Minerals 

Map 54 – Proposed JMH CAP Oil and Gas Leases 

Map 55 – Proposed JMH CAP Coal and Sodium Exploration 

Map 56 – Coal and Sodium Development Potential 

Map 57 – Proposed JMH CAP Coal Occurrence and Development Potential Area 

Map 58 – Proposed JMH CAP Areas Closed To Mineral Material Sales 

Map 59 – Proposed JMH CAP Visual Resource Management Classifications 

Map 60 – Proposed JMH CAP Special Management Area Additions 

Map 61 – Water Resources and Watersheds 

Map 62 – Wild Horses Herd Management Area 

Map 63 – Grazing Allotments and Improvements 

Map 64 – Heritage Resources 

Map 65 – Existing Roads 

Map 66 – Geologic Hazards 

Map 67 – Oil and Gas Leases 

Map 68 – Federal Units 

Map 69 – Oil and Gas Development Potential 

Map 70 – Coalbed Methane Development Potential 

Map 71 – Mining Claim Activity 

Map 72 – Recreation Opportunity Spectrum 

Map 73 – Southwest Wyoming Existing Oil and Gas Development Projects 

Map 74 – Southwest Wyoming Oil and Gas Development Projects 

Map 75 – Water Resources Cumulative Impact Analysis Area 

Map 76 – Wild Horses Cumulative Impact Analysis Area 

Map 77 – Livestock Grazing Cumulative Impact Analysis Area 

Map 78 – Vegetation Resources Cumulative Impact Analysis Area 

Map 79 – Wildlife Resources – Elk Cumulative Impact Analysis Area 

Map 80 – Wildlife Resources – Antelope Cumulative Impact Analysis Area 

Map 81 – Wildlife Resources – Mule Deer Cumulative Impact Analysis Area 

Map 82 – Wildlife Resources – Sage-Grouse Cumulative Impact Analysis Area 

Map 83 – Wildlife Resources – Fisheries Cumulative Impact Analysis Area 

Map 84 – Heritage Resources Cumulative Impact Analysis Area 

Map 85 – Travel Management, Access and Realty Cumulative Impact Analysis Area 

Map 86 – Visual Resource Management Cumulative Impact Analysis Area 

Map 87 – Special Management Areas and Other Management Areas Cumulative Impact Analysis Area 

LIST OF APPENDICES 

Appendix 1–Planning Criteria ................................................................................................................A1-1 

Appendix 2–Green River Land Use Plan(s) Objectives and Actions .....................................................A2-1 

Appendix 3–Biological Assessment .......................................................................................................A3-1 

Appendix 4–Procedures for Processing Applications in Areas of Seasonal Restriction ........................A4-1 

Appendix 5–WY BLM Mitigation Guidelines .......................................................................................A5-1

Appendix 6–Standard Practices, BMPS, and Guidelines for Surface Disturbing Activities..................A6-1 

Appendix 7–Heritage Resources Management.......................................................................................A7-1

Appendix 8–Standard Operating Procedures for Range Improvements and Vegetation 

Manipulation...................................................................................................................................A8-1 

Appendix 9–Reclamation and Monitoring..............................................................................................A9-1 

viii Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Table of Contents 

Appendix 10–Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands................................................................A10-1 

Appendix 11–Wyoming State Species of Concern...............................................................................A11-1

Appendix 12–Draft Transportation Plan...............................................................................................A12-1 

Appendix 13–Hydrocarbon Occurrence and Development Potential Report .......................................A13-1 

Appendix 14–Oil and Gas Operations..................................................................................................A14-1 

Appendix 15–Air Quality Regulations .................................................................................................A15-1 

Appendix 16–Socioeconomic Data and Assumptions..........................................................................A16-1 

Appendix 17–Preliminary Adaptive Management Implementation Strategy .......................................A17-1 

Appendix 18–Wilderness Study Areas and Proposals..........................................................................A18-1

Appendix 19–Response to Public Comment ........................................................................................A19-1

Appendix 19A–Substantive Public Comment Letters .........................................................See enclosed CD 

Appendix 20–Significance Criteria and Assumptions ..........................................................................A20-1

LIST OF APPENDIX MAPS 

Map A13-1 – Oil and Gas Development Potential 

Map A13-2 – Federal Units 

Map A13-3 – Abandoned Oil and Gas Wells 

Map A13-4 – Coalbed Methane Development Potential 

Map A18-1 – Wilderness Study Area Proposals 

Map A18-2 – Pinnacles Geographic Area 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan ix 
Final EIS Chapter 1 

CHAPTER 1—PURPOSE AND NEED

This final environmental impact statement (EIS) documents the comprehensive analyses of alternatives 

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

(BLM) in the Jack Morrow Hills (JMH) planning area of Wyoming. The Green River Resource 

Management Plan (RMP) was prepared in October 1997. Because of concerns raised by the public and 

BLM during the preparation of the Green River RMP over the many resource uses and conflicts within 

the JMH Coordinated Activity Plan (CAP) planning area, the Rock Springs BLM Field Office initiated 

the JMH CAP planning effort. BLM began preparing the JMH CAP in 1998. The original draft EIS for 

the CAP, issued in July 2000, resulted in a great deal of public reaction, controversy, and the submission 

of new resource information. Accordingly, completion of the project was delayed to evaluate public 

comments and new information and to await BLM Washington Office (WO) direction to proceed. The 

BLM WO directed Wyoming BLM to prepare a “supplemental” draft EIS for the JMH CAP and to 

complete the CAP planning effort. The supplemental draft EIS was issued in February 2003. To the 

extent possible, existing analyses and information used to prepare the original draft EIS and the 

supplemental draft EIS were updated and used in preparing this final EIS. 

The JMH CAP will provide more specific management direction for important resource values and 

resource uses within the planning area and prevent or address conflicts among potential development of 

energy resources, recreational activities, and other resource uses. The CAP will also provide management 

direction for the protection of certain resources (e.g., desert elk and other big game habitat, unique sand 

dune-mountain shrub habitat, unstabilized-stabilized sand dunes) while allowing for recreational 

activities, leasing and development of mineral resources, livestock grazing, and other activities, at 

appropriate levels. It is anticipated that the JMH CAP will be implemented over a 20-year planning 

period. 

1.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE PLANNING AREA 

The general planning area for the JMH CAP includes the BLM-administered lands located north and east 

of Rock Springs, Wyoming, which include portions of Sweetwater, Sublette, and Fremont Counties in 

southwestern Wyoming (Map 1). The planning area encompasses the Steamboat Mountain, Greater Sand 

Dunes, White Mountain Petroglyphs, and Oregon Buttes Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

(ACEC); a portion of the South Pass Historic Landscape ACEC; the Oregon Buttes, Honeycomb Buttes, 

Greater Sand Dunes, Buffalo Hump, Whitehorse Creek, South Pinnacles, and Alkali Draw Wilderness 

Study Areas (WSA); and three special recreation management areas (SRMA): Greater Sand Dunes; 

Continental Peak Side Trail; and the Oregon, Mormon Pioneer, Pony Express, and California National 

Historic Trails (Map 2). 

As provided by the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), the BLM has the responsibility 

to plan for and manage “public lands.” As defined by the act, “public lands” are those federally owned 

lands, and any interest in lands (e.g., federally owned mineral estate), that are administered by the 

Secretary of Interior, through the BLM. Within the planning area, there are varied and intermingled land 

surface ownerships and varied, intermingled, and overlapping mineral ownerships. Therefore the 

administrative jurisdictions for land use planning and for managing the land surface and minerals are also 

varied, intermingled, and overlapping. 

Because of this situation, the completed JMH CAP will not include planning and management decisions 

for lands or minerals that are owned by private individuals, the State of Wyoming, or local governments. 

Providing direction for the surface or minerals management of these lands is not within BLM’s 

jurisdiction. In addition, RMP decisions will not be made for those federally owned minerals within the 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 1-1 
Chapter 1 Final EIS 

planning area that underlie federally owned land surface administered by other federal agencies. Table 1-

1 describes land and mineral ownership and interrelated administrative jurisdictions in the planning area 

(Maps 3 and 4). 

1.2 INTERRELATIONSHIPS WITH THE GREEN RIVER RMP 

The Green River RMP deferred some minerals management decisions in a “core” area involving the 

eastern portion of the Greater Sand Dunes ACEC (not including any parts of the Buffalo Hump or Sand 

Dunes WSAs), the entire Steamboat Mountain ACEC, and the area of overlapping crucial big game 

habitats surrounding and adjacent to the Greater Sand Dunes and Steamboat Mountain ACECs (Map 2). 

The core area encompasses approximately 90,000 acres. The area to be addressed and analyzed for the 

JMH CAP includes about 622,000 acres surrounding and including the core area. This represents the 

planning area for the JMH CAP because management of the core area could affect lands and RMP 

decisions outside the core area and vice versa. The cumulative impact analysis area includes the planning 

area and areas beyond where actions and effects, both inside and outside the planning area, are 

interrelated. 

The JMH CAP planning effort is an integrated activity planning effort directed toward specifying a 

balanced level of resource use and resource protection for the BLM-administered public lands in the CAP 

planning area. The Green River RMP planning decisions for leasing and developing fluid minerals in a 

portion of the JMH CAP planning area were not ready for inclusion in the Green River RMP. The Green 

River RMP planning decisions for mineral location in a portion of the JMH CAP area also were not ready 

for inclusion in the Green River RMP. These decisions were deferred for determination in the JMH CAP 

development effort. Thus a primary objective of this CAP effort was to make these decisions. Other 

objectives of this planning effort include determining the appropriate levels and timing of mineral leasing 

and development and other energy sources while sustaining the other important land and resource uses in 

the planning area. These land use plan decisions will result in amending the Green River RMP. Other 

management decisions for the planning area resulting from this planning effort may include some 

refinement of designations of roads, grazing practices, recreational activities and facilities, identification 

of rights-of-way windows and concentration areas, and prescriptions for managing wildlife habitat. Some 

of these decisions may also result in amending the Green River RMP. 

1.3 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE JMH CAP 

This final EIS documents the analyses of the consequences of current and alternative management of land 

and resource uses in the planning area over an anticipated 20-year planning period. It provides the basis 

for developing decisions that resolve some of the resource and land use issues identified in the Green 

River RMP and also provides the basis for developing site-specific activity or implementation plans for 

the JMH CAP planning area, which may also result in amending the Green River RMP. 

The Green River RMP deferred certain fluid mineral leasing decisions and some locatable mineral 

decisions until a CAP could be completed for the Jack Morrow Hills area. As stated in the record of 

decision (ROD) for the Green River RMP: 

“The fluid mineral leasing decisions and some locatable mineral decisions are deferred in a ‘core’ 

area, involving the eastern portion of the Greater Sand Dunes ACEC (not including any parts of 

the Buffalo Hump or Sand Dunes WSA because WSAs are closed to mineral leasing by 

Congressional mandate), the entire Steamboat Mountain ACEC, and the area of overlapping 

crucial big game habitats surrounding and adjacent to the Greater Sand Dunes and Steamboat 

Mountain ACECs (Map 2). Approximately 90,000 acres are involved with this ‘core’ area. 

Because more site-specific and detailed information is needed to make the fluid mineral and 

1-2 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 1 

locatable mineral decisions for the core area, these decisions will be deferred in this core area 

until a CAP covering the area is completed.” 

The ROD also provides direction that the purpose of the JMH CAP is to provide a comprehensive and 

environmentally adequate management framework that will allow some fluid mineral and locatable 

mineral activities to occur in the core area and other portions of the planning area in harmony with other 

important resource and land uses in the planning area. The objective of this activity planning effort is to 

determine the appropriate level and methods of all of the combined land and resource uses possible for 

the entire planning area, including the core, that are mutually compatible and that provide for the 

important resource concerns in the area, such as sustainability of crucial big game habitat, air and water 

quality, scenic quality, vegetative cover and soil stability, recreational activities, livestock grazing and 

range improvement activities, mineral development, and other important resource concerns. Management 

of resources for the entire JMH CAP area will be considered because the lands outside the core area could 

be adversely affected by the management of the core and vice versa. 

1.4 BLM PLANNING PROCESS 

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

initiated under the authority of Section 202(f) of the FLPMA and Section 202(c) of the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). The process is guided by BLM planning regulations in Title 

43 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1600 (43 CFR 1600) and the Council on Environmental 

Quality (CEQ) regulations in 40 CFR 1500. 

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

laws, regulations, policies, executive orders, and directives pertaining to the planning area and (2) 

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

Development of the RMP represents the first of the two-tiered BLM planning process: the land use 

planning tier. As such, the RMP prescribes the allocation of and general future management direction for 

the resource and land uses of the BLM-administered public lands in the entire RMP planning area. In 

turn, the RMP guides the second tier of the planning process: the more site-specific activity or 

implementation planning tier and daily operations. 

Activity or implementation planning extends the resource and land use decisions of the RMP into sitespecific management decisions for smaller geographic units of public lands within the RMP planning 

area. Activity planning includes such elements as allotment management plans, habitat management 

plans, and interdisciplinary or coordinated activity plans issuing various land and resource use 

authorizations; identification of specific mitigation needs; and development and implementation of other 

similar plans and actions. The JMH CAP effort involves making decisions at both the RMP and the 

activity planning tiers (Tiers I and II) of the planning process because of the mineral development 

decisions that were deferred at the RMP level, the potential refinement of other management decisions in 

the planning area, and the needed site-specific management decisions for all other resource and land uses 

in the CAP area. 

1.5 PLANNING ISSUES AND CRITERIA 

1.5.1 Planning Issues 

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

management of public lands and resources. They are usually expressed in terms of the effects that some 

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

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 1-3 
Chapter 1 Final EIS 

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

management situation in the planning area. They are based on the input of BLM personnel and the 

public, and on interagency consultation. 

Issue 1: Effects of Minerals Resource Management and Rights-of-Way 

Special attention is needed to address mineral development (i.e., oil/gas [including coalbed gas], coal, 

diamonds, and gold) and related transportation network conflicts with other land and resource uses and 

values. Principal considerations include disruptive activities and human presence in elk, deer, and 

fisheries habitat; big game (i.e., moose, elk, deer, antelope) crucial habitat (crucial winter range and 

birthing areas); and other important wildlife species habitats (e.g., greater sage-grouse, plovers, raptors); 

and effects on recreation values, forage uses, air quality, sensitive vegetation types, and sensitive 

watersheds. Areas where surface disturbing activities (e.g., mineral exploration and development 

activities, right-of-way construction activities) are suitable, not suitable, or should be restricted need to be 

identified. 

Issue 2: Effects of Land and Resource Uses on Vegetation, Soils, Air, and Watershed

Values 

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

the planning area. The basic problem is providing for resource values and nonconsumptive uses while 

allowing for consumptive uses. Resource values include maintenance of general vegetative cover, 

watershed protection, maintenance and enhancement of riparian areas, soil stabilization, maintenance and 

enhancement of wildlife habitat (particularly big game crucial winter range and habitat for candidate or 

threatened and endangered wildlife and vegetative species), and air quality protection. Consumptive uses 

include livestock grazing; off-highway vehicle (OHV) use; and vegetation removal by mineral 

development, right-of-way construction, and other surface disturbing activities. 

Issue 3: Effects of Land and Resource Uses on Recreation and Cultural Resource 

Management 

There are certain resources and areas that need protection, while others need to be considered for more 

public and recreational uses. OHV use can conflict with other land and resource uses and can cause 

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

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

and commercial, and particularly in the Greater Sand Dunes Recreation Area), visual resource 

management direction, road designations (transportation planning), and management of cultural and 

historical resources (the need for protection of Native American-respected places is of particular concern). 

Providing for visitor health and safety in areas with mineral development (i.e., OHV recreation area and 

oil/gas development) is also a concern. 

Issue 4: Designation and Management of Special Management Areas 

There are unique areas or sensitive lands and resources in the planning area that meet the criteria for 

protection and management under special management designations. There are five areas designated as 

ACECs (Greater Sand Dunes, Steamboat Mountain, Oregon Buttes, White Mountain Petroglyphs, and a 

portion of the South Pass Historic Landscape) that contain unique resources requiring special 

management attention. There are three SMRAs—the Greater Sand Dunes; Continental Peak Side Trail; 

and the Oregon, Mormon Pioneer, Pony Express, and California National Historic Trails—that contain 

recreation values requiring special management attention. There are also concerns that special 

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

1-4 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 1 

Some issues that directly or indirectly apply to the planning area were addressed in the Green River RMP 

planning effort. These issues were not addressed in the supplemental draft EIS for the CAP and thus will 

not be addressed in this final EIS. 

1.5.2 Planning Criteria 

Planning criteria are the conditions and guidelines or parameters for conducting the planning effort for 

preparing the JMH CAP draft and final EIS and for developing the approved CAP. The planning criteria 

serve the following purposes: 

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

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

planning area, and that plan preparation is accomplished efficiently.

• Identify the scope and parameters of the planning effort for the decision maker, the

interdisciplinary planning team, and the public. 

• Inform the public of what should and should not be expected from the completed JMH CAP. 

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

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

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

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

watershed management plans, processing applications for permits for mineral exploration, rightsof-way, etc.). 

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

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

agencies, governmental entities, and Indian tribes; analysis of information pertinent to the planning area; 

public input; and professional judgment. The general planning criteria described in Appendix 1 have 

been developed to help focus the preparation of planning and management alternatives and the analysis of 

their impacts, and to guide selection of the Proposed JMH CAP for the final EIS. Additional planning 

criteria may be identified as the planning process proceeds. 

1.6 RELEVANT STATUTES, LIMITATIONS, AND GUIDELINES 

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

the management actions for the JMH CAP. 

1.6.1 Environmental Policy 

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

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

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

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

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

The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531, et seq.), directs federal 

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

through their authority, they help bring about the recovery of such species. 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 1-5 
Chapter 1 Final EIS 

Federal Compliance with Pollution Control Standards (Executive Order 12088) states that federal 

agencies must comply with applicable pollution control standards. 

Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality (Executive Order 11514, as amended by 

Executive Order 11991) establishes the policy for federal agencies to provide leadership in environmental 

protection and enhancement. 

1.6.2 Land Use and Natural Resources Management 

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

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

review of existing withdrawals and classifications; for establishment of comprehensive rules and 

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

basis; for protection of scientific, scenic, historical, ecological, environmental, air and atmospheric, water 

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

their resources; for establishment of uniform procedures for any disposal, acquisition, or exchange; for 

identification and protection of ACECs; for recognizing the nation’s need for domestic sources of 

minerals, food, timber, and fiber from the public lands, including implementation of the Mining and 

Mineral Policy Act of 1970; and for payments to compensate states and local governments for burdens 

created as a result of the immunity of federal lands from state and local taxation. The general land 

management regulations are provided in 43 CFR 2000, Subchapter B. 

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

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

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

3800. 

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

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

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

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

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

provided in 43 CFR 3100. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

3600. 

The Taylor Grazing Act of 1934, as amended (43 U.S.C. 315), provides authorization to the Secretary of 

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

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

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

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

1-6 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 1 

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

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

other range management practices. 

The Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1974, as amended (7 U.S.C. 2814), provides for the designation of a 

lead office and a person trained in the management of undesirable plants, establishment and funding of an 

undesirable plant management program, completion and implementation of cooperative agreements with 

state agencies, and establishment of integrated management systems to control undesirable plant species. 

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

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

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

lands are provided in 43 CFR 4700. 

Executive Order 12548 provides for establishment of appropriate fees for the grazing of domestic 

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

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

wilderness areas. 

1.6.3 Air Quality 

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

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

implementation plans. 

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

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

1.6.4 Water Quality 

The Clean Water Act of 1987, as amended (33 U.S.C. 1251), establishes objectives to restore and 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Colorado River Basin. 

Protection of Wetlands (Executive Order 11990) requires federal agencies to take action to minimize the 

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

of wetlands. 

Floodplain Management (Executive Order 11988) provides for the restoration and preservation of 

national and beneficial floodplain values, and enhancement of the natural and beneficial values of 

wetlands in carrying out programs affecting land use. 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 1-7 
Chapter 1 Final EIS 

1.6.5 Cultural Resources 

The Historic Sites Act (16 U.S.C. 461) declares national policy to identify and preserve historic sites, 

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

Register of Historic Places (NRHP). 

The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), as amended (16 U.S.C. 470), expands protection 

of historic and archeological properties to include those of national, state, and local significance. The 

NHPA (in Section 106) requires federal agencies to take into account the potential effects of agency 

actions on properties listed on or eligible for the NRHP. Agencies are also required to consult with the 

State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), and sometimes with the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation, concerning those effects. The SHPO is also sometimes consulted concerning applicable 

methods for determining whether or not there are NRHP-eligible properties in the area of potential effect 

of an agency undertaking, whether properties are eligible, and appropriate mitigation measures. The 

NHPA (in Section 110) also requires federal agencies to identify properties that may qualify for listing on 

the NRHP, to nominate such places to the register, and to develop plans for their management. 

Furthermore, both Section 110 and the Archeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (ARPA) require 

federal agencies to develop proactive programs to interpret archeological resources for the benefit of the 

public. 

ARPA, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470a, 470cc, 470ee), requires permits for the excavation or removal of 

federally administered archaeological resources, encourages increased cooperation among federal 

agencies and private individuals, provides stringent criminal and civil penalties for violations, and 

requires federal agencies to identify important resources vulnerable to looting and to develop a tracking 

system for violations. 

The Antiquities Act of 1906 protects objects of historic and scientific interest on public lands. It 

authorizes the President to designate historic landmarks and structures as national monuments and 

provides penalties for people who damage these historic sites. The act has two main components: (1) a 

criminal enforcement component, which provides for the prosecution of persons who appropriate, 

excavate, injure, or destroy any historic or prehistoric ruin or monument, or any object of antiquity on 

lands owned or controlled by the United States, and (2) a component that authorizes a permit for the 

examination of ruins and archaeological sites and the gathering of objects of antiquity on lands owned or 

controlled by the United States. 

The American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA) clarifies U.S. policy pertaining to the protection of 

Native Americans’ religious freedom. The special nature of Native American religions has frequently 

resulted in conflicts between federal laws and policies and religious freedom. AIRFA, passed in 1978, 

acknowledges prior infringement on the right of freedom of religion for Native Americans from other 

federal laws. Furthermore, it states in federal policy that laws passed for other purposes were not meant to 

restrict the rights of Native Americans. The act establishes a policy of protecting and preserving the 

inherent right of individual Native Americans (including American Indians, Eskimos, Aleuts, and Native 

Hawaiians) to believe, express, and exercise their traditional religions. 

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

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

NRHP and to ensure that their plans and programs contribute to preservation and enhancement of nonfederally-owned resources. 

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

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

1-8 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 1 

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

act is to provide the means for outdoor recreation needs of an expanding population and to promote the 

preservation of and access to outdoor areas and historic resources of the United States by instituting a 

national system of recreation, scenic, and historic trails, designating the Appalachian Trail and the Pacific 

Crest Trail as the initial components of the system, and prescribing the methods and standards by which 

additional components may be added to the system. 

1.6.6 Hazardous Materials 

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

amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (42 U.S.C. 9601–9673), 

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

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

hazardous wastes are or have been stored, treated, or disposed of, and requires responsible parties, 

including federal agencies, to clean up releases of hazardous substances. 

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

Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 6901–6992), authorizes the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to manage, 

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

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

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

assessments for the administration of the enforcement. 

The Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act of 1986 (42 U.S.C. 11001–11050) 

requires the private sector to inventory chemicals and chemical products, to report those in excess of 

threshold planning quantities, to inventory emergency response equipment, to provide annual reports and 

support to local and state emergency response organizations, and to maintain a liaison with the local and 

state emergency response organizations and the public. 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 1-9 
Chapter 1 Final EIS 

Table 1-1. Land and Mineral Ownerships and Administrative Jurisdictions Within

the JMH CAP Planning Area 

Areas the CAP Decisions WILL Cover: Approximate Acres1 

A. Areas where the land surface and mineral estate are both federally 

owned and are both administered by the BLM2 567,080 

B. Areas where the land surface is federally owned and administered 

by the BLM and the mineral estate is owned and administered by 

the State of Wyoming3 7,720 

C. Areas where the land surface is owned and administered by private 

individuals and the total mineral estate is federally owned and 

administered by the BLM4 4,950 

D. Areas where the land surface is owned and administered by private 

individuals and the coal is federally owned and administered by the BLM4 2,010 

E. Areas where the land surface is owned and administered by private 

individuals and the oil and gas is federally owned and administered 

by the BLM4 30 

F. Areas where the land surface is owned and administered by private 

individuals and the other federal minerals are federally owned and 

administered by the BLM4 40 

G. Areas where the land surface is owned and administered by the State of 

Wyoming and the mineral estate is federally owned and administered by 

the BLM4 640 

H. Areas where the land surface is owned and administered by the State of 

Wyoming and the coal is federally owned and administered by the BLM4 80 

Total BLM-administered federal land surface to be covered by CAP 

decisions (A + B) 574,800 

Total BLM-administered federal mineral estate to be covered by CAP 

decisions (A + C + D + E + F + G + H) 574,830 

Areas the CAP Decisions Will NOT Cover: 

I. Areas where the federal land surface is administered by the Bureau of 

Reclamation and the federal mineral estate is administered by the BLM5 1,980 

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

RMP decisions 1,980 

J. Areas where the land surface and minerals are both owned by private 

individuals and the BLM has no administrative authority6 8,800 

1-10 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 1 

K. Areas where the land surface and minerals are both owned by the State 

of Wyoming and the BLM has no administrative authority6 29,000 

Total Land Surface Acres in the JMH CAP Planning Area (All Ownerships)1622,340 

1

 Because of land surface and mineral ownership overlaps and administrative responsibility overlaps, acreage figures are 

not additive. 

2

 In areas where the federal land surface and federal mineral estate are both administered by the BLM, the CAP decisions 

will cover both the land surface and the mineral estate. 

3

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

the State of Wyoming, the CAP decisions will cover only the BLM-administered federal land surface. Although these 

surface management decisions may have some effect on the ability to manage and develop the non-federally-owned 

minerals, the CAP decisions will not pertain to the non-federal mineral estate. At the same time, surface and minerals 

management actions and development activities anticipated in these areas will be taken into account for purposes of 

cumulative impact analysis in the CAP. 

4

 In areas where the land surface is privately owned or owned by the State of Wyoming, and the minerals are federally 

owned, the CAP decisions will cover only the BLM-administered federal mineral estate. Although the land and resource 

uses and values on the non-federal surface will be taken into account and will affect development of the federal mineral 

management decisions, these decisions will not pertain to the state- and privately owned land surface. At the same time, 

surface and minerals management actions and development activities anticipated in these areas will be taken into 

account for purposes of cumulative impact analysis in the CAP. 

5

 In areas where the federal land surface is administered by the Bureau of Reclamation, and the federal mineral estate is 

administered by the BLM, the land surface planning and management decisions are the responsibility of the Bureau of 

Reclamation. Any BLM administrative responsibilities on these lands (for example, actions concerning the federal mineral 

estate) are handled case by case and are guided by the other surface management agencies' policies, procedures, and 

plans. Thus the CAP will not include management decisions for the federal minerals on these lands. At the same time, 

surface and minerals management actions and development activities anticipated on these lands will be taken into 

account for purposes of cumulative impact analysis in the CAP. 

It is also important to note that, while other BLM responsibilities include surface management of the lands withdrawn for 

purposes of the Bureau of Reclamation, they are carried out in accordance with an interagency agreement between the 

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

Reclamation. 

6

 The CAP will not include any management decisions for areas where the land surface and minerals are both privately 

owned or owned by the State of Wyoming. 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 1-11 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

CHAPTER 2—DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES

To prepare the Coordinated Activity Plan (CAP) for the Jack Morrow Hills (JMH) planning area, 

comprehensive alternative CAPs were developed to address the resource management objectives 

identified during the scoping process. 

2.1 DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVES 

The alternatives developed for this analysis were formulated to include the full range of management 

options or actions that could be implemented in the planning area. The previous options and alternatives 

analyzed for the Green River Resource Management Plan (RMP) and those analyzed for the original draft 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the supplemental draft EIS for the JMH CAP were reviewed, 

taking into account management and resource issues identified by BLM technical staff in the Rock 

Springs Field Office (RSFO). New information obtained on resources in the planning area since 

preparation of the supplemental draft EIS, along with public comments and input from cooperating 

agencies and users of the lands and resources in the JMH CAP planning area, were also considered in the 

development of alternatives for this final EIS. 

After the original draft EIS for the JMH CAP was completed in June 2000, the Solicitor for the 

Department of the Interior issued an opinion stating that the original draft EIS did not consider a full 

range of alternatives for management of the JMH CAP planning area. The Solicitor’s opinion directed 

BLM to evaluate alternatives for the CAP, which included a full range of available management options 

for protection of resources and land management. BLM was directed to evaluate all reasonable 

alternatives for management of the planning area as needed to comply with the Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR), specifically 40 CFR 1502.14(a), which is the Council on Environmental Quality’s 

(CEQ) rule for the range of alternatives that must be considered for an EIS to meet the requirements of 

the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). 

In response to the Solicitor’s opinion, the Director of BLM determined that a supplemental draft EIS 

would be prepared to include a range of alternatives required to comply with NEPA and to select a JMH 

CAP that addresses all planning decisions for the area which were deferred in the Green River RMP. The 

range of alternatives considered for the JMH CAP includes the full range of possible management options 

and actions for land uses and resource preservation under BLM’s obligation to provide for multiple land 

use and resource protection as required by the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) and 

other laws. An example of additional management options and actions considered for analysis in the 

supplemental draft EIS and this final EIS include withdrawal of areas from consideration for locatable 

mineral resource development as provided for under FLPMA and the 1872 mining laws. 

2.1.1 Alternatives Development Process 

BLM complied with NEPA requirements in developing alternatives for this final EIS, including seeking 

public input and analyzing an adequate range of reasonable alternatives, including a No Action 

Alternative. In developing alternatives, BLM also took into consideration management options for 

planning decisions that were deferred in the Green River RMP as well as direction provided by the 

Record of Decision for the Green River RMP. Where necessary to meet the planning criteria for the JMH 

CAP, address public comments, and provide a reasonable range of alternatives, the alternatives include 

management options for the planning area that would modify or amend decisions in the Green River 

RMP. Finally, all alternatives meet the management objectives for each BLM resource and land 

management program. 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 2-1 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

The process used to develop the alternatives began with a review of the Green River RMP (October 

1997), the original draft EIS for the JMH CAP (June 2000), the supplemental draft EIS for the JMH CAP, 

and the existing policies and mandates of BLM. During this review, management objectives and actions 

from the Green River RMP applicable to the JMH CAP planning area were identified (Appendix 2). 

Public input received during the 90-day comment period on the original draft EIS and supplemental draft 

EIS for the JMH CAP, and also during the scoping process, was reviewed to ensure that all issues and 

concerns would be identified and addressed, as appropriate, in developing the alternatives and their 

management action options. (For example, either leasing or not leasing federal minerals in sensitive areas 

could be considered an action option.) The resource and land use programs were consolidated into the 

following eight basic management categories: 

• Land and water resources management 

• Heritage resources management 

• Travel-access-realty management 

• Recreation resources management 

• Mineral and alternative energy resources management 

• Visual resources management 

• Special management area management 

• Air resources management. 

Each category contained specific subcategories based on the resources in the JMH CAP planning area and 

the land use programs of BLM. The management categories were used to describe the range of 

alternatives and their management options and actions. 

Development of alternatives began with identifying and analyzing the No Action Alternative, taking into 

consideration public comments. Other alternatives were then developed. Public review of these 

preliminary alternatives was conducted to solicit public input into the development of alternatives before 

development of the Proposed JMH CAP. Among all the alternatives, the Proposed JMH CAP was 

developed last. 

An adequate range of alternatives has now been developed for a comparative analysis. Descriptions of 

the five alternatives addressed in this final EIS are summarized in Table 2-1. 

2.1.2 Management Objectives 

Management objectives or goals were defined for each management category and for each resource and 

land use program BLM must address in the planning process. The management objective for each 

category also defines the overall goal for each category. The management objectives for the management 

categories are as follows: 

• Land and Water Resources Management: The planning area would be managed to maintain or 

enhance land and water resources using ecological principles and science-based performance 

criteria. 

• Heritage Resources Management: The planning area will be managed to expand the 

opportunities for scientific study and educational and interpretive uses of cultural and 

paleontological resources, to protect and preserve important cultural and paleontological 

resources and/or their historic record for future generations, to resolve conflicts between 

cultural/paleontological resources and other resource uses, and to foster opportunities for Native 

Americans to use heritage resources. 

2-2 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

• Travel-Access-Realty Management: The planning area would be managed to manage the public 

lands to support the goals and objectives of other resource programs, to respond to public demand 

for land use authorizations, and to acquire administrative and public access where necessary. 

• Recreation Resources Management: The planning area would be managed to ensure the 

continued availability of outdoor recreational opportunities sought by the public while providing 

for other resource values, to meet legal requirements for the health and safety of visitors, and to 

reduce conflicts between recreation and other types of resource uses. 

• Mineral and Alternative Energy Resources Management: The planning area would be 

managed to provide opportunities for mineral extraction and energy development while 

protecting other resource values. 

• Visual Resources Management: The planning area would be managed to maintain or improve 

scenic values and visual quality and to establish priorities for managing the visual resources in 

conjunction with other resource. 

• Special Management Areas Management: The planning area would be managed to maintain or 

enhance the resource values and characteristics for which the area was designated as a special 

management area. 

• Air Resources Management: The planning area would be managed to maintain and, where 

possible, enhance present air quality levels and, within the scope of BLM’s authority, minimize 

emissions that may add to acid rain, cause violations of air quality standards, or reduce visibility. 

It is important to note that all management options or actions for each land and resource use directly 

and/or indirectly relate to each other. Therefore, management options within each section of an 

alternative may apply or relate to other sections of that alternative (e.g., Wyoming Standards for Healthy 

Rangelands apply to all resource uses and activities but are not repeated in each resource section in the 

alternatives). To gain a full appreciation for the management prescriptions affecting any one resource 

category, the reader should refer to all resource categories for other management prescriptions and 

guidance that may apply to the resource category in question. 

2.1.3 Alternatives and Management Options Considered but Eliminated from

Detailed Analysis 

The following alternatives and management options were considered as possible methods of resolving the 

issues but were eliminated from detailed analysis because they were unreasonable or not practical because 

of technical, legal, or policy factors. 

2.1.3.1 National Conservation Area Designation or National Park Designation 

Designating the JMH CAP planning area as a National Conservation Area (NCA) or a National Park was 

suggested during the scoping process as a possible method of resolving some resource conflicts and 

planning issues. The options were considered but were not analyzed in detail. Designation of an NCA or 

a National Park is not a land use planning decision. This EIS focuses on the analysis of alternative 

management scenarios for the public lands and resources within the planning area, as directed in 43 CFR 

1610. Designations of an NCA or National Park are congressional designations, which Congress can 

enact at any time, and are outside the scope of analysis for the JMH CAP. 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 2-3 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

2.1.3.2 Other Special management Area Designations 

Designating other special management areas or designating the entire planning area a single special 

management area, such as an area of critical environmental concern (ACEC), were considered as possible 

methods for resolving some of the planning issues. The proposal for making the entire JMH CAP 

planning area an ACEC was eliminated from further analysis because the entire area did not meet the 

relevance and importance criteria and special management needs required for ACEC consideration 

(Appendix 1). However, the portions of the planning area that did meet the relevance and importance 

criteria were addressed in the alternatives analyzed in detail. The alternatives analyzed in detail include 

various considerations for designating new ACECs and expanding existing ACECs. Research natural 

areas (RNAs) are also identified through the same procedures set forth in the guidance provided in BLM 

Manual 1613. 

Designating new special recreation management areas (SRMA) was eliminated from detailed analysis 

because no new areas were determined to meet the criteria for this designation, where congressionally 

recognized recreation values exist or where significant public recreation issues or management concerns 

occur. Two SRMAs exist in the planning area. These are the Greater Sand Dunes and the Oregon, 

Mormon Pioneer, Pony Express, and California National Historic Trails. No other areas were identified 

that needed special or more intensive types of management, such as detailed recreation planning or 

greater managerial investment (e.g., facilities, supervision, etc.). However, the alternatives analyzed in 

detail include various considerations for managing recreation resources in the JMH CAP planning area. 

The remainder of the planning area is an Extensive Recreation Management area, as identified in the 

Green River RMP. 

Designating portions of the area as a National Natural Landmark was also suggested as a possible method 

of resolving some of the planning issues. The options were considered but were not analyzed in detail. 

Designation of a National Natural Landmark is not a land use planning decision. This EIS focuses on the 

analysis of alternative management scenarios for the public lands and resources within the planning area, 

as directed in 43 CFR 1610. Designation of a National Natural Landmark is a U.S. Park Service 

designation, which the U.S. Park Service can enact at any time and is outside the scope of analysis for the 

JMH CAP. However, the alternatives analyzed in detail in the EIS include analysis of geologic features 

such as the Killpecker Sand Dunes, Boars Tusk, Oregon Buttes, Pinnacles, and Steamboat Mountain. 

2.1.3.3 Closure to Livestock Grazing 

The elimination of livestock grazing from all public lands in the planning area was considered as a 

possible method for resolving some of the planning issues related to vegetative resources in the Green 

River RMP EIS and was dropped from detailed analysis in that document. The same reasons for 

eliminating the “no grazing” option from detailed analysis in the EIS for the Green River RMP also apply 

to the EIS for the JMH CAP. 

Resource conditions on the BLM-administered public lands in the planning area, including range 

vegetation, watershed, and wildlife habitat, do not warrant prohibition of livestock grazing throughout the 

planning area. However, reduction or elimination of livestock grazing may be necessary in specific 

situations where livestock grazing would significantly conflict with the protection and/or management of 

other resource values or uses. Such determinations would be made during site-specific activity planning 

and would be based on several factors, including monitoring studies and the ability to meet the Wyoming 

Standards for Healthy Rangelands. 

2-4 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

2.1.3.4 Closure to Mineral Leasing 

Closing the planning area to new mineral leasing of federal minerals was considered as a possible method 

to resolve conflicts with other resource uses. Because the federal leasable minerals in much of the 

planning area have already been leased and portions of the area are developed, this option would not help 

resolve the issues. The proposal was eliminated from further analysis because resource conflicts tend to 

be located in specific, scattered areas and are thus not conducive to entire JMH CAP planning area. 

Closing the entire planning area to new mineral leasing would eliminate mineral development and 

production activities in areas where conflicts do not exist, thereby placing unreasonable restrictions on 

such activities. 

In addition, based on the Reasonably Foreseeable oil and gas Development Scenario (RFD) and the 

Hydrocarbon Occurrence and Development (HOD) report for the JMH CAP area, BLM does not 

anticipate a large amount of new development that would lead to unacceptable levels of adverse effects in 

all areas. The analysis of impacts indicated that effects were not anticipated on every acre and that not all 

acres where development would occur were so sensitive as to preclude all new development. Therefore, 

because the entire planning area does not have conflicts with fluid mineral leasing, closure to new leasing 

of federal oil and gas resources in the entire planning area is unreasonable. 

Because development is likely to be limited in scope and effect, it was concluded that it would not be 

reasonable to analyze this option in detail. However, not issuing new mineral leases in portions of the 

planning area in response to other identified resource needs is addressed in the alternatives analyzed in 

detail. The alternatives analyzed in detail include various considerations for maximizing individual 

resource values and uses in specific areas where conflicts exist, and for closing these areas to mineral 

leasing and related development. 

2.1.3.5 Maximum Unconstrained and Maximum Constrained Alternatives 

Alternatives and general management options that proposed and/or promoted maximum development, 

production, or use of one resource at the expense of other resources were not analyzed in detail. 

Likewise, alternatives and general management options that proposed and/or promoted the elimination of 

development, production, or use of one resource for the purposes of promoting other resource values were 

not analyzed in detail. Generally, these options do not meet the objectives of BLM’s multiple use 

management mandate and responsibilities (FLPMA Section 202(c) and (e)). In addition, this approach 

would not meet the direction developed for the planning area, which is described in the Record of 

Decision for the Green River RMP EIS. However, the alternatives analyzed in detail do include various 

considerations for maximizing individual resource uses in specific areas where conflicts exist and for 

eliminating individual resource uses or maximizing resource values in specific areas where conflicts exist. 

2.1.3.6 Applying Standard Lease Notice 1 as the Only Mitigation for Surface

Disturbing and Disruptive Activities Due to Oil and Gas Exploration and

Development Activities 

Application of Standard Lease Notice 1 as the only mitigation for surface disturbing activities due to oil 

and gas exploration and development activities was not analyzed in detail. Lease Notice 1 is an oil and 

gas term for the standard lease notice that is included in all federal oil and gas leases. The notice provides 

guidance for use or occupancy and, in some cases, for prohibition of surface disturbing activities in areas 

with slopes in excess of 25 percent, within 500 feet of water and/or riparian areas, within 500 feet of 

interstate highways and within 200 feet of other rights-of-way, within 1⁄4 mile of occupied dwellings, or 

on material sale sites. The notice also provides prohibition of construction with frozen material or during 

periods when the soil material is saturated or when watershed damage is likely to occur. The mitigation 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 2-5 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

described in this lease notice applies to all surface disturbing and disruptive activities, whether or not they 

are related to oil and gas exploration and development activities (i.e., range improvement projects, 

recreation structures, rights-of-way, etc.). This Lease Notice 1 option was addressed in the draft EIS for 

the Green River RMP. The analysis in that EIS indicated that potentially significant impacts to resources 

and uses in the planning area would result if Lease Notice 1 were the only mitigation required, 

demonstrating that minimal mitigation would not be sufficient to meet resource objectives or BLM’s 

multiple use management mandate and responsibilities. However, applying Lease Notice 1 as the only 

mitigation for surface disturbance and disruptive activities in portions of the planning area, in response to 

other identified resource needs, is addressed in the alternatives analyzed in detail. 

2.1.3.7 Authorizing Activities with a No Surface Occupancy Requirement (for All

Surface Disturbing and Disruptive Activities) on the Entire Planning Area 

A no surface occupancy (NSO) requirement to preclude surface use of an area by surface disturbing and 

disruptive activities would apply to all such disturbance and disruptive activities, not only to those 

resulting from mineral exploration and development. Applying this requirement to the entire planning 

area as project mitigation was considered but dropped from detailed analysis. 

Much of the planning area is already leased for oil and gas. Exploration and development activities could 

(and likely will) occur on some of those leased areas. Not all nonleased or undeveloped areas contain the 

sensitive or significant resources that warrant this most restrictive stipulation. Such a restriction would 

deny accessibility to the area and would likely prohibit any surface disturbing or disruptive projects 

related to constructing range improvements, watershed protection improvements, wildlife habitat 

improvements, recreation developments, roads and other rights-of-way, and other such developments and 

improvements. This could also impact areas with sensitive resources on adjacent leased areas, as activity 

would be moved to these adjacent areas. However, applying the NSO requirement as mitigation for 

surface disturbing and disruptive activities in portions of the planning area, in response to other identified 

resource needs, is addressed in the alternatives analyzed in detail. 

2.1.3.8 Prohibiting Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Activity on Existing

Leased Areas 

During scoping and the public comment period for the supplemental draft EIS, it was suggested that an 

alternative be considered that would evaluate impacts of a prohibition of further exploration or 

development of federal lands and minerals that are already leased for oil and gas. Under this option, 

activities would continue on private and state lands and minerals, but not on federal lands and minerals. 

After review of the leases issued for federal minerals, BLM determined that this alternative was not 

reasonable. 

To prohibit any new development on all existing leases in the JMH CAP (and to indefinitely retain 

temporary suspensions that are in effect in portions of the planning area) is unreasonable because all lands 

with existing leases are not so sensitive or critical that some level of development cannot occur. In 

addition, timing of development on existing leases can provide for avoiding unacceptable levels of 

adverse effects and for balancing a mix of multiple uses in the JMH CAP area. Some development has 

occurred in this area and is ongoing. The effects of this development as a whole do not cause major 

conflicts with resources and users to the extent that the existing development should be precluded. 

In addition, based on the RFD and HOD for the JMH CAP area, BLM does not anticipate a large amount 

of new development that would lead to unacceptable levels of adverse effects in all areas with existing 

leases. The analysis of impacts indicated that effects were not anticipated on every acre, or every lease, 

and that not all acres where development would occur were so sensitive as to preclude all new 

2-6 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

development. Therefore, closure to new leasing or not developing federal oil and gas resources on 

existing leases within the entire planning area is unreasonable. Closure to new leasing of other federal 

minerals in the entire planning area is also unreasonable because the entire planning area does not have 

conflicts with oil and gas or other mineral leasing. 

Because mineral development is likely to be limited in scope and effect, it was concluded that it would 

not be reasonable to analyze this prohibition option in detail. However, restrictions on oil and gas leasing 

and leasing or development of other mineral resources in portions of the planning area in response to 

other identified resource needs are addressed in the alternatives analyzed in detail. The alternatives 

analyzed in detail do include various considerations for maximizing individual resource values and uses 

in specific areas where conflicts exist and for closing those areas to mineral leasing and related 

development. 

2.1.3.9 Buy Back/Exchange of Existing Producing Mineral Leases 

During scoping, it was suggested that an option be considered that would buy back producing federal 

mineral leases within the planning area or exchange them for federal mineral interests outside the 

planning area. This option was not analyzed in detail, because the current level of oil and gas production 

as a whole does not cause major conflicts with other resources or resource uses. In addition, buy back of 

producing mineral leases would not be cost effective. However, the alternatives analyzed in detail do 

include consideration of buy back of non-producing leases. 

2.1.3.10 Eliminating Surveys for Threatened and Endangered or Sensitive Species

Required by the Endangered Species Act, Federal Regulation, and the

Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands 

It was suggested during the scoping process that conducting surveys concerning threatened and 

endangered as well as sensitive species in relation to proposed actions or activities should be eliminated. 

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) was passed by Congress to conserve, protect, enhance, and manage 

endangered species and their habitats. Further, federal regulations require that habitats for threatened and 

endangered species, and species of special concern or sensitive species will be maintained or enhanced. 

To meet these requirements, surveys are necessary to determine whether the species of concern and their 

related habitats occur in the area that may be affected by a proposed action or activity. Because species 

may move and occupy different areas at different times, survey information does not remain static and 

will be updated as needed. The option to eliminate the requirement for the surveys was determined to be 

unreasonable, because it would be against the law, regulation, and policy, and the option was therefore 

not analyzed in detail. 

2.1.3.11 Designation of New Wilderness Study Areas 

In April 2003, during the public review and comment period for the supplemental draft EIS, settlement of 

a lawsuit over the designation of new wilderness study areas (WSAs) on BLM-administered public lands 

in Utah (State of Utah v. Department of the Interior, 2003) resulted in a change of direction on wilderness 

designation. The settlement resulted in the issuance of BLM Washington Office Instruction 

Memorandum No. 2003-195 (Rescission of National Level Policy Guidance on Wilderness Review and 

Land Use Planning) which rescinded the BLM Wilderness Inventory and Study Procedure Handbook (H6310-1). Essentially, the settlement established that the authority of BLM to conduct wilderness reviews, 

including the establishment of new WSAs, expired no later than 1993 with submission of the wilderness 

suitability recommendations to Congress pursuant to Section 603 of FLPMA; Section 202 of FLPMA 

does not apply to new WSA proposals; and consideration of new WSA proposals on BLM-administered 

public lands is no longer valid. 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 2-7 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

As a result of the settlement direction, the information contained in Appendix 18 of the supplemental 

draft EIS is no longer valid and will not be repeated in this final EIS document. Also, neither the 

Pinnacles Geographic Area nor the three new WSA proposals submitted during the supplemental draft 

EIS public review and comment period were considered for WSA designation in this final EIS. See 

Appendix 18 of this final EIS for further information on this subject. 

2.2 MANAGEMENT ACTIONS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES 

Management actions common to all alternatives, as presented in this chapter, are integral to but are not 

repeated in the descriptions for each of the alternatives. Specific limitations on managing resources and 

land use programs guided the development of the alternatives. These limitations are defined in the 

various laws and regulations that govern BLM management decisions. They are also set forth in the 

planning criteria to ensure that management actions within all alternatives are compliant with 

nondiscretionary laws and regulations. Because of these specific limitations, management actions 

common to all alternatives are discussed below in the management actions’ respective categories. 

2.2.1 Land and Water Resources Management 

Management Objective—The planning area would be managed to maintain or enhance land and water 

resources using ecological principles and science-based performance criteria. 

2.2.1.1 General Management Actions for Land and Water Resources 

Healthy Rangelands. The Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands would apply to all resource uses 

on BLM-administered lands. These standards are the minimal acceptable conditions for addressing the 

health, productivity, and sustainability of the rangeland. The standards describe healthy rangelands rather 

than rangeland byproducts. Achievement of a standard is determined through observing, measuring, and 

monitoring appropriate indicators. An indicator is a component of a system whose characteristics (e.g., 

presence, absence, quantity, and distribution) can be observed, measured, or monitored based on sound 

scientific principles. The standards would direct management of public lands and focus the 

implementation of this activity plan toward the maintenance or attainment of healthy rangelands. 

Proper Functioning Condition. Riparian areas would be managed to attain or maintain a minimum 

standard of proper functioning condition (PFC), which is the minimum acceptable level of ecological 

condition for riparian areas. The PFC for different types of riparian-wetland systems is fully defined in 

TR 1737-15, “A User Guide to Assessing Proper Functioning Condition and the Supporting Science for 

Lotic Areas,” and TR 1737-16, “A User Guide to Assessing Proper Functioning Condition and the 

Supporting Science for Lentic Areas.” PFC can be summarized as the minimum acceptable level of 

ecological status where vegetation, land form, and/or woody debris create a level of inherent resiliency 

that allows the stream or wetland system to be protected from erosive forces, capture sediment, provide 

for infiltration, and create appropriate habitat. Riparian areas would be maintained, improved, or restored 

to enhance forage conditions, provide wildlife habitat, and improve stream and water quality. To achieve 

PFC, riparian areas would be managed to maintain dominance by species capable of stabilizing soils and 

stream banks. All riparian areas would be assessed on an as-needed basis to determine existing condition 

and whether specific management actions would be needed for improvement. 

Site-specific activity and implementation plans would be prepared where needed to identify methods to 

achieve or maintain PFC as a minimum. Plans could include measures to reduce erosion and sediment 

yield, promote ground cover, and enhance water quality. 

2-8 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

Desired Plant Community. Upland and riparian vegetation would be managed to achieve desired plant 

community (DPC) objectives. A DPC is a plant community that produces the kind, proportion, and 

amount of vegetation necessary for meeting or exceeding the land use plan requirements. DPC objectives 

for upland and riparian areas would be established for the planning area through individual site-specific 

activity and implementation planning, and as updated ecological site inventory data becomes available. 

These objectives would focus on native plant species and their natural succession. Particular attention 

would be given to mountain shrub, basin big sagebrush/lemon scurfpea, aspen, and other unique or 

important vegetation types. Site-specific DPC objectives would be determined by an interdisciplinary 

team, usually comprised of specialists in soil, vegetation, hydrology, and biology. The team determines 

desired vegetative conditions for an area by considering ecological potential, current and anticipated 

resource uses, applicable publications, and professional judgment. 

Vegetation Treatments. Herbicide loading sites would be prohibited within 500 feet of water sources, 

floodplains, riparian areas, and special status plant locations and would be used in accordance with the 

guidelines in Appendix 8, Standard Operating Procedures for Range Improvements and Vegetation 

Manipulations. 

Watershed Health Assessments. Watershed health assessments would be initiated to determine the 

condition of the watershed including riparian areas, and would be prioritized based on levels of 

development, rangeland standards, PFC, and other available data. Watersheds with more sensitive 

baseline conditions would be the focus for increased monitoring efforts and mitigation (Appendixes 5, 6). 

2.2.1.2 Fire Management 

Management Objective—The planning area would be managed to use prescribed fire as a management 

tool to help meet multiple use resource management goals; and to provide cost effective protection from 

wildfire to life, property, and resource values. 

Fire Management Implementation Plan. Fire management in the planning area would be implemented 

through the Fire Management Implementation Plan for BLM-Administered Public Lands in the State of 

Wyoming. The plan emphasizes protecting natural resources and property while recognizing the essential 

role fire plays in restoring and maintaining the health of the public lands. The primary objectives of the 

plan are to use prescribed fire as a management tool to help meet multiple use resource management goals 

and to provide cost effective protection from wildfire to life, property, and resource values. The plan 

would be reviewed and updated as necessary to be consistent with federal wildland fire policy and the 

National Fire Plan. 

2.2.1.3 Water Resources Management 

Management Objective—The planning area would be managed to stabilize and conserve soils; increase 

vegetative production; maintain or improve surface and ground water quality; and to protect, maintain, or 

improve wetlands, floodplains, and riparian areas. 

Water Quality. All surface disturbing activities would be required to adopt design strategies that serve 

to reduce erosion and maintain or improve water quality. Aquifer recharge areas would be managed to 

maintain or enhance recharge volume and ground water quality. Vegetative communities would be 

managed for density and diversity appropriate for the recharge areas. Additional protective management 

actions for the protection of water quality and recharge areas could include using closed systems for 

drilling fluids and limiting road density, impermeable surfaces, and surface occupancy. 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 2-9 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

Activities in aquifer recharge areas could be allowed if a site-specific analysis determines that no 

unacceptable impacts would occur to 100-year floodplains, wetlands, riparian areas, or water quality, and 

a plan to mitigate impacts to water quality is approved. 

Permanent Facilities. Proposals for linear crossings in 100-year floodplains, wetlands, and riparian 

areas would be considered on a case-by-case basis. 

Erosion Control. When applicable, erosion control plans would be required as part of surface disturbing 

project proposals. 

Colorado River Salinity Control. BLM would continue to participate with federal, state, and local 

government agencies to develop and implement salinity control plans for the Colorado River Basin, and 

to maintain existing and future applicable water quality plans. 

Wetlands and Floodplains. Wetlands and floodplains would be managed in accordance with Executive 

Orders 11988 and 11990 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. 

Riparian Management Exclosures. Riparian management exclosures would be closed to livestock 

grazing. 

Fluid Mineral Wells. Water wells constructed to provide water for drilling of fluid mineral wells (oil, 

gas, or coalbed gas wells) would be constructed in compliance with BLM regulations for resource 

protection. Hydrogeologic investigations would be required where there was a reasonable expectation 

that surface water features were in connection with geologic formations being dewatered. Such 

investigations would serve to determine the potential extent of the effect and provide information that 

could assist in the mitigation of undesirable effects related to development. Attributes that could trigger a 

hydrogeologic investigation would include, but would not be limited to, a preexisting designation of an 

area as a recharge zone; similar water chemistry between surface and ground waters; proximity of a 

proposed project to shallow water tables, springs and/or seeps, wetlands, streams, or water courses; and/or 

underlying lithology that suggests surface-ground water communication, such as dipping geologic beds, 

fractures in the underlying rocks, and shallow producing zones. Mitigation requirements would also be 

implemented as needed to protect surface waters. 

2.2.1.4 Wild Horses Management 

Management Objective—The planning area would be managed to protect, maintain, and control viable, 

healthy herds at appropriate management levels (AML) of wild horses in the Great Divide Basin Herd 

Management Area (HMA) while retaining their free-roaming nature, provide adequate habitat for freeroaming wild horses through management consistent with principles of multiple use and environmental 

protection, and to provide opportunity for the public to view wild horses. 

Wild Horse Herd Management Area Boundaries and Appropriate Management Levels. Wild horse 

populations would continue to be managed within the Great Divide Basin Wild Horse HMA at an AML 

of 415 to 600 horses. 

Activity and Monitoring Plans. Site-specific activity planning would be implemented to support herd 

management decisions throughout the Great Divide Basin HMA. A site-specific activity plan and related 

monitoring plan would be prepared and implemented for the Great Divide Basin HMA to ensure that 

objectives for vegetation management are met and that adequate forage is provided to support the AML of 

415 to 600 horses. Annual monitoring data would be collected to evaluate progress toward meeting 

management goals and objectives. Public education and interpretation for the public enjoyment of wild 

2-10 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

horse herds in the Great Divide Basin HMA would be provided through interpretive signs and access to 

sites for viewing horses. 

2.2.1.5 Livestock Grazing Management 

Management Objective—The planning area would be managed to improve forage production and 

ecological conditions for the benefit of livestock use while providing for other resource values. 

Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management. The Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands and 

Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management (Appendix 10) would apply to all livestock grazing 

activities on public lands. These standards and guidelines address management practices at the grazing 

allotment management plan (AMP) and watershed levels and are intended to maintain desirable 

conditions or improve undesirable rangeland conditions within reasonable timeframes. If livestock 

grazing were determined to be a factor in not meeting the Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands, 

appropriate management actions would be implemented, as determined through cooperation between 

BLM, livestock operators, and interested publics. Achieving the standards or making significant progress 

toward achievement of the standards would be the first priority for all grazing allotments. 

Rangeland and Riparian Habitat. Implementation of grazing management systems (AMP) would assist 

in improving or maintaining the desired range condition. Approved AMPs, or other activity plans 

intended to serve as the functional equivalent to an AMP, for each of the designated grazing allotments 

would provide the necessary guidance for achieving grazing management objectives. Appropriate actions 

for improving degraded rangeland and riparian habitat could include, but would not be limited to, 

reduction of permitted animal unit months (AUMs), modified turnout dates, livestock water 

developments, range improvements, modified grazing periods, growing season rest, riparian pastures, 

exclosures, implementation of forage utilization levels, and livestock conversions. 

Forage Utilization Levels. Forage utilization levels for upland and riparian species would be in 

accordance with individual AMPs, or other activity plans intended to serve as the functional equivalent of 

an AMP. Determination of forage utilization levels would be based on PFC guidelines, BLM reference 

handbooks, and professional judgment (Appendix 10). 

Livestock Water Developments and Range Improvements. Compatibility with special status plant 

species would be required. 

2.2.1.6 Vegetation Management 

Management Objective—The planning area would be managed to maintain or enhance vegetation 

community health, composition, and diversity to meet watershed, wild horse, wildlife, and livestock 

grazing resource management objectives and to provide for plant diversity (desired plant communities). 

Special Status Plant Species. Special status plants are those species federally listed as threatened or 

endangered, proposed for listing, or candidates for listing under the ESA. These species also include 

those designated by each BLM State Director as sensitive, and any species designated by a state agency in 

a category implying potential endangerment or extinction. The State of Wyoming does not have an 

official list of designated sensitive, threatened, or endangered plant species. Surveys would be conducted 

of potential habitat for federally listed, proposed, or candidate threatened and endangered plant species 

before any surface disturbance. Should any such species be found, all disruptive activities would be 

halted until species-specific protective measures were developed and implemented. For listed species, 

protective measures would be developed and implemented with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS). 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 2-11 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

Fire Suppression. A site-specific analysis would be prepared for all fire management actions around 

special status plant species sites to determine the appropriate fire management response. Fire equipment 

and fire suppression techniques, such as vegetation clearing, would be limited to existing roads and trails 

in special status plant species habitat. 

Threatened and Endangered Species. Surveys would be conducted on any potential habitat for listed, 

proposed, or candidate ESA species before surface disturbance or depletion of water sources. Should a 

species be located, formal consultation with USFWS would occur. Management prescriptions to provide, 

maintain, or improve habitat would be developed on a case-by-case basis. 

Invasive Species. An invasive species is nonnative with respect to a particular ecosystem, and its 

introduction is likely to cause harm to the economy, environment, or human health. Federal agencies are 

directed under Executive Order 13112 to expand and coordinate efforts to prevent the introduction and 

spread of invasive species. Preventing the introduction and proliferation of invasive species would be 

accomplished through close monitoring and containment of infestations and through implementation of 

best management practices for all surface disturbing activities (Appendix 6). Public education regarding 

invasive species and the means to address them would also be promoted. 

Forest and Woodland Health. Management of conifer and aspen communities would be designed to 

promote forest and woodland health. Old decadent trees may be left standing or downed to provide cover 

or other habitat for wildlife (Animal Inn). Animal Inn is an education and information program focused 

on the value of dead, dying, and hollow trees for wildlife and fish habitat. 

2.2.1.7 Wildlife Habitat Management 

Management Objective—The planning area would be managed to maintain, improve, or enhance the 

biological diversity of wildlife species while ensuring healthy ecosystems; to restore disturbed or altered 

habitat, with the objective of attaining desired native plant communities while providing for wildlife 

needs and soil stability; and, to the extent possible, to provide suitable wildlife habitat and forage to 

support the Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD) strategic plan population objectives. 

Habitat Management Plan. A habitat management plan (HMP) identifies management actions to be 

implemented to achieve specific objectives related to RMP decisions. An HMP focuses on priority 

species and their habitats and is generally limited to a specific geographic area. HMPs would guide BLM 

in managing and rehabilitating wildlife habitat in site-specific locations within the planning area. HMPs 

could include habitat expansion efforts, threatened and endangered species reintroduction, and population 

goals and objectives (in coordination with the WGFD and other appropriate federal agencies). To the 

extent possible, suitable wildlife habitat and forage would be provided to support the WGFD strategic 

plan objectives. Changes in the WGFD planning objective levels would be considered based on habitat 

capability, availability, and site-specific analysis. 

Water Developments. Wildlife water developments to maintain or improve wildlife habitat and resource 

conditions would be considered on a case-by-case basis. 

Special Status Wildlife Species. Special status wildlife species are those species federally listed as 

threatened or endangered, proposed for listing, or candidates for listing under the ESA. They also include 

species designated by each BLM State Director as sensitive, and any species designated by a state agency 

in a category implying potential endangerment or extinction. 

Federal agencies are required to ensure that the actions they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of species listed as threatened or endangered or that adversely modify 

2-12 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

or destroy their critical habitat under the ESA. The ESA requires federal agencies (e.g., BLM) to consult 

with USFWS to determine whether their actions may affect any listed or proposed species and to 

document their determinations in a biological assessment (Appendix 3). Land use decisions would be 

implemented with appropriate conservation measures or with reasonable and prudent alternatives to avoid 

jeopardizing any species or habitat or to avoid the need to list species or their habitat. 

Surveys or searches would be conducted of potential habitat for federally listed, proposed, or candidate 

threatened and endangered wildlife species before any surface disturbance. Special status species habitat 

would be protected from habitat degradation, and BLM would take proactive measures to improve habitat 

on an as-needed basis per BLM 6840 policy and Section 7 of the ESA. 

Sensitive Habitat. Crucial winter range or sensitive habitats, birthing areas, the connectivity area 

(migration corridor), nesting sites, and sensitive fisheries habitats would be maintained or improved. This 

would be accomplished by maintaining habitat or reducing habitat loss or alteration, improving habitat 

where possible, and by applying appropriate mitigation requirements (e.g., distance and seasonal 

limitations and rehabilitation) to all appropriate activities. Exceptions could be provided on a case-bycase basis should exception criteria (Appendix 4) be met. Mitigation requirements would be determined 

on a case-by-case basis. 

Predator Damage Control. BLM would continue to coordinate with the Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service–Wildlife Services (APHIS-WS) and review their annual management plan for animal 

damage control activities on public lands. 

All Greater Sage-Grouse Habitats. Avoidance areas for greater sage-grouse habitats may vary 

depending on natural topographic barriers, terrain, vegetation structure and cover, type of activity, line-ofsight distance, habitat needs, and other factors. Greater sage-grouse habitats would be protected from 

habitat degradation, and measures would be taken to improve habitat on an as-needed basis in accordance 

with BLM 6840 policy. 

Black-Footed Ferret. The USFWS has established survey protocols for the black-footed ferret (listed as 

endangered under the ESA). Surveys for black-footed ferrets would be completed according to current 

USFWS protocol within 1 year prior to conducting any surface disturbing or disruptive activities in all or 

portions of potential ferret habitat areas (prairie dog colonies 200 acres or greater in size) because of the 

close association of the two species (Appendix 3). If ferrets or evidence of ferrets were found, the 

USFWS would be immediately informed, and no projects would begin in the area until the BLM and 

USFWS determine if and how the project should be conducted. Should a ferret be found in an area after 

the surveys have been conducted, all disruptive activities would be stopped until protective measures 

developed with the USFWS could be implemented. Surface disturbing activities could proceed provided 

survey results indicated no presence of black-footed ferrets. BLM would cooperate with USFWS and 

WGFD on any black-footed ferret reintroduction within the JMH CAP planning area. 

Mountain Plover. Mountain plover surveys would be required prior to authorizing any surface 

disturbing or disruptive activities in potential plover habitat. Surveys would be conducted within suitable 

mountain plover habitat by a qualified biologist using protocol determined by the Rock Springs BLM 

biologist. 

Raptor Nesting Sites. Active and historic raptor nesting sites would be protected and managed (e.g., 

through distance restrictions) for continued nesting activities. Different species of raptors may require 

different types of protective measures. 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 2-13 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

Introduction and Reintroduction of Species. BLM would cooperate with WGFD in studies for the 

introduction and reintroduction of native and nonnative (game) wildlife and fish species. 

BLM would cooperate with the USFWS in studies for, and reintroduction of, special status species. 

2.2.2 Heritage Resources Management 

Management Objective—The planning area would be managed to expand the opportunities for scientific 

study and educational and interpretive uses of cultural and paleontological resources, to protect and 

preserve important cultural and paleontological resources and/or their historic record for future 

generations, to resolve conflicts between cultural/paleontological resources and other resource uses, and 

to foster opportunities for Native Americans to use heritage resources. 

The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) would be consulted under provisions of the National 

Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) on any potential effects on heritage resources. Sites that are not 

eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) would be managed on a case-by-case basis 

according to their values. Sites that are listed or eligible for listing on the NRHP would be managed for 

their local, regional, and national significance in accordance with the NHPA and the Archaeological 

Resources Protection Act (ARPA). Sites would be managed to ensure against adverse effects, through 

proper mitigation if disturbance or destruction was not avoidable. Mitigation may include scientific 

information retrieval as well as other measures, such as interpretation and improved public appreciation 

of the heritage resource. 

Heritage Resources Protection. Heritage resources in special management areas would remain 

protected through specific and general management actions (mitigation requirements and site-specific 

management prescriptions) associated with designated ACECs, WSAs, and National Historic Trails 

(Appendix 7). Heritage resources are found in the Greater Sand Dunes ACEC (including Boars Tusk and 

Crookston Ranch), White Mountain Petroglyphs ACEC, South Pass Historic Landscape ACEC (including 

the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express National Historic Trails), and the TriTerritory Marker (Map 2). Other areas may be identified and included in the future pursuant to 

procedures, including public participation, outlined in Appendix 7. 

Protection of Scientific Values. Management of heritage resources would include inventories and 

mitigation as needed for specific projects. An appropriate level of analysis of all surface disturbing 

activities would be conducted to determine the potential effect of the activity on the resource and its 

eligibility for listing on the NRHP. Site stewardship and public education aspects of the Heritage 

Resource Program would continue to be implemented. Sites eligible for inclusion in the NRHP because 

of their scientific value would be protected. Preservation of the scientific information would be the 

preferred mitigation method should any such sites have to be impacted by other activities. These sites 

include Finley, Krmpotich, and Eden-Farson archaeological sites, and the paleosol deposition area. Other 

sites will be included as they are located, recorded, and evaluated for NRHP eligibility. 

The confidential locations of the Finley, Krmpotich, and Eden-Farson archaeological sites would be 

maintained. Interpretive information would be developed and made available at the RSFO. 

National Register Eligible Sites. All National Register-eligible historic sites would be protected through 

provisions of the NHPA and ARPA. 

Native American Sites. Consultation would occur with Native American tribal governments in 

accordance with the American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA) for the protection of recognized 

traditional uses and cultural values in the planning area. 

2-14 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

Native American respected places (located generally in the Steamboat Mountain, Steamboat Rim, White 

Mountain Rim, Essex Mountain, Monument Ridge, and Joe Hay Rim areas) and the Indian Gap Trail 

would be protected by provisions of the NHPA and AIRFA. Surface disturbance and disruptive activities 

would be prohibited within a minimum of 100 feet of respected places. Actual distance would be 

determined on a case-by-case basis. 

Paleontological Sites. Documented significant fossil sites would be avoided to protect scientific and 

educational values. If impacts cannot be avoided, sites would be evaluated and surveyed as needed by a 

qualified paleontologist. A mitigation plan that may include activity monitoring, fossil documentation, 

recovery, and storage in a federally approved repository, would be coordinated with BLM before any 

surface disturbing activity could occur. 

Unique Geologic Features. The Boars Tusk area would be closed to surface disturbing activities, 

mineral material sales, and use of explosives and blasting. The area within a 1⁄2-mile radius of Boars Tusk 

(including Boars Tusk) would be closed to blasting and explosive charges. The Boars Tusk area would be 

open to consideration of activities such as fencing, interpretive signs, or transportation barriers to ensure 

protection of the site; however, facilities would be prohibited from being developed on the geologic 

feature. The Boars Tusk area would be a right-of-way avoidance area. The Boars Tusk and 

approximately 1,400 acres of BLM-administered public lands in the surrounding area would be closed to 

any surface mining activity but open to consideration of subsurface mining methods. Activities or 

ancillary facilities related to subsurface mining would be prohibited. 

Tri-Territory Marker. The Tri-Territory Marker is a right-of-way exclusion area and is closed to 

surface disturbing activities. The Tri-Territory Marker would be withdrawn from mineral location and 

closed to coal and sodium exploration. The Tri-Territory Marker would be open for consideration of 

activities such as fencing, interpretive signs, or barriers to ensure protection of the area. 

2.2.3 Travel, Access, and Realty Management 

Management Objective—The public lands in the planning area would be managed to support the goals 

and objectives of other resource programs, to respond to public demand for land use authorizations, and to 

acquire administrative and public access where necessary. 

Rights-of-Way. The planning area, with the exception of defined exclusion and avoidance areas, would 

be open to considering grants of rights-of-way. 

Off-Highway Vehicle Management. Management of off-highway vehicle (OHV) activities would be in 

accordance with Executive Order 11644, as amended by Executive Order 11989, and applicable 

regulations (43 CFR 8340) which address OHV use on public lands. Designation and authorization of 

OHV use would be designed to protect resource values, promote safety of users, and minimize conflict 

among various uses of public lands. OHV designations include Open, Limited, and Closed (see Glossary 

for definitions). Until specific designations could be put in place, areas of designated roads and trails 

would be managed the same as areas limited to existing roads and trails. 

Specific roads and trails may be closed to OHV use for public health and safety reasons, for restoration or 

remediation actions, or for other valid reasons. 

Exceptions to closed or limited OHV designations may be granted by the Authorized Officer in 

consideration of such factors as scientific purposes and emergency access needs. 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 2-15 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

Over-the-Snow Vehicles. Travel by over-the-snow vehicles would generally be subject to the OHV 

designations, just as are all other motorized vehicles. Proposals for over-the-snow vehicle travel contrary 

to these provisions would be considered on a case-by-case basis. 

Land Withdrawals and Exchanges. Public lands would be retained in federal ownership unless it was 

determined to be in the best public interest to dispose of some of them. 

Land withdrawals and exchanges identified in the Green River RMP would be pursued. Exchanges 

would conform to the JMH planning objectives and actions. BLM acquisition of lands would be 

considered to facilitate various resource management objectives. The preferred method for acquisition 

would be through exchange. Land exchanges are considered to be discretionary and voluntary real estate 

transactions between the willing parties involved. Exchanges for state lands in WSAs and other special 

management areas would be considered to ensure easier and consistent management in these areas. 

Exchanges would be considered to acquire state or private lands that hold high cultural and historical 

value and that have important resource values, such as habitat for threatened and endangered species. 

Exchanges to acquire state of private lands would also be considered for facilitating resource management 

objectives, such as preventing habitat fragmentation. 

Ownership Adjustments. Aquatic, wetland, and riparian habitat would not be suitable for disposal 

unless opportunities exist for land exchanges of equal or greater value (including monetary and functional 

resource values). 

Access. Access would be guaranteed across public lands to landlocked private and state lands consistent 

with FLPMA. 

2.2.4 Recreation Resources Management 

Management Objective—The planning area would be managed to ensure the continued availability of 

outdoor recreational opportunities sought by the public while providing for other resource values; meet 

legal requirements for the health and safety of visitors; and to reduce conflicts between recreation and 

other types of resource uses. 

Management of recreation resources would comply with applicable regulations (43 CFR 8300 [recreation 

permit administration]) for functions and activities such as OHV, visitor services, special recreation use 

permits, and commercial operations. All management actions and recreation uses would focus on the 

health and safety of the user and would provide for recreational opportunities while protecting sensitive 

resources. 

Backcountry Byways. Recreation project plans would be developed for existing backcountry byways. 

Recreation Project Plans. Recreation project plans and interpretive prospectuses would be developed as 

necessary to provide for recreational opportunities in the following areas: Crookston Ranch historic site, 

Boars Tusk, Oregon Buttes, Honeycomb Buttes, Steamboat Mountain, National Historic Trails, and 

White Mountain Petroglyphs. 

Camping. Areas would be closed to camping throughout the JMH CAP planning area if resource 

damage occurred. 

Special Recreation Use Permits. Special recreation use permits would be considered on a case-by-case 

basis. A Plan of Operation would be required for all commercial recreational operators and outfitters. 

2-16 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

Appropriate mitigation would be included in special recreation permits, commercial recreation uses, and 

major competitive events to provide resource protection and public safety. 

2.2.5 Minerals and Alternative Energy Resources Management 

Management Objective—The planning area would be managed to maintain or enhance opportunities for 

mineral exploration and development while providing for other resource values. 

All minerals and energy resource management actions would recognize valid existing rights and ensure 

compliance with existing legal and regulatory requirements. This scope would include leases issued 

under the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 and Amendments, and mining claims filed under the Mining Act 

of 1872. 

2.2.5.1 Leasable Fluid Minerals Management 

Areas that cannot be offered for lease include WSAs and other areas where fluid mineral leasing and 

development would not be in compliance with laws or with land use planning decisions that prohibit fluid 

mineral leasing and development in certain areas. 

For fluid mineral leases, valid existing rights would be recognized. Lease stipulations would be applied 

as necessary (Table 2-2). These stipulations would notify the leaseholder that development activities may 

be limited, prohibited, or implemented with mitigation measures to protect specific resources. The 

stipulations would condition the leaseholder’s development activities and provide BLM the authority to 

require other mitigation or to deny some proposed exploration and development methods. The general 

types of resource protections in lease stipulations include— 

• Controlled surface use (CSU) through limitation on the amount and type of surface disturbance 

• CSU through avoidance of other resources 

• Timing restrictions on development activity 

• No surface occupancy (NSO). 

A site-specific analysis would be performed before any exploration and development activity to identify 

and locate resource elements in the lease area that would require protection or mitigation measures 

(Appendix 14). 

Exceptions to lease stipulations and mitigation measures, identified as Conditions of Approval (COAs) 

attached to an Application for Permit to Drill (APD), could be requested and would be considered on a 

case-by-case basis (Appendixes 4, 5). 

2.2.5.2 Leasable Solid Minerals Management 

Exploration. Exploration activities could be conducted on lands that are open to exploration for solid 

leasable minerals. A site-specific analysis would be performed before any exploration activity to identify 

and locate resource elements that would require protection or mitigation measures. 

Leasing. Leasing of solid minerals would comply with the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, the Federal 

Coal Leasing Amendments Act of 1976, and coal regulations and coal planning requirements. 

WSAs within the coal development potential area (Map 56) would remain closed to leasing. 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 2-17 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

2.2.5.3 Locatable Minerals Management 

Locatable Mineral Withdrawals. The mineral classification withdrawals for coal and oil shale 

classifications would be revoked. In some areas these classification withdrawals would remain in effect 

until replaced with an appropriate withdrawal for other appropriate purposes. 

In areas open to mineral location, mining claims could be filed which would allow the claim to be held 

and developed in accordance with applicable regulations (39 CFR 3809). Mining activities would also 

comply with other regulatory requirements, including limitations on air and water discharges, waste 

management, spill prevention, and endangered species. 

Surface disturbing exploration activities of 5 acres or less on mining claims would require a notice to 

BLM. A plan of operations would be required for exploration-related surface disturbances greater than 5 

acres, for all surface disturbances greater than casual use, and for a disturbance of any size in ACECs, 

WSAs, areas closed to OHV use, and any lands or waters known to contain federally proposed or listed 

threatened or endangered species or their proposed or designated critical habitat. A plan of operations 

would specify how the operator intends to manage the mining operation and location of surface disturbing 

activities. 

2.2.5.4 Salable Minerals Management 

Mineral Material Sales. Existing contracts for sales of mineral materials, such as sand and gravel, 

would be recognized. Mining of mineral materials would comply with applicable regulatory requirements 

(43 CFR 3600) and air and water quality protection regulations. A site-specific analysis would be 

performed before any exploration or extraction activity to identify and locate resource elements that 

would require protection or mitigation measures. Mineral material sales that posed potential impacts on 

identified cultural and historic resources, as well as other sensitive resources, would not be allowed. 

Mining and reclamation plans would be prepared for use areas to provide protection for sensitive 

resources and to restore disturbed areas. 

2.2.6 Visual Resources Management 

Management Objective—The planning area would be managed to maintain or improve scenic values 

and visual quality and to establish priorities for managing the visual resources in conjunction with other 

resource values. 

The four Visual Resource Management (VRM) classes (I, II, III, IV) set standards for planning, 

designing, and evaluating projects by identifying various permissible levels of landscape alteration while 

protecting overall regional scenic quality. The scenic quality of an area is a measure of its visual appeal. 

The VRM class objectives range from very limited management activity (Class I) to activity allowing 

major landscape modifications (Class IV). Visual resource classes would be retained or modified to 

enhance other resource objectives, such as heritage resources, recreation uses, wild horse viewing, and 

special management areas. Projects would be designed to meet the objectives of established visual 

classifications, and appropriate mitigation would be applied. 

VRM Class I Areas. WSAs would be managed as VRM Class I areas to preserve the natural setting and 

existing character of the landscape. Oregon Buttes ACEC and the western portion of the Greater Sand 

Dunes ACEC, which fall within WSAs, would also be managed as VRM Class I areas. 

2-18 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

2.2.7 Management of Special Management Areas and Other Management

Areas 

Management Objective—The planning area would be managed to maintain or enhance the resource 

values and characteristics for which the area was designated as a special management area. 

Special management areas are those areas that require special management considerations to ensure that 

public land and resources are protected from irreparable damage. These areas include WSAs, ACECs, 

Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMA), and other special management areas, such as 

watersheds. Management of these areas would comply with applicable regulations (43 CFR 1610, 6300, 

8350) for activities that could occur within them. All management actions and recreation and resource 

uses would focus on the protection of sensitive resources and the health and safety of the user. 

2.2.7.1 Special Management Areas 

2.2.7.1.1 Wilderness Study Areas 

OHV Use. These areas would be closed to OHV use. 

Leasable Fluid Minerals. These areas would be non-discretionary closure areas for fluid minerals 

leasing. 

Leasable Solid Minerals. These areas would be closed to leasable solid minerals exploration and 

leasing.

Salable Minerals. These areas would be closed to mineral material sales.

VRM. These areas would be managed as VRM Class I areas to preserve the natural setting and existing

character of the landscape.

2.2.7.1.2 Oregon Buttes ACEC 

OHV Use. The ACEC would be closed to OHV use.

Leasable Fluid Minerals. The ACEC would be closed to consideration of fluid minerals leasing.

Leasable Solid Minerals. The ACEC would be closed to leasable solid minerals exploration and leasing.

Salable Minerals. The ACEC would be closed to mineral material sales.

VRM. The ACEC would be managed as a VRM Class I area.

2.2.7.1.3 South Pass Historic Landscape ACEC 

Salable Minerals. The South Pass Historic Landscape ACEC (visible portion) would be closed to 

mineral material sales. 

2.2.7.1.4 White Mountain Petroglyphs ACEC 

Rights-Of-Way. The ACEC would be managed as a right-of-way exclusion area.

OHV Use. The ACEC would be closed to OHV use outside of identified access and parking areas.

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 2-19 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

Salable Minerals. The ACEC would be closed to mineral material sales. 

Locatable Minerals. Withdrawals from mineral location would be pursued in the ACEC. 

2.2.7.1.5 Greater Sand Dunes ACEC 

Salable Minerals. The ACEC would be closed to mineral material sales. 

2.2.7.1.6 Special Status Plants ACEC 

Disruptive Activities. Potential habitat of special status plant species’ communities on federal land or on 

split estate lands would require searches for the plant species before approving any project or activity. 

Should species be found, all disruptive activities would be halted until species-specific, protective 

measures were developed and implemented. For listed species, protective measures would be developed 

and implemented in coordination with the USFWS. 

Locatable Minerals. Withdrawals from mineral location would be pursued where special status plants 

occur. 

Rangeland Management. Herbicide loading sites would be prohibited within 500 feet of special status 

plant locations and would be utilized in accordance with the guidelines in Appendix 8, Standard 

Operating Procedures for Range Improvements and Vegetation Manipulations. 

Fire Management. Fire suppression vehicular activities would be limited to existing roads and trails in 

special status plant species habitat. 

A site-specific analysis would be prepared for all fire management activities around special status plant 

species sites to determine the appropriate fire management response. 

2.2.8 Air Resources Management 

FLPMA states that, “The public lands [are to] be managed in a manner that will protect the quality of 

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

archaeological values.” NEPA indicates that any proposed federal action should comply with other 

existing environmental laws, regulations, and standards (Section 104 [42 United States Code (U.S.C.) 

4334]). This would include the Clean Air Act. In particular, the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 

indicate that federal actions should comply with state and local as well as federal laws, regulations, and 

standards. Management actions for air resources management in the planning area would be implemented 

consistent with the land use decisions of the Green River RMP (Appendix 2). 

The management actions common to all alternatives presented above are integral to each of the 

alternatives described below. However, these actions are not repeated in the following section describing 

the alternatives, other than for the Proposed JMH CAP. 

2.3 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE 

The No Action Alternative is defined as a continuation of the present course of management until that 

management is changed. Ongoing programs initiated under existing legislation, regulations, and the 

Green River RMP, would continue, even as new plans are developed or new planning efforts are being 

conducted within the RMP area. Thus, the No Action Alternative describes the current resource and land 

use management direction in the JMH CAP planning area, represented by the decisions stated in the 

2-20 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

Green River RMP, dated October 1997. The No Action Alternative and its analysis is the baseline to 

which the other alternatives and their analyses are compared. 

The public provided comments and information concerning formulation of the No Action Alternative 

during the scoping period for the supplemental draft EIS (December 6, 2001 to January 11, 2002). 

Information open houses were held, and a scoping notice was mailed to interested parties and posted on 

the BLM website. Formal scoping meetings were also held. (See Chapter 5 for more details on the 

public involvement process.) Comments provided during scoping recommended that the No Action 

Alternative be the continuation of management objectives and actions stated in the Green River RMP and 

that valid existing rights should be recognized. In addition, comments recommended that some activity 

would be reasonably foreseeable and could occur in areas with existing mineral leases (Appendix 13). 

The cooperating agencies provided similar comments, particularly in regard to the No Action Alternative 

depicting the Green River RMP decisions. 

The No Action Alternative was developed based on these comments. It includes continuation of existing 

management as stated in the Green River RMP and considers actions that would be reasonably 

foreseeable based on existing management. Such reasonably foreseeable actions include the lifting of 

temporary lease suspensions, consideration of vegetation treatments, and location and installation of 

directional signs for backcountry byways. 

2.3.1 Management Actions Common to All Resource or Land Use Programs 

Monitoring Plan. An interdisciplinary monitoring plan would be developed to evaluate the overall 

effectiveness of implementing the management decisions for the planning area. Site-specific monitoring 

plans would be developed for project proposals. 

2.3.2 Land and Water Resources Management 

2.3.2.1 General Management Actions for Land and Water Resources 

Management actions for land and water resources management in the planning area would be 

implemented consistent with the land use decisions of the Green River RMP (Appendix 2). 

Healthy Rangelands. Same as described in Management Actions Common to All Alternatives (Section 

2.2) 

Proper Functioning Condition. Same as described in Management Actions Common to All 

Alternatives (Section 2.2). 

Desired Plant Community. In addition to Management Actions Common to All Alternatives (Section 

2.2), desired plant objectives would focus on native plant communities. 

Vegetation Treatments. Vegetative treatments would be designed on a case-by-case basis. Such 

activities may include plowing and seeding, reseeding (e.g., wildfire rehabilitation), fence construction, 

weed control, and enhancement of fish and wildlife habitat. Vegetation treatments would be used to 

abate, alter, or transform vegetation communities in an effort to achieve DPC objectives, protect water 

quality, dissipate or reduce erosion, and conform to requirements to protect special status plant species 

and associated habitats (Appendix 6). This may include activities such as manual or mechanical 

manipulation, chemical treatments, and prescribed burns (Appendix 8). Prescribed burns would be the 

preferred method of vegetation manipulation to convert stands of brush to grasslands and to promote 

regeneration of aspen stands and/or shrub species. The prescribed burns would generally be conducted in 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 2-21 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

areas having greater than 35 percent sagebrush composition, 20 percent desirable grass composition, and 

greater than 10 inches of precipitation. 

Low-intensity burns during periods of high soil moisture would be the preferred method and timing of 

prescribed burns in mountain shrub communities. Prescribed burns would be restricted in areas with coal 

or other fossil fuel outcrops. All vegetation treatments should be designed to be irregular in shape for 

edge effect, cover, and visual aesthetics. Areas treated with prescribed burns would be rested a minimum 

of two full growing seasons after treatment and would be fenced from livestock and big game animals if 

necessary. 

Fences. Where documented wildlife conflicts with fencing on public lands occur, fences would be 

modified, reconstructed, or, if necessary, removed. Herding control of livestock would be encouraged as 

an alternative to fencing. Fence construction would be in accordance with BLM design standards and 

located so as not to overly impede wildlife or wild horse movement. 

Watershed Health Assessments. Same as described in Management Actions Common to All 

Alternatives (Section 2.2). 

Native Vegetation. Native vegetation would be managed to allow natural plant succession to continue, 

with emphasis on mountain shrub, basin big sagebrush/lemon scurfpea, aspen, and other unique or 

important vegetation types. 

2.3.2.2 Fire Management 

Fire Management Implementation Plan. Same as described in Management Actions Common to All 

Alternatives (Section 2.2). 

Wildland and Prescribed Fire: Wildland and prescribed fires would be managed in all vegetation types 

to maintain or improve biological diversity and the overall health of the public lands. 

Fire Suppression. Full fire suppression would be applied in basin big sagebrush/lemon scurfpea 

vegetation associations. See also Vegetation Treatments (Section 2.3.2.1). 

2.3.2.3 Water Resources Management 

Water Quality. In addition to Management Actions Common to All Alternatives (Section 2.2), the area 

within 500 feet of wetlands, riparian areas, and 100-year floodplains and within 100 feet of the edge of 

the inner gorge of intermittent and large ephemeral drainages would be avoidance areas for surface 

disturbing activities. 

Permanent Facilities. The 100-year floodplains, wetlands, and riparian areas would be closed to new 

permanent facilities (e.g., storage tanks, structure pits). Proposals for linear crossings in these areas 

would be considered on a case-by-case basis. 

Erosion Control. Areas with highly erodible soils would also be avoidance areas for all surface 

disturbing activities. Surface disturbing activities could be permitted within avoidance areas provided 

that a mitigation plan is approved and a site-specific analysis determines that unacceptable impact levels 

would not occur as a result of the activity. When applicable, erosion control plans would be required as 

part of surface disturbing project proposals. 

2-22 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

Colorado River Salinity Control. Same as described in Management Actions Common to All 

Alternatives (Section 2.2). 

Wetlands and Floodplains. In addition to Management Actions Common to All Alternatives (Section 

2.2), projects to improve the ecological integrity of the dunal ponds would be considered and evaluated. 

Riparian Management Exclosures. Riparian exclosures would be developed and maintained, and 

exclosure plans would be implemented. Riparian exclosures would be used to protect degraded riparian 

areas from further impacts and to ensure reclamation of vegetation communities and ecological processes. 

Exclosures would remain closed to livestock grazing, and AUMs in these exclosures would not be 

available for livestock use. 

Fluid Mineral Wells. Same as described in Management Actions Common to All Alternatives (Section 

2.2). 

Aquifer Recharge Areas. Aquifer recharge areas would be managed to maintain or enhance recharge 

volume and groundwater quality by limiting road density, surface disturbance, and surface occupancy to 

maintain a healthy recharge area. 

2.3.2.4 Wild Horses Management 

Wild Horse Herd Management Area Boundaries and Appropriate Management Levels. Wild horse 

populations would be managed within the Great Divide Basin HMA at an AML of 415 to 600 horses. 

The Great Divide Basin HMA boundaries would remain unchanged. 

Activity and Monitoring Plans. Same as described in Management Actions Common to All 

Alternatives (Section 2.2). 

Water Developments. Water developments would be considered to maintain or improve resource 

conditions and/or enhance wild horse herd distribution and manage forage utilization. Such developments 

within sensitive wildlife habitats would be permitted provided they conform to wildlife objectives. 

Compatibility with special status plant species would be required. 

Gathering Plan. A selective gathering plan to remove excess horses from inside and outside the HMA 

would also be developed and implemented. Gathering cycles would vary by gathering plan objectives, 

resource conditions, and needs. Fertility control would be initiated only if necessary. 

Public Education. Opportunity for public education and enjoyment of wild horses would be provided by 

placing interpretive signs, providing interpretive sites, and providing access to the herd areas. 

2.3.2.5 Livestock Grazing Management 

Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management. Same as described in Management Actions Common 

to All Alternatives (Section 2.2). 

Rangeland and Riparian Habitat. Same as described in Management Actions Common to All 

Alternatives (Section 2.2). 

Forage Utilization Levels. Same as described in Management Actions Common to All Alternatives 

(Section 2.2). 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 2-23 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

Livestock Water Developments and Range Improvements. Livestock water developments and range 

improvements would be considered to maintain or improve resource conditions and/or enhance livestock 

distribution. Compatibility with special status plant species would be required. 

Salt or Mineral Supplements. Salt or mineral supplements would be prohibited within 500 feet of 

riparian habitat and National Historic and Scenic Trails unless analysis shows that the resources 

(watershed, riparian, recreation, wildlife) would not be adversely affected by livestock concentrations 

within these areas. Supplements would also be prohibited on areas inhabited by special status plant 

species, regardless of analysis findings. 

2.3.2.6 Vegetation Management 

Special Status Plant Species. In addition to Management Actions Common to All Alternatives (Section 

2.2), specific management actions related to known locations of special status plant species habitat 

include closing locations to surface disturbing activities or any disruptive activity that could adversely 

affect the special status plants or their habitat, as well as closing locations to the location of new mining 

claims, mineral material sales, OHV use (including those vehicles used for geophysical exploration 

activities), surveying, and the use of explosives and blasting. 

Potential habitat areas for special status species would be avoidance areas for surface disturbing activities 

(Map 7). 

Known locations of special status plant species would be open to consideration for mineral leasing with 

NSO requirements. 

Rights-of-Way Limitations. Areas where Wyoming BLM sensitive plant species are known to exist 

and/or have potential habitat would be right-of-way avoidance areas (Map 8). Exceptions could be 

granted by the Authorized Officer if analysis shows that there is no adverse impact to the plant 

populations. 

Fire Suppression. Same as described in Management Actions Common to All Alternatives (Section 

2.2). 

Threatened and Endangered Plant Species. Same as described in Management Actions Common to 

All Alternatives (Section 2.2). 

Invasive Species. Same as described in Management Actions Common to All Alternatives (Section 2.2). 

Forest and Woodland Health. Same as described in Management Actions Common to All Alternatives 

(Section 2.2). 

2.3.2.7 Wildlife Habitat Management 

Habitat Management Plan. In addition to Management Actions Common to All Alternatives (Section 

2.2), habitat management plans would be developed as needed for sensitive and/or highly developed and 

disturbed areas to mitigate wildlife habitat losses. Habitat management plans would include habitat 

expansion efforts, threatened and endangered species reintroduction, and population goals and objectives. 

Water Developments. Same as described in Management Actions Common to All Alternatives (Section 

2.2). 

2-24 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

Special Status Wildlife Species. In addition to Management Actions Common to All Alternatives 

(Section 2.2), should a special status wildlife species be found, all disruptive activities would be halted 

until species-specific protective measures could be implemented. 

Sensitive Habitat. Same as described in Management Actions Common to All Alternatives (Section 

2.2). 

Predator Damage Control. In addition to Management Actions Common to All Alternatives (Section 

2.2), proposed animal damage control activities not compatible with BLM planning and management 

prescriptions or objectives for other resource activities and users would be identified on a case-by-case 

basis. APHIS-WS would be requested to amend or adjust the plan accordingly. APHIS-WS would 

determine the appropriate animal damage control methods in coordination with BLM. 

Greater Sage-Grouse Leks, Nesting and Early Brood-rearing Habitat. Surface occupancy (long-term 

or permanent aboveground facilities) would be controlled within 1⁄4 mile of greater sage-grouse leks (Map 

7). Disruptive activities would avoid occupied greater sage-grouse leks from 8:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m. daily. 

Disruptive activities would avoid occupied greater sage-grouse leks from usually February 1 to June 30. 

The actual area to be avoided, usually within 1⁄4 to 1⁄2 mile of the lek, and appropriate seasonal limitations 

would be determined on a case-by-case basis. Seasonal limitations on disturbing and disruptive activities 

(usually from February 1 to July 31) would apply up to 2 miles from greater sage-grouse leks (nesting and 

early brood-rearing habitat) on a case-by-case basis (Map 7). Nesting and early brood-rearing habitats 

would be protected from habitat degradation, and measures would be taken to improve habitat quality 

within 2 miles of greater sage-grouse leks on an as-needed basis. 

Greater Sage-Grouse Winter Concentration Areas. Disruptive activities would be prohibited in 

greater sage-grouse winter concentration areas (Map 7) from November 15 to April 30. 

All Greater Sage-Grouse Habitats (Leks, Nesting, Early Brood-Rearing, and Winter Concentration 

Areas). In addition to Management Actions Common to All Alternatives (Section 2.2), seasonal 

limitations may be excepted provided criteria in the Procedures for Processing Proposals for Land Use 

Authorizations in Areas of Seasonal Restriction (Appendix 4) can be met, and appropriate mitigation can 

be implemented (Appendix 6) as determined by BLM in coordination with commodity users and other 

appropriate entities. 

Big Game Winter Range. Disruptive activities would be prohibited in big game (elk, deer, and 

antelope) crucial winter range between November 15 and April 30 (Map 7). Seasonal limitations may be 

excepted provided criteria in the Procedures for Processing Applications in Areas of Seasonal Restriction 

(Appendix 4) can be met and appropriate mitigation can be implemented (as determined by BLM in 

coordination with commodity users). 

Big Game Birthing Areas. Surface disturbing and disruptive activities and the amount of habitat 

disturbed would be limited in big game birthing areas from May 1 to June 30. 

Black-Footed Ferret. Same as described in Management Actions Common to All Alternatives (Section 

2.2) 

Mountain Plover. Same as described in Management Actions Common to All Alternatives (Section 2.2) 

Game Fish and Special Status Fish Species. Seasonal limitations for surface disturbing activities to 

protect game and special status fish species during spawning would be applied as necessary. 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 2-25 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

Raptor Nesting Sites. In addition to Management Actions Common to All Alternatives (Section 2.2), 

permanent or high profile structures would be prohibited within a specified distance of active raptor nests. 

Distance would be determined on a case-by-case basis and would depend on the raptor species involved, 

natural topographic barriers, line-of-sight distances, and other such factors. Temporary disturbances 

associated with placement of facilities, such as pipelines, as well as other actions, such as seismic 

activities, may be allowed within 1⁄2 to 1 mile of active raptor nests. 

Disruptive activities would be seasonally restricted within a 1⁄2- to 1-mile radius of occupied raptor nesting 

sites. Raptor nest surveys would be conducted within a 1-mile radius or linear distance of proposed 

surface uses or activities during raptor nesting season (see Table 2-3 for dates which vary by species). 

Seasonal limitations may be excepted provided criteria in the Procedures for Processing Applications in 

Areas of Seasonal Restriction (Appendix 4) can be met, and appropriate mitigation can be implemented 

(as determined by BLM in coordination with commodity users). 

Introduction and Reintroduction of Species. Same as described in Management Actions Common to 

All Alternatives (Section 2.2). 

2.3.3 Heritage Resources Management 

Management actions for heritage resources would be implemented consistent with the land use decisions 

of the Green River RMP (Appendix 2). 

Heritage Resources Protection. Same as described in Management Actions Common to All 

Alternatives (Section 2.2). 

Protection of Scientific Values. Same as described in Management Actions Common to All Alternatives 

(Section 2.2). 

National Register Eligible Sites. In addition to Management Actions Common to All Alternatives 

(Section 2.2), sites eligible for inclusion in the NRHP under Criterion D, because of their scientific 

information content, would be surrounded by a 100-foot avoidance area, pursuant to the Protocol 

Agreement between BLM and Wyoming SHPO (Appendix 7). 

Native American Sites. Same as described in Management Actions Common to All Alternatives 

(Section 2.2). 

Expansion Era Roads and Associated Sites. Expansion Era roads would be managed similar to the 

historic trails covered in the Oregon/Mormon Pioneer National Historic Trails Management Plan (BLM 

1986). Prescriptions from that plan would be applied, although the 1⁄4-mile protective setback might not 

always be applicable. Management actions would include development of activity plans with the 

objective of preserving the historical integrity of significant NRHP-contributing segments of the historic 

roads. Activity plans may include NRHP nomination of those Expansion Era roads that qualify. 

Historic Livestock Management Sites. Some historic livestock management sites may be eligible for 

inclusion in the NRHP within the context of the development of pastoral agriculture in Wyoming and the 

Rocky Mountain regions. There are no special management or recognition provisions for these sites 

under existing management. 

Native and Euro-American Sites. Historic and archaeological sites within the context of early contact 

between Native Americans and Euro-American peoples have been identified and understood in general 

2-26 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

terms. Because of their importance, these sites would continue to be protected by provisions of the 

NHPA on a case-by-case basis. 

Paleontological Sites. Same as described in Management Actions Common to All Alternatives (Section 

2.2). 

Unique Geologic Features. All actions described for Boars Tusk and surrounding areas would be the 

same as described in Management Actions Common to All Alternatives (Section 2.2). 

Vehicular travel within 1⁄2 mile of the Pinnacles Geologic Feature, and including the feature, would be 

limited to designated roads and trails. 

Tri-Territory Marker. Same as described in Management Actions Common to All Alternatives 

(Section 2.2). 

2.3.4 Travel, Access, and Realty Management 

Management actions for travel management, access, and realty in the planning area would be 

implemented consistent with the land use decisions of the Green River RMP (Appendix 2). 

Transportation Planning. Transportation planning would provide for appropriate ingress, egress, and 

access routes that would follow BLM guidelines and road classifications defined in the Green River RMP 

(Appendix 12). Arterial roads would be high traffic volume roads that provide primary access to the 

planning area; collector roads would provide access to large blocks of land; local roads would serve 

smaller areas; and resource roads would provide access to resource locations. 

Travel Management Plan. A travel management plan would not be developed. 

Road Installations. Proposed road installations and improvements would follow the Green River RMP 

management objectives and applicable BLM guidelines. 

Geophysical Activities. Geophysical activities would conform to the OHV designations of the Green 

River RMP. Exceptions may be granted on a case-by-case basis, with appropriate limitations to protect 

sensitive resources. Detonation activities would not be allowed in areas of sensitive heritage resources 

and geologic features, such as Boars Tusk, White Mountain Petroglyphs, and historic trails. Geophysical 

vehicle use would not occur in areas closed to OHV use (Map 9). Geophysical exploration and related 

detonation activities would be prohibited in WSAs. 

Rights-of-Way. The right-of-way restrictions listed in the Green River RMP would apply as applicable 

to utilities and other realty actions. Areas would be designated as right-of-way avoidance or exclusion 

areas based the location of specific sensitive resources (Map 8). Map 8 includes the right-of-way 

avoidance and exclusion areas identified in the Green River RMP. The Tri-Territory Marker and White 

Mountain Petroglyphs would remain right-of-way exclusion areas. The Steamboat Mountain ACEC 

would remain closed to communication sites. 

Linear Rights-of-Way. No specific actions would be applied to locate linear rights-of-way adjacent to 

existing roads, trails, or similar facilities. 

Winter Access. Winter access would be subject to seasonal road closures. Plowing of roads during the 

winter would be considered on a case-by-case basis. 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 2-27 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

OHV Management. In addition to Management Actions Common to All Alternatives (Section 2.2), the 

OHV decisions in the Green River RMP would be implemented. Specific roads and trails may be 

seasonally closed to OHV use on an as-needed basis for public health and safety reasons, for restoration 

or remediation actions, for wildlife or wildlife habitat protection, or for other reasons as determined by 

BLM (Map 9). 

Over-the-Snow Vehicles. Same as described in Management Actions Common to All Alternatives 

(Section 2.2). 

Land Withdrawals and Exchanges. Same as described in Management Actions Common to All 

Alternatives (Section 2.2). 

Ownership Adjustments. Same as described in Management Actions Common to All Alternatives 

(Section 2.2). 

Access. In addition to Management Actions Common to All Alternatives (Section 2.2), access to public, 

state, and private land would be provided throughout the planning area and would be restricted only 

where necessary to protect public health and safety as well as to protect sensitive resources. Access 

decisions would be consistent with existing regulatory requirements and would be made for the purposes 

of providing for the reasonable use and enjoyment of inholdings. Access needs would be considered on a 

case-by-case basis. 

2.3.5 Recreation Resources Management 

Management actions for recreation resources management in the planning area would be implemented 

consistent with the land use decisions of the Green River RMP (Appendix 2). 

Backcountry Byways. In addition to Management Actions Common to All Alternatives (Section 2.2), 

public information and education activities would be developed for backcountry byways (Tri-Territory 

Loop and Red Desert) and would include the development and installation of interpretive and directional 

signs and the development of recreation project plans. The location of the signs would be coordinated 

with state and local governments and other interested parties for the Red Desert view point from the 

dugway of Steamboat Mountain and for the Chicken Springs overlook. Other locations may be identified 

through coordination with state and local governments and interested parties. Site-specific recreation 

activity or implementation plans would be prepared as appropriate or necessary. 

Greater Sand Dunes Recreation Area. The parking area and camping facilities in the Greater Sand 

Dunes Recreation Area would be expanded. This would include developing a recreation site plan and 

addressing public health and safety, resolving user conflict, and protecting adjoining resources. 

Recreation Project Plans. In addition to Management Actions Common to All Alternatives (Section 

2.2), a recreation project plan and interpretive prospectus would be developed, as necessary, for wild 

horse viewing areas. 

Camping. In addition to Management Actions Common to All Alternatives (Section 2.2), overnight 

camping would be allowed throughout the planning area, including WSAs, in accordance with BLM 

guidelines. Dispersed camping would be allowed within 200 feet of a water source except where 

necessary to protect water quality and wildlife and livestock watering areas. Camping designations are a 

discretionary action approved by a BLM Authorized Officer. Areas would be closed to camping if 

resource damage occurs. 

2-28 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

Special Recreation Use Permits. In addition to Management Actions Common to All Alternatives 

(Section 2.2), special recreation use permits would be reviewed and issued. The current permit evaluation 

process considers the nature of the event, potential impacts to resources, conflicts with other events, and 

impacts to the quality of other visitors’ experiences. Mitigation measures necessary to protect the 

resources would be included in any permit issued. A Plan of Operation would be required for all 

commercial recreational operators and outfitters. The Plan of Operation would describe the type, extent, 

and location of the recreation use and the mechanisms by which the operator/outfitter would prevent 

impacts to environmental resources. Any requests in special recreation use permit applications to remove 

natural resources would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis after an environmental analysis process. 

Recreational Mining and Other Similar Activity. Recreational mining and other similar activities 

would be allowed throughout the planning area that are not withdrawn from mineral location, where such 

withdrawals would not be pursued, or where not closed or restricted by Wyoming Department of 

Environmental Quality (DEQ) Guideline 19 (Non-coal: Non-commercial Recreation Panning and 

Dredging). A withdrawal is in place for the White Mountain Petroglyphs ACEC. Withdrawals would be 

pursued for the western portion of the Greater Sand Dunes ACEC, special status plant species locations, 

Crookston Ranch, public water reserves, Tri-Territory Marker, and South Pass Summit. 

2.3.6 Minerals and Alternative Energy Resources Management 

Management decisions in the Green River RMP on leasing fluid minerals and on locatable minerals were 

deferred for a portion of the JMH CAP planning area, referred to as the core area. These deferrals were 

necessary because information concerning potential mineral leasing or locations for mining claims was 

not yet sufficiently developed for making sound management decisions for the core area. Management 

actions for Mineral and Alternative Energy Resources Management in the planning area would be 

implemented consistent with the land use decisions of the Green River RMP (Appendix 2). 

2.3.6.1 Leasable Fluid Minerals Management 

Oil and Gas Leases. In addition to Actions Common to All Alternatives, existing leases that were 

suspended during the JMH CAP planning process would be reinstated. New leases would be offered 

outside the core area based on industry interest and resource development potential (Map 10). The core 

area would be closed to leasing, and no new leases would be issued in the core area. 

Lease Stipulations. In addition to Management Actions Common to All Alternatives (Section 2.2), 

stipulations would be placed on new leases to protect sensitive resources and land uses identified in the 

Green River RMP (Appendix 2). 

Stipulations limiting surface disturbance would be included as a standard provision on all new oil and gas 

leases offered by the RSFO. Stipulations would prevent surface disturbing activities, such as road, 

pipeline, or well pad construction, within certain areas unless site-specific mitigation is proposed and 

approved or a unless a site-specific analysis indicates that the activity would not cause unacceptable 

levels of impact to other resources. Stipulations would not allow surface disturbing activities to occur— 

• In areas with a surface slope in excess of 25 percent 

• In Class I and Class II VRM areas 

• Within 500 feet of surface water or riparian areas 

• Within 1⁄4 mile or visual horizon (whichever is closer) from a historical trail 

• During periods when soil material is saturated or frozen or when watershed damage is likely to 

occur. 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 2-29 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

Stipulations restricting the timing of development activity to protect wildlife resources would also be 

included as a standard provision in new oil and gas leases offered in the planning area. Access into 

certain areas for the construction of drilling pads and for drilling activities would be limited during 

specific times of the year to prevent impacts based on wildlife seasonal patterns and habitat use. Timing 

restrictions would not apply to maintenance and operation of producing wells. These stipulations 

include— 

• Drilling and other surface disturbing activity would not be allowed from November 15 to April 

30 within areas specified as important big game ungulate winter habitat. This restriction also 

applies to elk calving areas from May 1 to June 30. 

• Drilling and other surface disturbing activity would not be allowed from February 1 to July 31 

within areas specified as important raptor and/or sage- and sharp-tailed grouse nesting habitat. 

• No surface occupancy would be allowed within portions of leases specified as requiring this 

protection for identified habitat protection (such as threatened or endangered species habitat) that 

cannot be protected by seasonal restrictions. 

An Authorized Officer of BLM may provide exceptions to any of these limitations when considering an 

application. Exceptions could be approved if site-specific information indicates that changes to wildlife 

protection stipulations would not result in unacceptable impacts to wildlife (Appendix 4). 

Drilling Permits. In addition to Management Actions Common to All Alternatives (Section 2.2), BLM 

specialists would review sensitive resources with lease operators to develop and implement protection 

measures to allow for effective development operations where impacts could be avoided or mitigated. 

COAs for APDs would be based on site-specific analysis and would include general surface control, 

avoidance, and other requirements for mitigation of development impacts consistent with the Green River 

RMP. 

Mitigation requirements, such as seasonal restrictions on drilling, may be required as a result of a sitespecific analysis. Stipulations on existing leases could be excepted where site-specific analyses do not 

identify the presence of the resource of concern addressed by the stipulation (Appendix 4). For existing 

leases with current standard stipulations, exceptions would be allowed when site-specific analyses show 

no unacceptable impacts to sensitive resources would occur. 

Well spacing requirements for oil and gas resource protection would defer to the Wyoming Oil and Gas 

Conservation Commission guidance, with consideration for surface resource values. 

2.3.6.2 Leasable Solid Minerals Management 

Exploration. In addition to Management Actions Common to All Alternatives (Section 2.2), lands 

outside the Coal Occurrence and Development Potential Area that have not gone through the 20-point 

screening process would be open for coal exploration unless specifically closed to coal and sodium 

exploration (Map 11). Exploration proposals would be allowed in open areas on a case-by-case basis, 

along with mitigation requirements to protect sensitive resources. Areas identified in the Green River 

RMP as being closed to coal exploration include wetlands, 100-year floodplains, riparian areas, Oregon 

Buttes ACEC, White Mountain Petroglyphs vista, Boars Tusk, Crookston Ranch, Tri-Territory Marker, 

raptor nesting sites, greater sage-grouse leks with a 1⁄4-mile buffer, South Pass Historic Landscape ACEC 

(visible portion), special status plant species sites, Steamboat Mountain ACEC (outside the area with coal 

recommendations), and WSAs. 

2-30 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

Leasing. Lands within the Coal Occurrence and Development Potential Area have been identified as 

having a known or assumed potential for coal development. These lands are reviewed against 20 criteria 

to determine whether the lands would be suitable for development (43 CFR 3461). The criteria consider 

existing resource values such as heritage resources, scenic values, wildlife, threatened and endangered 

species, natural landmarks, and watersheds. The coal planning decisions made in the GRRMP apply (see 

Appendix 2). Lands within the planning area with coal development potential (Map 56) have been 

through the 20-point unsuitability criteria screening and multiple-use conflict analysis. Areas closed to 

coal leasing (unsuitable) include the western portion of Greater Sand Dunes ACEC, which includes the 

Sand Dunes WSA (Map 6). Lands within the planning area that have been through the 20-point 

unsuitability criteria screening process and would be acceptable for further coal leasing and development 

consideration (with appropriate conditions) are shown on Map 6. 

Important geological, ecological, and historic resources would be open to consideration for coal leasing 

and development by subsurface mining methods. Such areas acceptable for coal leasing with NSO 

requirements include Boars Tusk and Crookston Ranch. Areas acceptable for coal development by 

subsurface mining and controls on surface facilities include Steamboat Mountain ACEC, the eastern part 

of Greater Sand Dunes ACEC, Tri-Territory Marker, and raptor nest sites with a 1⁄2- to 1-mile buffer. 

2.3.6.3 Locatable Minerals Management 

Locatable Mineral Withdrawals. Specific lands within the planning area would be withdrawn from 

mineral location as identified in the Green River RMP (Map 5). Other withdrawals could be pursued as 

necessary. 

Withdrawals would be revoked for lands classified as prospectively valuable for oil shale. Upon 

revocation, the area would be open to the filing of mining claims, exploration, and development of 

locatable minerals. The White Mountain Petroglyphs ACEC and Boars Tusk located in the oil shale 

classification lands would be withdrawn from mineral location prior to the revocation. 

Withdrawals would be revoked for lands classified as prospectively valuable for coal. Upon revocation, 

the area would be open to the filing of mining claims, exploration, and development of all locatable 

minerals. Areas that would be withdrawn from mineral location prior to the revocation of the coal 

classification include Greater Sand Dunes ACEC (western portion), special status plant sites, Crookston 

Ranch, public water reserves, Tri-Territory Marker, and South Pass Summit. 

In areas open to mineral location, mining claims could be filed which would allow that claim to be held 

and developed in accordance with applicable regulations (39 CFR 3809). Mining activities would also 

have to comply with other regulatory requirements, including limitations on air and water discharges, 

waste management, spill prevention, and endangered species. 

2.3.6.4 Salable Minerals Management 

Mineral Material Sales. Salable minerals are common use minerals, such as sand and gravel, which can 

be purchased from the Government on federal lands. The planning area would be open to consideration 

of mineral material sales except for areas identified as closed to sales, or where development of salable 

minerals would cause unacceptable impacts (Map 12). Areas closed to mineral material sales include 

WSAs, Steamboat Mountain ACEC, South Pass Summit, Crookston Ranch, Native American burial sites, 

Oregon Buttes ACEC, Boars Tusk, White Mountain Petroglyphs, Greater Sand Dunes ACEC, South Pass 

Historic Landscape ACEC (visible portion), raptor nest sites, and special status plant sites. 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 2-31 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

Sale areas, community pits, and common use areas would be developed for salable minerals at locations 

that are compatible with other resources and land uses. Mining and reclamation plans would be required 

for each proposed sale area and use, and management of the area would be in conformance with other 

resource protection requirements, including Standard Practices, Best Management Practices, and 

Guidelines for Surface Disturbing Activities (Appendices 5 and 6). 

2.3.6.5 Alternative Energy Management 

There were no similar land management decisions made in the Green River RMP. 

2.3.7 Visual Resources Management 

The planning area would be managed to maintain or improve scenic quality by managing the impacts of 

human activities and other intrusions on the visual landscape (Map 13). The VRM classes provide the 

design standards for all surface disturbing projects. Projects would be designed, sited, screened, or 

painted to reduce visual impacts regardless of the VRM classification. Management actions for VRM in 

the planning area would be implemented consistent with the land use decisions of the Green River RMP 

(Appendix 2). 

VRM Class I Areas. Same as described in Management Actions Common to All Alternatives (Section 

2.2). 

VRM Class II Areas. Management actions on lands classified as VRM Class II would be designed to 

retain the existing character of the landscape. A visual transition area of 1 mile adjacent to each WSA 

would be managed as Class II to retain the existing character of the WSA landscape. A low level of 

change would be acceptable to the characteristic landscapes of the ACECs, thus South Pass Historic 

Landscape ACEC, White Mountain Petroglyphs, Greater Sand Dunes ACEC, and the southern portion of 

Steamboat Mountain ACEC would be managed as Class II. Surface disturbing activities could be seen in 

these areas but would not attract the attention of the casual observer. Oregon Buttes ACEC lies entirely 

within the WSA and thus would be managed as VRM Class I. 

VRM Class III Areas. Management actions on lands classified as VRM Class III would be designed to 

partially retain the existing character of the landscape and would allow a moderate level of change. The 

northern portion of Steamboat Mountain ACEC, the portion of White Mountain that falls within the 

southwest corner of the planning area, Split Rock, Eden Valley, and the western part of Red Desert 

Watershed that is included in the planning area would be managed as Class III. Surface disturbing 

activities could attract attention but would not dominate the view of the casual observer. 

VRM Class IV Areas. Management actions on lands classified as VRM Class IV could result in a major 

modification to the existing character of the landscape. The level of change to the landscape could be 

high. The remainder of the planning area not managed as VRM Class I, II, or III would be managed as 

Class IV. Surface disturbing activities could dominate the view of the casual observer and would be the 

major focus of attention. 

2.3.8 Management of Special Management Areas and Other Management

Areas 

The special management areas would continue to be managed to preserve and protect the integrity and 

character of the specific areas in accordance with ACEC policies and WSA interim management policies. 

Management actions for special management areas in the planning area would be implemented consistent 

with the land use decisions of the Green River RMP (Appendix 2). 

2-32 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

The designation, boundaries, and management prescriptions of Steamboat Mountain, Greater Sand Dunes, 

Oregon Buttes, and South Pass Historic Landscape ACECs, as well as the seven WSAs, would remain 

unchanged. The location and size of the Special Status Plant Species ACEC would remain unchanged but 

could be expanded in the JMH CAP planning area on a case-by-case basis. 

2.3.8.1 Special Management Areas 

2.3.8.1.1 Wilderness Study Areas 

Geophysical Activities. Geophysical exploration and related detonation activities would be prohibited 

within these areas. 

Locatable Minerals. A plan of operations would be required for all activities greater than casual use. 

2.3.8.1.2 Oregon Buttes ACEC 

Geophysical Activities. Geophysical activities and related detonation activities would be prohibited in 

Oregon Buttes ACEC. 

Rights-of-Way. The ACEC would be managed as a right-of-way avoidance area. 

Recreation. A recreation project plan and interpretive prospectus would be developed, as necessary, for 

Oregon Buttes. 

Locatable Minerals. A plan of operations would be required for all activities greater than casual use. 

2.3.8.1.3 South Pass Historic Landscape ACEC 

Rights-of-Way. The South Pass Historic Landscape ACEC (portion not visible) would be managed as a 

right-of-way avoidance area. The South Pass Historic Landscape ACEC (visible portion) would be 

managed as a right-of way exclusion area. 

OHV Use. OHV use within South Pass Historic Landscape ACEC (visible portion) would be limited to 

designated roads and trails. OHV use within South Pass Historic Landscape ACEC (non-visible portion) 

would be limited to existing roads and trails. 

Leasable Fluid Minerals. The South Pass Historic Landscape ACEC (visible portion) would be open to 

consideration of to fluid minerals leasing with NSO requirements. 

Leasable Solid Minerals. The South Pass Historic Landscape ACEC (visible portion) would be closed 

to leasable solid minerals exploration and leasing. 

Locatable Minerals. Withdrawals from mineral location would be pursued on South Pass Summit. 

VRM. The South Pass Historic Landscape ACEC would be managed as a VRM Class II area. 

The South Pass Historic Landscape ACEC viewshed would be maintained from approximately 3 miles of 

the Oregon, Mormon Pioneer, Pony Express, and California National Historic Trail routes. Intrusions 

within the viewshed area could be allowed provided the results of a visual analysis indicate they are not 

visible from the trail routes or that they can be mitigated. 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 2-33 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

2.3.8.1.4 White Mountain Petroglyphs ACEC 

Recreation. A recreation project plan and interpretive prospectus would be developed, as necessary. 

Leasable Fluid Minerals. The ACEC would be open to consideration of fluid minerals leasing with 

NSO requirements. 

Leasable Solid Minerals. White Mountain Petroglyphs vista would be closed to coal and sodium 

exploration.

VRM. The ACEC would be managed as a VRM Class II area.

2.3.8.1.5 Steamboat Mountain ACEC 

The Steamboat Mountain ACEC designation and boundaries would remain unchanged (Map 14).

Rights-of-Way. The ACEC would be managed as a right-of-way avoidance area.

Communication Sites. Communication sites would be prohibited in Steamboat Mountain ACEC.

OHV Use. OHV use would be limited to designated roads and trails.

Recreation. The location of interpretive and directional signs along backcountry byways would be

coordinated with state and local governments and other interested parties for the Red Desert viewpoint

from dugway of Steamboat Mountain.

A recreation project plan and interpretive prospectus would be developed, as necessary, for Steamboat

Mountain.

Leasable Solid Minerals. The portions of Steamboat Mountain ACEC within the coal development 

potential area would be open to leasable solid minerals exploration and leasing using only subsurface 

mining methods and controls on surface facilities (Map 6). Those portions outside the coal development 

potential area would be closed to leasable solid minerals exploration and leasing (Maps 6 and Map 11). 

Salable Minerals. The ACEC would be closed to mineral material sales.

VRM. The southern portion of the ACEC would be managed as a VRM Class II area. The northern

portion would be managed as VRM class III area.

2.3.8.1.6 Greater Sand Dunes ACEC 

The Greater Sand Dunes ACEC designation and boundaries would remain unchanged. 

Rights-of-Way. The ACEC would be managed as a right-of-way avoidance area (within 1 mile or the 

visual horizon, whichever is closer). 

OHV Use. The portion of the ACEC containing the Greater Sand Dunes Recreation Area would be open 

to OHV use. The remainder of the ACEC would be limited to existing roads and trails. 

Recreation. A recreation site plan would be prepared for expansion of the parking area and camping 

facilities at the Greater Sand Dunes Recreation Area. The plan would address public health and safety, 

resolving user conflicts, and protecting adjoining resources. 

2-34 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

Leasable Solid Minerals. The western portion of the ACEC would be closed to leasable solid minerals 

exploration and leasing. 

The eastern portion of the ACEC within the coal development potential area would be open to leasable 

solid minerals exploration and leasing using only subsurface mining methods and controls on surface 

facilities. 

Locatable Minerals. Withdrawals from mineral location would be pursued in the western portion of the 

ACEC. 

VRM. The ACEC would be managed as a VRM Class II area. 

2.3.8.1.7 Special Status Plants ACEC 

The Special Status Plant Species ACEC (per the Green River RMP) could be expanded into the Jack

Morrow Hills CAP area on a case-by-case basis.

Rights-of-Way. Areas where special status plant species occur would be managed as rights-of-way

avoidance areas.

OHV Use. Areas where special status plant species occur would be closed to OHV use.

Leasable Minerals. Known locations of special status plant species would be open to consideration for

mineral leasing with NSO requirements.

Leasable Solid Minerals. Areas where special status plant species occur would be closed to coal and

sodium exploration as identified in the Green River RMP.

Salable Minerals. Areas where special status plant species occur would be closed to mineral material

sales.

Rangeland Management. Salt or mineral supplements would not be allowed in areas where special

status plant species occur.

Vegetation treatments would be designed to protect and conform to special status plant species.

2.3.8.2 Other Management Areas 

2.3.8.2.1 Pinnacles Geologic Feature 

The Pinnacles Geologic Feature would continue to be managed as part of the Red Desert Watershed

Management Area, as provided in the Green River RMP.

OHV Use. OHV use would be limited to designated roads and trails.

VRM. The area would be managed as a VRM Class III area.

2.3.8.2.2 Pinnacles Geographic Area 

The Pinnacles Geographic Area would continue to be managed as part of the Red Desert Watershed 

Management Area, as provided in the Green River RMP. 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 2-35 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

2.3.8.2.3 Red Desert Watershed Management Area 

OHV Use. OHV use would be limited to designated roads and trails. 

VRM. The area would be managed as a VRM Class III area. 

2.4 ALTERNATIVE 1 

Alternative 1 provides expanded opportunities to use and develop the planning area, more so than all the 

other alternatives. This alternative emphasizes development and intensive management and deemphasizes environmental protection. Resources would still be protected to the extent required by 

applicable laws and regulations. Development and activities would occur throughout the planning area 

provided the actions were also in accordance with existing BLM guidelines. However, this alternative 

could result in modifications or amendments to decisions in the Green River RMP. 

2.4.1 Management Actions Common to All Resource or Land Use Programs 

Monitoring Plan. An interdisciplinary monitoring plan would be developed to evaluate the overall 

effectiveness of implementing the management decisions for the planning area. Site-specific monitoring 

plans would be developed for project proposals. 

2.4.2 Land and Water Resources Management 

2.4.2.1 General Management Actions for Land and Water Resources 

Healthy Rangelands. Same as described in Management Actions Common to All Alternatives (Section 

2.2). 

Proper Functioning Condition. Same as described in Management Actions Common to All 

Alternatives (Section 2.2) 

Desired Plant Community. Similar to the No Action Alternative, upland and riparian vegetation would 

be managed to achieve DPC objectives. The DPC objectives would emphasize commodity uses while 

complying with existing regulations pertaining to sensitive resources. 

Vegetation Treatments. In addition to Management Actions Common to All Alternatives (Section 2.2), 

all methods of vegetative treatments would be considered on a case-by-case basis, without a preference 

for one type or another. 

Fences. Fences on public lands would be modified or reconstructed where documented wildlife conflicts 

with fencing occur. Fence construction would be in accordance with BLM design standards, with no 

special consideration for location. 

Watershed Health Assessments. Same as described in Management Actions Common to All 

Alternatives (Section 2.2). 

Native Vegetation. No special emphasis would be placed on mountain shrub, basin big sagebrush/lemon 

scurfpea, aspen, or other unique or important vegetation types. 

2-36 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

2.4.2.2 Fire Management 

Fire Management Implementation Plan. Same as described in Management Actions Common to All 

Alternatives (Section 2.2). 

Fire Suppression. Similar to the No Action Alternative, full fire suppression for basin big 

sagebrush/lemon scurfpea vegetation associations would be applied. 

2.4.2.3 Water Resources Management 

Water Quality. In addition to Management Actions Common to All Alternatives (Section 2.2), areas 

with highly erodible soils, the area within 250 feet of wetlands, riparian areas and 100-year floodplains, 

and the area within 50 feet of the edge of the inner gorge of intermittent and large ephemeral drainages 

would be avoidance areas for surface disturbing activities. Surface disturbing activities could be 

permitted within avoidance areas provided that a mitigation plan is approved and a site-specific analysis 

determines that adverse impacts would not occur as a result of the activity. 

Permanent Facilities. In addition to Management Actions Common to All Alternatives (Section 2.2), 

new permanent facilities would be allowed in floodplains provided there are no practicable alternatives 

(Executive Order 11988), and appropriate mitigation measures would be implemented. 

Erosion Control. Same as described for the No Action Alternative (Section 2.3). 

Colorado River Salinity Control. Same as described in Management Actions Common to All 

Alternatives (Section 2.2). 

Wetlands and Floodplains. In addition to Management Actions Common to All Alternatives (Section 

2.2), projects to improve the ecological integrity of the dunal ponds would be considered for development 

on BLM-administered public lands, as described in the No Action Alternative. 

Riparian Management Exclosures. In addition to Management Actions Common to All Alternatives 

(Section 2.2), existing exclosures could be removed and the area made available for livestock grazing. 

New exclosures would be considered only if they benefit commodity uses. 

Fluid Mineral Wells. Same as described in Management Actions Common to All Alternatives (Section 

2.2). 

Aquifer Recharge Areas. Aquifer recharge areas would be managed to maintain or enhance recharge 

volume and ground water quality by limiting the amount of impermeable surfaces in the recharge areas. 

2.4.2.4 Wild Horses Management 

Wild Horse Herd Management Area Boundaries and Appropriate Management Levels. The 

management actions for wild horses would be the same as those of the No Action Alternative (Section 

2.3). 

Activity and Monitoring Plans. Same as described in Management Actions Common to All 

Alternatives (Section 2.2). 

Water Developments. Same as described in the No Action Alternative (Section 2.3). 

Gathering Plan. Same as described in the No Action Alternative (Section 2.3). 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 2-37 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

Public Education. Same as described in the No Action Alternative (Section 2.3). 

2.4.2.5 Livestock Grazing Management 

Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management. Same as described in Management Actions Common 

to All Alternatives (Section 2.2). 

Rangeland and Riparian Habitat. In addition to Management Actions Common to All Alternatives 

(Section 2.2), grazing management systems (AMP) would assist in improving or maintaining the desired 

range condition. Reductions of active AUMs would not be implemented unless they are the only 

appropriate action for meeting the Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands. 

Forage Utilization Levels. Same as described in Management Actions Common to All Alternatives 

(Section 2.2). 

Livestock Water Developments and Range Improvements. Livestock water developments and range 

improvements would be considered to enhance livestock production. Compatibility with special status 

plant species would be required. 

Salt or Mineral Supplements. Salt or mineral supplements would be prohibited within 250 feet of 

riparian habitat and national and scenic trails unless analysis shows that these resources would not be 

adversely affected. Supplements would also be prohibited on areas inhabited by special status plant 

species, regardless of analysis findings. 

2.4.2.6 Vegetation Management 

Special Status Plant Species. In addition to Management Actions Common to All Alternatives (Section 

2.2), the management actions for vegetation would be similar to the No Action Alternative (Section 2.3). 

The one exception to the actions involves special status plant species. Only locations of federally listed, 

proposed, or candidate species would be avoided or closed from surface disturbing activities until 

protective measures are developed with the USFWS. Surface disturbing activities would avoid locations 

of Wyoming BLM sensitive plant species. 

Rights-of-Way Limitations. Same as described in the No Action Alternative (Section 2.3). 

Fire Suppression. Same as described in the No Action Alternative (Section 2.3). 

Threatened and Endangered Plant Species. Same as described in Management Actions Common to 

All Alternatives (Section 2.2). 

Invasive Species. Same as described in Management Actions Common to All Alternatives (Section 2.2). 

Forest and Woodland Health. Same as described in Management Actions Common to All Alternatives 

(Section 2.2). 

2.4.2.7 Wildlife Habitat Management 

Habitat Management Plan. Same as described in the No Action Alternative (Section 2.3). 

Water Developments. Same as described in Management Actions Common to All Alternatives (Section 

2.2). 

2-38 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

Special Status Wildlife Species. Actions relative to special status species would be the same as 

described in the No Action Alternative, except only locations of federally listed, proposed, or candidate 

species would require species-specific mitigation measures as developed with USFWS. Survey protocol 

for the black-footed ferret would be conducted consistent with USFWS requirements detailed in the No 

Action Alternative. 

Sensitive Habitat. Same as described in Management Actions Common to All Alternatives (Section 

2.2), except appropriate distance, seasonal limitations, and mitigation measures would only be applied to 

greater sage-grouse leks and winter range, mountain plover aggregation areas, and raptor nesting sites. 

Limitations on surface disturbing activities for Alternative 1 include seasonal limitations and CSU 

requirements. NSO (in relation to wildlife) would not apply under this alternative (Map 16). The 

seasonal limitations for Alternative 1 are shown in Table 2-3. 

Predator Damage Control. Same as described in the No Action Alternative (Section 2.3). 

Greater Sage-Grouse Leks, Nesting, and Early Brood-rearing Habitat. These areas would be 

managed as similar to the No Action Alternative, except that seasonal limitations for disruptive activities 

would be determined on a case-by-case basis. Seasonal limitations on surface disturbing and disruptive 

activities (usually from March 15 to July 15) would apply within actual nesting and early brood-rearing 

habitat up to 1 mile from greater sage-grouse leks on a case-by-case basis (Map 16). Nesting and early 

brood-rearing habitats would be protected from habitat degradation, and measures would be taken to 

improve habitat quality within 1 mile of greater sage-grouse leks on an as-needed basis. 

Greater Sage-Grouse Winter Range. No actions would be taken specific to these areas. 

All Greater Sage-Grouse Habitats (Leks, Nesting, Early Brood-Rearing, and Winter Range). Same 

as described in the No Action Alternative (Section 2.3). 

Big Game Winter Range. No seasonal limitations would be applied to these areas. 

Big Game Birthing Areas. No seasonal limitations would be applied to these areas. 

Black-Footed Ferret. In addition to Management Actions Common to All Alternatives (Section 2.2), 

measures would be taken, as appropriate, to reduce potential raptor perches in and around prairie dog 

towns and colonies. 

Mountain Plover. In addition to Management Actions Common to All Alternatives (Section 2.2), active 

mountain plover nesting aggregation areas (Map 17) would be avoidance areas for surface disturbing and 

disruptive activities from April 10 to July 10. 

Game Fish and Special Status Fish Species. No seasonal limitations would be applied to these areas. 

Raptor Nesting Sites. In addition to Management Actions Common to All Alternatives (Section 2.2), 

disruptive activities would be prohibited within a 1⁄4-mile radius of occupied raptor nest sites during the 

nesting season (February 1 to July 31). 

Introduction and Reintroduction of Species. Same as described in Management Actions Common to 

All Alternatives (Section 2.2). 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 2-39 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

2.4.3 Heritage Resources Management 

Heritage Resources Protection. Same as described in Management Actions Common to All 

Alternatives (Section 2.2). 

Protection of Scientific Values. Same as described in Management Actions Common to All Alternatives 

(Section 2.2). 

National Register Eligible Sites. Management of heritage resources would include inventories and 

mitigation as needed for specific projects. An appropriate level of analysis of all surface disturbing 

activities would be conducted to determine the potential effect of the activity on the heritage resource and 

its eligibility for listing on the NRHP. Similar to the No Action Alternative, all National Register-eligible 

historic sites would continue to be protected through provisions of the NHPA and ARPA. Sites eligible 

for inclusion in the NRHP under Criterion D would be surrounded by a 100-foot avoidance area. Site 

stewardship and public education aspects of the heritage resource management program would also be 

pursued. 

Native American Sites. Management would be the same as described in the No Action Alternative. 

Expansion Era Roads and Associated Sites. As described in the No Action Alternative, Expansion Era 

roads and associated sites (e.g., Freighter Gap), stage stations, and freighter’s camps would be protected 

under provisions of the NHPA. 

Historic Livestock Management Sites. NRHP-eligible historic livestock management sites would be 

protected from surface-disturbing activities. The area to be protected would be determined on a case-bycase basis. 

Native and Euro-American Sites. Interpretive signs would be placed where development activities 

occur adjacent to these areas. No specific protection measures would be applied other than provisions 

under the NHPA. 

Paleontological Sites. Same as described in Management Actions Common to All Alternatives (Section 

2.2). 

Unique Geologic Features. Management would be the same as described in the No Action Alternative. 

Tri-Territory Marker. Management would be the same as described in the No Action Alternative. 

2.4.4 Travel, Access, and Realty Management 

Transportation Planning. Transportation planning would be the same as described for the No Action 

Alternative. 

Travel Management Plan. A travel management plan for the JMH CAP area would not be developed. 

In the Steamboat Mountain ACEC and White Mountain area, travel management activities would follow 

the OHV designations for these areas. 

Road Installations. Travel planning, access limitations, and realty actions would be consistent with 

existing regulatory requirements and the Green River Basin Advisory Council (GRBAC) 

recommendations. These recommendations addressed limiting road design standards to accommodate 

2-40 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

only the intended function of the road, flexibility in placing gathering pipelines, and a road signage 

system. 

Geophysical Activities. Geophysical and related detonation activities would be allowed throughout the 

planning area subject to the seasonal limitations identified in Wildlife Habitat Management (Section 

2.4.2.7) and the limitations for sensitive plant species locations. 

Rights-of-Way. Areas would be designated as right-of-way avoidance or exclusion areas based the 

location of specific sensitive resources (Map 18). The extent of right-of-way exclusion areas would be 

limited to the Tri-Territory Marker and White Mountain Petroglyphs. Rights-of-way avoidance areas 

would include sensitive geologic and historic features, vegetation, and wildlife habitat. No additional 

linear right-of-way restrictions would apply in the planning area. The Steamboat Mountain ACEC would 

be open to consideration for communication sites. 

Linear Rights-of-Way. Same as described for the No Action Alternative (Section 2.3). 

Winter Access. Winter access would be limited only by weather conditions. Seasonal road closures 

would not be implemented. Plowing of roads would be allowed as needed for all uses. 

OHV Management. Public lands in the JMH CAP planning area would remain open, limited, or closed 

(Map 19). The OHV management prescriptions would limit access to designated roads and trails in the 

Pinnacles Geologic Feature and the visible portion of the South Pass Historic Landscape. The WSAs and 

specific sensitive resource areas would be closed. Seasonal restrictions would be implemented in specific 

habitat areas of greater sage-grouse, raptors, and mountain plover on an as-needed basis. The Greater 

Sand Dunes recreation area would remain open. 

Over-the-Snow Vehicles. Same as described in Management Actions Common to All Alternatives 

(Section 2.2). 

Land Withdrawals and Exchanges. Same as described in Management Actions Common to All 

Alternatives (Section 2.2). 

Ownership Adjustments. Same as described in Management Actions Common to All Alternatives 

(Section 2.2). 

Access. In addition to Management Actions Common to All Alternatives (Section 2.2), access to public, 

state, and private land would be provided throughout the planning area and would be restricted only 

where necessary to protect public health and safety and to protect sensitive resources. Access would be 

limited on a case-by-case basis to protect sensitive resources in areas of high development potential. 

2.4.5 Recreation Resources Management 

Management of recreation resources would provide for continued availability of passive and active 

outdoor opportunities while protecting environmental resources and ensuring the health and safety of 

users. The maximum degree of public access possible would be accommodated based on OHV 

designations for the planning area. 

Backcountry Byways. Backcountry byways would be managed as described for the No Action 

Alternative. 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 2-41 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

Greater Sand Dunes Recreation Area. The parking area and camping facilities at the Greater Sand 

Dunes Recreation Area would be maintained in their current condition. To avoid conflicts with increased 

fluid minerals development and to protect the health and safety of users, the recreation area would not be 

expanded or improved to accommodate additional users. 

Recreation Project Plans. Same as described for the No Action Alternative (Section 2.3). 

Camping. Same as described for the No Action Alternative (Section 2.3). 

Special Recreation Use Permits. Same as described for the No Action Alternative (Section 2.3). 

Recreational Mining and Other Similar Activity. Same as described for the No Action Alternative 

(Section 2.3). 

Recreational mining and other similar activities would be allowed in those parts of the planning area that 

are not withdrawn from mineral location or where such withdrawals would not be pursued. Withdrawn 

areas include the White Mountain Petroglyphs ACEC. Withdrawals would be pursued for Special Status 

Plant Species locations, the western portion of the Greater Sand Dunes ACEC, Crookston Ranch, public 

water reserves, Tri-Territory Marker, and South Pass Summit. 

2.4.6 Minerals and Alternative Energy Resources Management 

This alternative would provide for leasing and permitting of mineral development to the degree possible 

consistent with existing regulatory requirements and statutory withdrawals and closures. 

2.4.6.1 Leasable Fluid Minerals Management 

Oil and Gas Leases. In addition to Management Actions Common to All Alternatives (Section 2.2), new 

leases would be offered throughout the planning area, including the core area, based on industry interest 

and development potential (Map 20). Suspended leases in the planning area would be reinstated and 

APDs considered, consistent with existing lease stipulations. Interest in new leasing by prospective 

developers would be used to identify the parts of the planning area that would be offered in lease sales. 

Lease Stipulations. The stipulations applied to new leases would be limited to compliance with existing 

legal requirements for environmental protection. 

Drilling Permits. New development activities could be approved through the APD process (Appendix 

14). The COAs that would be placed on APDs would require mitigation to protect other resources as 

required by the regulations for oil and gas development in 43 CFR 3100. The APDs would be required to 

show the location of surface disturbing activities, and any mitigation measures would be based on sitespecific analysis of resources in the lease area. Mitigation measures would be consistent with regulatory 

standards and the minimum avoidance distances needed to protect identified habitat would be specified in 

COAs. 

Mitigation requirements, such as seasonal restrictions on drilling, may be required as a result of a sitespecific analysis. Stipulations on existing leases could be excepted when site-specific analyses do not 

identify the presence of the resource of concern addressed by the stipulation (Appendix 4). For existing 

leases with current standard stipulations, exceptions would be allowed when site-specific analyses show 

that no unacceptable impacts to sensitive resources would occur. 

2-42 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

Well locations would be required to comply with Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission well 

spacing requirements. These requirements focus on the use and protection of the oil and gas subsurface 

resource and not on the use and protection of surface resource values. 

2.4.6.2 Leasable Solid Minerals Management 

Exploration. The planning area would be open to coal exploration activities, with avoidance and rightof-way restrictions as needed to protect sensitive resources (Map 21). Coal and sodium exploration 

would be prohibited only in areas for which compliance with existing regulatory limitations is required, 

including WSAs. In areas where surface disturbing activities are limited to protect other resources, those 

limitations would apply to coal exploration activities, such as drilling of test holes and collection of core 

samples. Surface disturbing activities related to coal exploration would comply with existing standard 

practices, best management practices, and guidelines for surface disturbing activities (Appendixes 5, 6). 

Leasing. Similar to the No Action Alternative, lands within the planning area having a known or 

assumed potential for coal development (Coal Occurrence and Development Potential Area) have been 

reviewed against 20 criteria to determine whether the lands would be suitable for development. Lands 

within the planning area with coal development potential (Map 56) have been through the 20-point 

unsuitability criteria screening and multiple-use conflict analysis. Areas closed to coal leasing 

(unsuitable) include the western portion of Greater Sand Dunes ACEC, which includes the Sand Dunes 

WSA (Map 22). Lands within the planning area that have been through the 20-point unsuitability 

criteria screening process and would be acceptable for further coal leasing and development consideration 

(with appropriate conditions) are shown on Map 22. 

Restrictions on mining activity would be required on coal leases as needed to meet existing regulatory 

requirements for resource protection for threatened or endangered species habitat and cultural and 

historical resources. Such areas acceptable for coal leasing that would include NSO requirements include 

Boars Tusk and Crookston Ranch. Areas acceptable for coal development by subsurface mining and 

controls on surface facilities include Greater Sand Dunes ACEC (eastern portion), Tri-Territory Marker, 

and raptor nest sites with a 1⁄4-mile buffer. 

2.4.6.3 Locatable Minerals Management 

Locatable Mineral Withdrawals. Similar to the No Action Alternative, the planning area would be 

open to filing claims, exploration, and development of locatable minerals with the exception of withdrawn 

areas (Map 23). Withdrawal from mineral location would be pursued for Indian Gap. 

Withdrawals would be revoked for lands classified as prospectively valuable for oil shale. Upon 

revocation, the area would be open to the filing of mining claims, exploration, and development of 

locatable minerals. The White Mountain Petroglyphs ACEC and Boars Tusk located in the oil shale 

classification lands would be withdrawn from mineral location before the revocation. 

Withdrawals would be revoked for lands classified as prospectively valuable for coal. Upon revocation, 

the area would be open to filing of mining claims, exploration, and development of all locatable minerals. 

Areas that would be withdrawn from mineral location before the revocation of the coal classification 

include the western portion of the Greater Sand Dunes ACEC, special status plant sites, Crookston Ranch, 

public water reserves, Tri-Territory Marker, and South Pass Summit. 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 2-43 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

2.4.6.4 Salable Minerals Management 

Mineral Material Sales. Similar to the No Action Alternative, the planning area would be open to 

consideration of mineral material sales, except for areas identified as closed to sales or where 

development of salable minerals would cause unacceptable impacts (Map 24). Areas closed to mineral 

material sales include WSAs, Crookston Ranch, Oregon Buttes ACEC, Native American burial sites, 

South Pass Summit, Boars Tusk, White Mountain Petroglyphs, Greater Sand Dunes ACEC, South Pass 

Historic Landscape (visible portion), raptor nest sites, and special status plant sites. 

2.4.6.5 Alternative Energy Management 

Alternative Energy Proposals. The planning area would be open to alternative energy development, 

except where development would violate statutory resource protection requirements. Alternative energy 

resource development would not be allowed in areas where there would be unacceptable impacts to 

threatened or endangered species, and associated surface disturbing activities would comply with existing 

Standard Practices, Best Management Practices, and Guidelines for Surface Disturbing Activities 

(Appendices 5 and 6). Alternative energy developments would not be allowed to interfere with existing 

rights. 

2.4.7 Visual Resources Management 

The planning area would be managed to maintain or improve scenic quality by managing the impacts of 

human activities and other intrusions on the visual landscape (Map 25). The VRM classes provide the 

design standards for all surface disturbing projects. Projects would be designed, sited, screened, or 

painted to reduce visual impacts regardless of the VRM classification 

VRM Class I Areas. Same as described in Management Actions Common to All Alternatives (Section 

2.2). 

VRM Class II Areas. Management actions on lands classified as VRM Class II would be designed for 

blending into the natural landscape. A visual transition area of 1 mile adjacent to each WSA would be 

managed as Class II to retain the existing character of the WSA landscape. A low level of change would 

be acceptable to the characteristic landscapes of the ACECs, thus South Pass Historic Landscape and 

White Mountain Petroglyphs ACECs, and the part of Greater Sand Dunes ACEC outside the WSA, would 

be managed as VRM Class II. Surface disturbing activities could be seen in these areas but would not 

attract the attention of the casual observer. Oregon Buttes ACEC lies entirely within the WSA and thus is 

managed as VRM Class I. 

VRM Class III Areas. There would be no lands within the planning area classified as VRM Class III. 

VRM Class IV Areas. The remainder of the planning area not managed as VRM Class I or II would be 

managed as Class IV. Management actions on lands classified as VRM Class IV could result in a major 

modification to the existing character of the landscape. The level of change to the landscape could be 

high. Surface disturbing activities could dominate the view of the casual observer and would be the major 

focus of attention. 

2.4.8 Management of Special Management Areas and Other Management

Areas 

This alternative would provide for additional use and development in the special management areas 

consistent with existing regulatory requirements and statutory withdrawals and closures. The designation, 

2-44 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

boundaries, and management prescriptions of the Greater Sand Dunes, Oregon Buttes, and South Pass 

Historic Landscape ACECs as well as the seven WSAs would remain unchanged (Map 26). 

2.4.8.1 Special Management Areas 

2.4.8.1.1 Wilderness Study Areas 

Locatable Minerals. A plan of operations would be required for all activities greater than casual use. 

2.4.8.1.2 Oregon Buttes ACEC 

Rights-of-Way. The ACEC would be managed as a right-of-way avoidance area.

Recreation. A recreation project plan and interpretive prospectus would be developed, as necessary, for

Oregon Buttes.

Locatable Minerals. A plan of operations would be required for all activities greater than casual use.

2.4.8.1.3 South Pass Historic Landscape ACEC 

Rights-of-Way. The South Pass Historic Landscape ACEC would be managed as a right-of-way 

avoidance area. 

OHV Use. OHV use within the South Pass Historic Landscape ACEC (visible portion) would be limited 

to designated roads and trails. OHV use within the nonvisible portion would be limited to existing roads 

and trails. 

Leasable Solid Minerals. The ACEC would be open to leasable solid minerals exploration and leasing 

with avoidance and right-of-way limitations, as needed. 

Locatable Minerals. Withdrawals from mineral location would be pursued on South Pass Summit. 

VRM. The ACEC would be managed as a VRM Class II area. 

The South Pass Historic Landscape viewshed would be reduced to approximately 1 mile in each direction 

from the center of the Oregon, Mormon Pioneer, California, and Pony Express trail routes. Intrusions 

within the viewshed area could be allowed provided the results of a visual analysis indicate they are not 

visible from the trail routes or that they can be mitigated. 

2.4.8.1.4 White Mountain Petroglyphs ACEC 

Recreation. A recreation project plan and interpretive prospectus would be developed, as necessary. 

Leasable Fluid Minerals. The ACEC would be open to consideration of fluid minerals leasing with 

NSO requirements. 

Leasable Solid Minerals. The ACEC would be open to coal and sodium exploration activities subject to 

avoidance and right-of-way limitations as needed.

VRM. The ACEC would be would be managed as a VRM Class II area.

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 2-45 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

2.4.8.1.5 Steamboat Mountain ACEC 

The Steamboat Mountain ACEC designation would be removed. 

Communication Sites. Communication sites would be considered on Steamboat Mountain. 

OHV Use. OHV use would be limited to existing roads and trails. 

Recreation. Location of interpretive and directional signs along backcountry byways would be 

coordinated with state and local governments and other interested parties for the Red Desert viewpoint 

from dugway of Steamboat Mountain. 

A recreation project plan and interpretive prospectus would be developed, as necessary, for Steamboat 

Mountain. 

Leasable Solid Minerals. The portions of Steamboat Mountain ACEC within the coal development 

potential area would be open to leasable solid minerals exploration and leasing using only subsurface 

mining methods and controls on surface facilities (Map 22). Those portions outside the coal development 

potential area would be closed to leasable solid minerals exploration and leasing (Map 21 and Map 22). 

VRM. The ACEC would be managed as a VRM class IV area. 

2.4.8.1.6 Greater Sand Dunes ACEC 

The Greater Sand Dunes ACEC designation and boundaries would remain unchanged. 

Rights-of-Way. The ACEC would be managed as a right-of-way avoidance area (with a 1-mile buffer). 

OHV Use. The portion of the ACEC containing the Greater Sand Dunes Recreation Area would be open 

to OHV use. The remainder of the ACEC would be limited to existing roads and trails. 

Leasable Solid Minerals. The western portion of the ACEC would be closed to leasable solid minerals 

exploration and leasing. The eastern portion of the ACEC within the coal development potential area 

would be open to leasable solid minerals exploration and leasing using only subsurface mining methods 

and controls on surface facilities. 

Locatable Minerals. Withdrawals from mineral location would be pursued in the western portion of the 

ACEC. 

VRM. The ACEC would be managed as VRM Class II area. 

2.4.8.1.7 Special Status Plants ACEC 

The Special Status Plant Species ACEC would not be expanded into the Jack Morrow Hills CAP area. 

Rights-of-Way. Areas where special status plant species occur would be managed as rights-of-way

avoidance areas.

OHV Use. Areas where special status plant species occur would be closed to OHV use.

Leasable Fluid Minerals. Known locations of special status plant species would be open to

consideration for mineral leasing with NSO requirements. 

2-46 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

Leasable Solid Minerals. Areas where special status plant species occur would be open to coal and 

sodium exploration subject to avoidance and right-of-way limitations as needed. 

Salable Minerals. Areas where special status plant species occur would be closed to mineral material 

sales. 

Rangeland Management. Salt or mineral supplements would not be allowed in areas where special 

status plant species occur. 

2.4.8.2 Other Management Areas 

2.4.8.2.1 Pinnacles Geologic Feature 

The Pinnacles Geologic Feature would continue to be managed as part of the Red Desert Watershed

Management Area.

OHV Use. OHV use would be limited to designated roads and trails.

VRM. The area would be managed as a VRM Class IV area.

2.4.8.2.2 Pinnacles Geographic Area 

The Pinnacles Geographic Area would continue to be managed as part of the Red Desert Watershed 

Management Area, as provided in the Green River RMP. 

2.5 ALTERNATIVE 2 

Alternative 2 reduces opportunities to use and develop the planning area. The alternative focuses on 

improving and protecting habitat for wildlife and sensitive plant and animal species, improving riparian 

areas and water quality, and protecting historic, cultural, and Native American sites. Alternative 2 would 

not allow development in areas with competing resource uses and would close or designate portions of the 

planning area to restrict land uses. Development or activities could occur in specific portions of the 

planning area provided mitigation measures are implemented. 

2.5.1 Management Actions Common to All Resource or Land Use Programs 

Monitoring Plan. An interdisciplinary monitoring plan would be developed to evaluate the overall 

effectiveness of implementing the management decisions for the planning area. Site-specific monitoring 

plans would be developed for project proposals. 

2.5.2 Land and Water Resources Management 

2.5.2.1 General Management Actions for Land and Water Resources 

Healthy Rangelands. Same as described in Management Actions Common to All Alternatives (Section 

2.2). 

Proper Functioning Condition. Same as described in Management Actions Common to All 

Alternatives (Section 2.2). 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 2-47 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

Desired Plant Community. In addition to Management Actions Common to All Alternatives (Section 

2.2), vegetation structure for upland and riparian areas would be managed by DPC objectives that 

emphasize wildlife habitat, watershed resources, biodiversity values, and maintenance of habitat for 

special status species. Furthermore, natural plant succession would be promoted in native vegetation 

communities, with emphasis on mountain shrub, basin big sagebrush/lemon scurfpea, aspen, and other 

unique or important vegetation types. 

Vegetation Treatments. In addition to Management Actions Common to All Alternatives (Section 2.2), 

vegetation treatments would be limited to noxious weed control and would be designed to protect water 

quality, dissipate erosion, and conform to requirements to protect special status plant species. Prescribed 

burns would not be considered. Areas treated with prescribed burns would be rested a minimum of two 

full growing seasons after treatment and fenced from livestock and big game animals if necessary. 

Fences. Similar to the No Action Alternative, fences on public lands would be removed, modified, or 

reconstructed where documented wildlife conflicts with fencing occur. Fencing would also be used to 

limit wild horses to the modified boundary of the Great Divide Basin HMA (which excludes the JMH 

CAP planning area). Herding control of livestock would be encouraged as an alternative to fencing. 

Watershed Health Assessments. Same as described in Management Actions Common to All 

Alternatives (Section 2.2). 

Native Vegetation. Same as described in the No Action Alternative (Section 2.3). 

2.5.2.2 Fire Management 

Fire Management Implementation Plan. Same as described in Management Actions Common to All 

Alternatives (Section 2.2). 

Wildland and Prescribed Fire. Prescribed burns would not be considered. Wildland fire would be 

managed within and outside prescription areas to improve biological diversity and the overall health of 

the public lands. 

Fire Suppression. Limited fire suppression for basin big sagebrush/lemon scurfpea vegetation 

associations would be applied. 

2.5.2.3 Water Resources Management 

Water Quality. In addition to Management Actions Common to All Alternatives (Section 2.2), all 

surface disturbing activities would be required to adopt design strategies that serve to reduce erosion and 

maintain or improve water quality. The area within 1⁄4-mile of wetlands, riparian areas, and 100-year 

floodplains would be avoidance areas for surface disturbing activities. 

Permanent Facilities. Same as described in the No Action Alternative (Section 2.3). 

Erosion Control. Surface disturbing activities would be prohibited in areas of highly erodible soils or 

soils that are difficult to reclaim. 

Colorado River Salinity Control. Same as described in Management Actions Common to All 

Alternatives (Section 2.2). 

2-48 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

Wetlands and Floodplains. In addition to Management Actions Common to All Alternatives (Section 

2.2), additional protection measures would be implemented to protect the ecological integrity of the dunal 

ponds and other ecologically important ephemeral wetlands not covered under Section 404 of the Clean 

Water Act. 

Riparian Management Exclosures. In addition to Management Actions Common to All Alternatives 

(Section 2.2), existing riparian exclosures would be maintained, and new exclosures would be considered 

only if they benefit preservation of sensitive resources. 

Fluid Mineral Wells. Same as described in Management Actions Common to All Alternatives (Section 

2.2). 

Aquifer Recharge Areas. Similar to the No Action Alternative, aquifer recharge areas would be 

managed to maintain or enhance recharge volume and ground water quality by limiting road density and 

surface occupancy to maintain a healthy recharge area. In addition, studies would be conducted to better 

define aquifer recharge area boundaries. 

2.5.2.4 Wild Horses Management 

Wild Horse Herd Management Area Boundaries and Appropriate Management Levels. The Great 

Divide Basin HMA boundaries would be modified to exclude the JMH CAP planning area. The AML 

would be maintained at 415 to 600 horses. 

Activity and Monitoring Plans. Same as described in Management Actions Common to All 

Alternatives (Section 2.2). 

Water Developments. Water developments would not be constructed for wild horse management. 

Gathering Plan. A gathering plan would be developed and implemented to remove wild horses from the 

JMH CAP planning area. 

Public Education. Opportunities for public education and enjoyment of wild horses would not be 

provided in the JMH CAP planning area. 

2.5.2.5 Livestock Grazing Management 

Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management. Same as described in Management Actions Common 

to All Alternatives (Section 2.2). 

Rangeland and Riparian Habitat. In addition to Management Actions Common to All Alternatives 

(Section 2.2), grazing management systems (AMP) would assist in improving or maintaining the desired 

range condition. Approved AMPs, or other activity plans intended to serve as the functional equivalent to 

an AMP, for each of the designated grazing allotments would provide the necessary guidance for 

achieving grazing management objectives. Livestock grazing allotments that do not meet the standards 

would implement appropriate actions (as determined by an interdisciplinary team) if livestock grazing 

were found to be a factor in not meeting the standards. BLM staff would work with livestock operators to 

determine the most appropriate methods for achieving the standards. Modified turnout dates would be the 

primary methods for meeting the standards. 

Forage Utilization Levels. Same as described in Management Actions Common to All Alternatives 

(Section 2.2). 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 2-49 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

Livestock Water Developments and Range Improvements. Similar to the No Action Alternative, 

livestock water developments and range improvements would be considered to maintain or improve 

resource conditions and/or enhance livestock distribution. Compatibility with special status plant species 

would be required. Livestock water developments and range improvements proposed in sensitive wildlife 

habitat would be considered only if the habitat and resource conditions are improved. 

Salt or Mineral Supplements. Salt or mineral supplements would not be allowed within 1⁄2 mile of 

riparian habitat, National Historic and Scenic Trails, areas inhabited by special status plant species, or 

other sensitive resource areas. 

2.5.2.6 Vegetation Management 

Special Status Plant Species. In addition to Management Actions Common to All Alternatives (Section 

2.2), specific management actions related to known locations of special status species habitat include 

closing locations to surface disturbing activities or any disruptive activity that could adversely affect the 

plants or their habitat, as well as closing locations of special status species to the location of new mining 

claims; mineral material sales; OHV use, including vehicles used for geophysical exploration activities 

and surveying; and the use of explosives and blasting. Surface disturbing activities would be prohibited 

in special status plant species potential habitat areas. 

Rights-of-Way Limitations. Actual plant locations and/or potential habitat of Wyoming BLM sensitive 

plant species would be right-of-way exclusion areas (Map 27). Exceptions to this exclusion would not be 

considered. 

Fire Suppression. Fire suppression activities would also be limited within special status plant species 

habitat as described in Management Actions Common to All Alternatives (Section 2.2). 

Threatened and Endangered Plant Species. Same as described in Management Actions Common to 

All Alternatives (Section 2.2). 

Invasive Species. Same as described in Management Actions Common to All Alternatives (Section 2.2). 

Forest and Woodland Health. Same as described in Management Actions Common to All Alternatives 

(Section 2.2). 

2.5.2.7 Wildlife Habitat Management 

Habitat Management Plan. A Habitat Management Plan would be prepared for the entire JMH CAP 

planning area under Alternative 2, instead of on an as-needed basis as described for the No Action 

Alternative. The habitat management plan would include habitat expansion efforts, threatened and 

endangered species reintroduction, and population goals and objectives. 

Water Developments. Same as described in Management Actions Common to All Alternatives (Section 

2.2). 

Special Status Wildlife Species. Same as described in the No Action Alternative (Section 2.3). 

Sensitive Habitat. Same as described in Management Actions Common to All Alternatives (Section 

2.2). 

2-50 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

Predator Damage Control. Proposed animal damage control activities not compatible with BLM 

planning and management prescriptions or objectives for other resource activities and users would be 

identified on a case-by-case basis. BLM would determine appropriate planning strategies, with input 

from APHIS-WS. The planning area would be designated a Restricted Control Area, which is a public 

land area where predator damage management may be planned, but control activities may be limited to 

certain methods or times of the year. Lethal animal damage control would be allowed only if it were a 

benefit to wildlife; nonlethal animal damage control would be allowed for livestock protection. 

Greater Sage-Grouse Leks, Nesting, and Early Brood-Rearing Habitat. Greater sage-grouse 

concentration areas (leks and nesting habitat) would be NSO areas or closed to permanent structures and 

disruptive activities under this alternative. Disruptive activities would avoid these areas 24 hours a day 

during the strutting, nesting and brood-rearing periods. Nesting and early brood-rearing habitats would be 

protected from habitat degradation, and measures would be taken to improve habitat quality within 

greater sage-grouse concentration areas on an as-needed basis. 

Greater Sage-Grouse Winter Range. Limitations on surface disturbing activities for this alternative 

include NSO and CSU requirements, and seasonal limitations (Map 28). The seasonal limitations for 

wildlife are shown in Table 2-3. Greater sage-grouse winter range would be NSO areas or closed to 

permanent structures and disruptive activities under this alternative. 

All Greater Sage-Grouse Habitats (Leks, Nesting, Early Brood-Rearing, and Winter Range). 

Avoidance areas may vary depending on natural topographic barriers, terrain, vegetation structure and 

cover, type of activity, line of sight distance, habitat needs, etc. 

Big Game Winter Range. The seasonal limitations for big game are shown in Table 2-3 and on Map 28. 

In addition to the No Action Alternative, vegetative character of big game (elk, deer, and antelope) crucial 

habitat would be restored on a case-by-case basis using BLM reclamation and monitoring practices 

(Appendix 9). 

Big Game Birthing Areas. Big game birthing areas would be areas of NSO or closed to permanent 

structures and disruptive activities under this alternative (Map 28, Table 2-3). Vegetative character of big 

game birthing areas would be restored on a case-by-case basis using BLM reclamation and monitoring 

practices (Appendix 9). 

Black-Footed Ferret. In addition to Management Actions Common to All Alternatives (Section 2.2), 

BLM would cooperate with USFWS and WGFD on any black-footed ferret reintroduction study within 

the planning area. Surveys for the black-footed ferret would be conducted according to USFWS current 

protocol. Measures would also be taken, as appropriate, to reduce potential raptor perches in and around 

prairie dog towns and colonies. 

Mountain Plover. Mountain plover surveys would be conducted consistent with protocol described in 

the No Action Alternative, and additional actions would be taken to reduce impacts to the mountain 

plover, such as limiting traffic speeds and hunting perches. Active mountain plover nesting aggregation 

areas (Map 17) would be avoidance areas for surface disturbing and disruptive activities within 1⁄4 mile of 

the area from April 10 to July 10. 

Traffic speeds on BLM roads during the brood-rearing period (June and July) would be limited within 1⁄4 

mile of nesting concentration areas. Exceptions or other mitigation measures could be applied on a caseby-case basis, as determined by BLM in coordination with commodity users. 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 2-51 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

Measures (i.e., avoidance, burying power lines, installation of antiperch devices and exclusion for 

artificial nest structures) would be taken to limit hunting perches or nest sites for avian predators within 1⁄4 

mile of nesting concentration areas. 

Game Fish and Special Status Fish Species. Same as described in the No Action Alternative (Section 

2.3). 

Raptor Nesting Sites. In addition to the No Action Alternative, raptor nesting sites would be NSO areas 

or closed to permanent structures and disruptive activities under this alternative (Map 28, Table 2-3). 

Permanent or high-profile structures would be prohibited within 1⁄2 to 1 mile of active raptor nests. 

Disruptive activity restrictions within the specified distance (usually a 1⁄2- to 1-mile radius) of occupied 

raptor nests would be applied year-round. 

Introduction and Reintroduction of Species. Same as described in Management Actions Common to 

All Alternatives (Section 2.2). 

2.5.3 Heritage Resources Management 

Heritage Resources Protection. Same as described in Management Actions Common to All 

Alternatives (Section 2.2). 

Protection of Scientific Values. In addition to Management Actions Common to All Alternatives 

(Section 2.2), an appropriate level of inventory and analysis of all surface disturbing activities would be 

conducted to determine the potential effect of the activity on heritage resource, similar to the No Action 

Alternative. The Finley, Krmpotich, and Eden-Farson archaeological sites and the paleosol deposition 

area have been identified as important heritage resource sites. These sites would be managed to protect 

their scientific value. The Finley Site would be nominated to the NRHP under the Register’s History of 

American Archaeology context and Earliest Americans context. The Krmpotich Site would be nominated 

under the Register’s Earliest Americans context. The confidential locations of the Finley, Krmpotich, and 

Eden-Farson archaeological sites would be maintained, but interpretive information would be developed 

and made available at the RSFO. 

The boundaries of the Greater Sand Dunes ACEC would be expanded to include the paleosol deposition 

area. The paleosol deposition area of the expanded ACEC would be evaluated and managed as an RNA. 

Surface disturbing activities would not be allowed other than for research purposes. 

National Register Eligible Sites. All National Register-eligible historic sites would continue to be 

protected through provisions of the NHPA and would be nominated for inclusion in the NRHP. Sites 

eligible for inclusion in the NRHP under Criterion D would be surrounded by a 300-foot avoidance area. 

BLM would require development proponents to fund preparation of NRHP nominations on a case-by-case 

basis. 

Native American Sites. In addition to Management Actions Common to All Alternatives (Section 2.2), 

the Indian Gap Trail would be researched and mapped, and an interpretive plan for the trail would be 

developed. Similar to the No Action Alternative, surface-disturbing and disruptive activities would be 

prohibited within a specified distance, but not less than 100 feet, of these and other Native American 

respected places. Native American tribal leaders would be consulted before authorization of activities 

that could disrupt or disturb respected places. Appropriate viewshed management areas associated with 

these sites would be determined through site- and activity-specific consultations with Native American 

representatives, SHPO, and the development proponent. Viewshed management goals would correspond 

with existing VRM classification. This may necessitate limiting, or mitigating the visibility of permanent 

2-52 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

intrusions generally within a 270-degree radius from the identified respected place to the prominent 

landscape features. 

The Indian Gap Trail would be researched and mapped and a trail interpretive plan would be developed. 

Expansion Era Roads and Associated Sites. Expansion era roads and associated sites have been 

identified and would continue to be protected under provisions of the NHPA. Eligible sites would be 

nominated for listing in the NRHP. Surface disturbing activities would be limited within 1⁄4 mile of 

nominated sites so as not to affect their eligibility status for the NRHP. 

Historic Livestock Management Sites. Numerous livestock tending campsites and other minor pastoral 

agriculture-related sites have been identified throughout the JMH CAP planning area. Some of these sites 

may be eligible for inclusion in the NRHP within the context of the development of pastoral agriculture in 

Wyoming and the Rocky Mountain region and would continue to be protected under provisions of the 

NHPA. Surface disturbance would be limited within a minimum area of 300 feet at identified sites 

determined eligible for the NRHP. 

Native and Euro-American Sites. Historic and archaeological sites within the context of early contact 

between Native Americans and Euro-American peoples have been identified and understood in general 

terms. Detailed historical context would be determined through consultation with Native American tribal 

leaders, and an interpretive program would be developed and implemented. The importance of these sites 

would continue to be recognized through nomination to the NRHP and/or inclusion in the Backcountry 

Byways program. 

Paleontological Sites. Same as described in Management Actions Common to All Alternatives (Section 

2.2). 

Unique Geologic Features. Management of Boars Tusk and the surrounding area would be the same as 

described in the No Action Alternative. 

The Pinnacles Geographic Area (about 8,900 acres) would be an exclusion area for rights-of-way and a 

VRM Class I. The area within a 1⁄2 mile of the Pinnacles Geologic Feature, and including the features, 

would be closed to vehicular travel. 

Tri-Territory Marker. Management would be the same as described in the No Action Alternative. 

2.5.4 Travel, Access, and Realty Management 

Transportation Planning. A transportation plan for the JMH CAP planning area would be developed in 

coordination with local governments and users. Transportation planning would provide for appropriate 

access routes to provide maximum protection for crucial habitats and sensitive resources. The 

transportation plan could include mitigation measures (such as offsite placement of facilities, remote 

control monitoring, restricted or prohibited surface use including road construction, multiple wells from a 

single pad, central tank batteries/facilities, pipelines and power lines concentrated in specific areas, based 

on site-specific analysis) in areas subject to seasonal limitations, CSU, and NSO stipulations. 

Transportation planning would include coordination with local governments, stakeholders and other 

publics. 

Transportation planning would consider— 

• Limiting points of access for all activities to minimize disruption. 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 2-53 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

• Closing and rehabilitating unused roads and trails and those causing resource damage. This 

would be subject to county review of existing right-of-way needs. The transportation plan and 

affected maps would be corrected to reflect closed roads and trails. 

• Avoiding construction of stream or riparian area crossings in sensitive areas, and closure of 

unnecessary crossings. Exceptions may be granted if crossings would reduce adverse effects, 

benefit area objectives, and reduce miles of road and/or frequency of use. Bridges (versus 

culverts) would be required for perennial stream crossings. 

• Limiting development zones to be accessed by designated routes. 

Travel Management Plan. In conjunction with the overall transportation planning for JMH, travel 

management plans (Map 29) would be developed for the Steamboat Mountain, White Mountain, the two 

northern calving areas, and Essex Mountain to control access in these areas. 

Road Installations. Proposed road installations and improvements would follow the Green River RMP 

management objectives and applicable BLM guidelines until a JMH transportation plan is prepared and 

approved. Exceptions to the plan would be evaluated only if beneficial to natural and cultural resource 

values. Proposed roads and improvements for Steamboat Mountain and White Mountain would follow 

the guidelines specified in Appendix 12. 

Geophysical Activities. Geophysical activities would be required to conform to the OHV use 

designations of the Green River RMP for those portions of the planning area outside of areas with NSO 

requirements, WSAs, ACECs, and other sensitive resource areas. 

Geophysical and related detonation activities would be excluded from areas with NSO requirements, 

WSAs, ACECs, and other sensitive resource areas. Seasonal limitations would apply. 

Rights-of-Way. Areas would be designated as right-of-way avoidance or exclusion areas based on the 

location of specific sensitive resources (Map 27). 

Linear Rights-of-Way. Utility and transportation corridors to accommodate major linear rights-of-way 

needs would be established to coincide with existing roads, trails, and right-of-way easements that do not 

create a safety hazard or conflict with other resource objectives. 

Winter Access. Winter access would be limited to specific roads identified for winter use. Where winter 

access on roads other than those identified for winter access in the transportation plan is necessary, routes 

would be determined on a case-by-case basis. Plowing of roads would be allowed for emergencies only. 

OHV Management. Public lands in the JMH CAP planning area would remain open, limited, or closed 

(Map 30). The OHV management prescriptions would limit access to designated roads and trails and 

implement seasonal closures in big game crucial habitat. WSAs and specific sensitive resource areas 

would be closed, but the Greater Sand Dunes Recreation Area would remain open. Exceptions to OHV 

use may be granted in closed areas for scientific purposes or emergency access needs. 

Over-the-Snow Vehicles. Same as described in Management Actions Common to All Alternatives 

(Section 2.2). 

Land Withdrawals and Exchanges. Same as described in Management Actions Common to All 

Alternatives (Section 2.2). 

2-54 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

Ownership Adjustments. Same as described in Management Actions Common to All Alternatives 

(Section 2.2). 

Access. Access to public, state, and private land would be provided throughout the planning area and 

would be restricted only where necessary to protect public health and safety and to protect sensitive 

resources. Access would be guaranteed across public lands to landlocked private and state lands 

consistent with the guidelines and objectives set down in FLPMA. In addition to the No Action 

Alternative, access would be additionally restricted using a variety of strategies and measures. 

2.5.5 Recreation Resources Management 

Management of recreation resources would allow for passive and active use of the planning area while 

maximizing the protection of environmental resources and the health and safety of users. Emphasis 

would be placed on the primitive experience for visitors, with less disruption of resources and more 

restrictions within the planning area through limiting OHV use. 

Backcountry Byways. More visitor information and interpretive services would be provided to enhance 

the visitor experience. Recreation project plans would be developed for the Backcountry Byways 

program (Tri-Territory Loop and Red Desert) and would include interpretive and directional signs. The 

location of these signs would be coordinated with state and local governments and other interested parties 

for the Red Desert view point from the dugway of Steamboat Mountain, Chicken Springs overlook, 

Steamboat Mountain, Oregon Buttes, Honeycomb Buttes, and Indian Gap. 

Greater Sand Dunes Recreation Area. The parking area and camping facilities at the Greater Sand 

Dunes Recreation Area would be maintained in their current condition. To avoid conflicts with fluid 

minerals development on existing leases and to protect the health and safety of users, the recreation area 

would not be expanded or improved to accommodate additional users, similar to Alternative 1. 

Recreation Project Plans. Recreation project plans and interpretive prospectuses would be prepared 

similar to Management Actions Common to All Alternatives (Section 2.2), except that plans and 

prospectuses would also be prepared for Native American sites, including Indian Gap. 

Camping. Specific areas would be designated for camping use to protect certain resources, such as 

sensitive plant species, riparian areas, greater sage-grouse leks, mountain plover aggregation areas, and 

big game birthing areas. To monitor resource use and impact and to minimize disturbance during 

sensitive seasonal periods, parties of five or more would require a group camping permit and would stay 

within designated group camping areas. 

Special Recreation Use Permits. Special recreation use permits for managed activities that would occur 

in the JMH CAP planning area would be issued and renewed, and fees would be collected through the 

RSFO. This would allow the RSFO to track the amount, location, and timing of organized activity 

occurring within the planning area to monitor resource pressure. Permit fees would be available for 

program development. The permit evaluation process would consider the nature of the event, potential 

impacts to resources, conflicts with other events, and impacts to the quality of other visitors’ experiences. 

Mitigation measures necessary to protect the resources would be included in any permit issued. A Plan of 

Operation would be required for all commercial recreational operators and outfitters. The plan would 

describe the type, extent, and location of the recreation use and the mechanisms by which the 

operator/outfitter would prevent impacts to environmental resources. Any requests in special recreation 

use permit applications to remove natural resources would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis after an 

environmental analysis process. 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 2-55 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

Recreational Mining and Other Similar Activity. The planning area would be withdrawn from all 

mineral location and mining claims. Recreational mining and other similar activity would be prohibited 

in the planning area. 

Continental Peak/South Pass Connecting Side Trail. The Continental Peak/South Pass Connecting 

Side Trail would be managed as a side trail to the existing Continental Divide National Scenic Trail 

(CDNST). Management would be as described for the CDNST (BLM 1999). Existing primitive twotrack roads, BLM roads that provide legal public access through certain private lands, segments of crosscountry travel on BLM-administered public land, and an existing trail would be used as components of 

the CDNST. The existing primitive two-track roads and BLM road segments would continue to be open 

to motorized use. Cross-country travel routes would not be open to motorized use. 

2.5.6 Minerals and Alternative Energy Resources Management 

This alternative would close sensitive resource areas to new leasing and development. Consideration 

would be given to allowing extraction of viable resources on leases held by production until economic 

reserves are recovered. Development could be allowed in other areas. 

2.5.6.1 Leasable Fluid Minerals Management 

Oil and Gas Leases. In addition to Management Actions Common to All Alternatives (Section 2.2), 

suspended leases in the planning area would be reinstated and APDs considered consistent with existing 

lease stipulations. New leases would be offered only in nonsensitive resource areas. Sensitive resource 

areas, which include the core area, would be closed to subsequent lease offerings (Map 31). 

Purchase or exchange of existing leases would be negotiated with willing leaseholders in areas that would 

be closed to leasing for protection of sensitive resources. Areas that would be closed to leasing include 

the core area, connectivity area, crucial wildlife habitat, and other sensitive resources. Funding would be 

pursued to buy out and exchange leases in sensitive resource areas where leaseholders would be willing to 

be compensated for their valid existing rights. Where existing leases in sensitive resource areas could not 

be exchanged, development of existing leases could continue. Upon expiration, previously leased parts of 

sensitive resource areas would not be offered for lease in subsequent sales. For exchanged or purchased 

leases, leaseholders would complete required reclamation of existing surface structures, pipelines, and oil 

and gas service roads to return sensitive areas to their predevelopment state, to the degree practicable. 

Lease Stipulations. The lease stipulations notify the leaseholder that development activities may be 

limited, prohibited, or implemented, with mitigation measures to protect specific resources (Table 2-2). 

Drilling Permits. Similar to the No Action Alternative, the APDs for new wells would be issued in 

compliance with existing lease stipulations for resource protection and 43 CFR 3100 regulations 

(Appendix 14). Mitigation requirements, such as seasonal restrictions on drilling, may be required as a 

result of a site-specific analysis. Stipulations on existing leases could be excepted where site-specific 

analyses do not identify the presence of the resource of concern addressed by the stipulation (Appendix 

4). For existing leases with current standard stipulations, exceptions would be allowed when site-specific 

analyses show that no unacceptable impacts to sensitive resources would occur. In addition, refer to 

Section 2.5.4 for additional mitigation measures that may apply as part of the transportation plan. 

2.5.6.2 Leasable Solid Minerals Management 

Exploration. The planning area would be closed to coal and sodium exploration (Map 32). 

2-56 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

Leasing. Federal coal lands within the Coal Occurrence and Development Potential Area would be 

closed for coal leasing and development under the Federal Coal Management Program to protect other 

resource values in the planning area (Map 33). Because there are no existing coal leases in the JMH, 

there are no valid existing rights that would have to be recognized in closing the area. 

2.5.6.3 Locatable Minerals Management 

Locatable Mineral Withdrawals. The planning area would be withdrawn from filing of mineral claims 

and exploration and development activities, including recreational use mining activity, to protect other 

resource values (Map 34). Existing claims would be reviewed for validity and economic feasibility, and 

those found to be valid could be developed. Development on valid existing claims would be allowed 

consistent with regulations in 43 CFR 3809, and mining activity would be required to comply with other 

applicable regulations, including limitations on air and water discharges, waste management, spill 

prevention, and endangered species. 

2.5.6.4 Salable Minerals Management 

Mineral Material Sales. The planning area would be closed to mineral material sales to protect other 

resources (Map 35). Extraction of salable minerals would be allowed as required to meet other planning 

objectives, such as maintenance of existing roads in the approved transportation plan. Mining and 

reclamation plans would be required for each use of salable mineral materials. 

2.5.6.5 Alternative Energy Management 

Alternative Energy Proposals. The planning area would be closed to alternative energy development 

projects to ensure protection of other resource values. Realty actions such as permits or leases for 

alternative energy proposals would not be approved. 

2.5.7 Visual Resources Management 

The planning area would be managed to maintain or improve scenic quality by managing the impacts of 

human activities and other intrusions on the visual landscape (Map 36). The VRM classes provide the 

design standards for all surface disturbing projects. Projects would be designed, sited, screened, or 

painted to reduce visual impacts regardless of the VRM classification. 

VRM Class I Areas. In addition to Management Actions Common to All Alternatives (Section 2.2), all 

ACECs (which includes expansion areas), Indian Gap, unique geologic features, and landforms including 

Boars Tusk (plus a 1-mile buffer), Pinnacles Geographic Area, Freighter Gap, portions of White 

Mountain, and the portion of the Red Desert Watershed within the planning area would be managed as 

VRM Class I areas. 

VRM Class II Areas. Management actions on lands classified as VRM Class II would be designed for 

blending into the natural landscape. A low level of change would be acceptable to the characteristic 

landscapes of Split Rock. All sensitive habitat areas, riparian zones, water sources, floodplains, and 

recreation areas would also be managed as VRM Class II. The Continental Peak/South Pass Connecting 

Side Trail would also be managed as VRM Class II areas. Surface disturbing activities could be seen in 

these areas but would not attract the attention of the casual observer. 

VRM Class III Areas. Management actions on lands classified as VRM Class III would be designed to 

partially retain the existing character of the landscape and would allow a moderate level of change. The 

remainder of the planning area not managed as VRM Class I or II would be managed as Class III. 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 2-57 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

Surface disturbing activities could attract attention but would not dominate the view of the casual 

observer. 

VRM Class IV Areas. There would be no lands within the planning area classified as VRM Class IV. 

2.5.8 Management of Special Management Areas and Other Management

Areas 

Special management areas would continue to be managed to preserve and protect the integrity and 

character of the specific areas in accordance with ACEC policies and WSA interim management policies. 

Other resources and locations throughout the planning area that would be worthy of special protections 

would be designated as special management areas (Map 37). 

2.5.8.1 Special Management Areas 

2.5.8.1.1 Wilderness Study Areas 

Geophysical Activities. Geophysical exploration and related detonation activities would be prohibited.

Rights-of-Way. These areas would be managed as right-of-way exclusion areas.

Locatable Minerals. Withdrawals from mineral location would be pursued in these areas.

2.5.8.1.2 Oregon Buttes ACEC 

Geophysical Activities. Geophysical activities and related detonation activities would be prohibited in 

the ACEC. 

Rights-of-Way. The ACEC would be managed as a right-of-way exclusion area. 

Recreation. Location of interpretive and directional signs along backcountry byways would be 

coordinated with state and local governments and other interested parties for Oregon Buttes. 

A recreation project plan and interpretive prospectus would be prepared and implemented for Oregon 

Buttes. 

Locatable Minerals. Withdrawals from mineral location would be pursued in the ACEC as well as the 

entire planning area. 

2.5.8.1.3 South Pass Historic Landscape ACEC 

Rights-of-Way. The South Pass Historic Landscape ACEC (visible portion) would be managed as a 

right-of-way exclusion area. South Pass Historic Landscape ACEC (nonvisible portion) would be 

managed as a right-of-way avoidance area. 

OHV Use. OHV use within the South Pass Historic Landscape ACEC (visible portion) would be limited 

to designated roads and trails. OHV use within the nonvisible portion would be limited to existing roads 

and trails. 

Leasable Fluid Minerals. The entire South Pass Historic Landscape ACEC would be closed to fluid 

minerals leasing. 

2-58 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

Leasable Solid Minerals. The entire South Pass Historic Landscape ACEC would be closed to leasable 

solid minerals exploration and leasing. 

Locatable Minerals. Withdrawals from mineral location would be pursued in the entire South Pass 

Historic Landscape ACEC. 

VRM. The ACEC would be managed as a VRM Class I area. 

The South Pass Historic Landscape viewshed would be expanded to approximately 5 miles of the Oregon, 

Mormon, California, and Pony Express trail routes. Intrusions within the viewshed area could be allowed 

provided the results of a visual analysis indicate they are not visible from the trail routes or that they can 

be mitigated. 

2.5.8.1.4 White Mountain Petroglyphs ACEC 

Recreation. A recreation plan and interpretive prospectus would be prepared and implemented.

Leasable Fluid Minerals. The ACEC would be closed to fluid minerals leasing.

Leasable Solid Minerals. White Mountain Petroglyphs vista would be closed to coal and sodium

exploration.

VRM. The ACEC would be would be managed as a VRM Class I area.

2.5.8.1.5 Steamboat Mountain ACEC 

Steamboat Mountain ACEC would be expanded to include the area of highest concentration and overlap 

of big game habitat features, natural systems, and cultural values. These include the largest portion of elk 

crucial winter range and birthing area overlap, a portion of the sand dunes stabilized by the basin big 

sagebrush/lemon scurfpea plant community, and the Native American respected places of Indian Gap and 

portions of the Indian Gap Trail (Map 37). 

The basin big sagebrush/lemon scurfpea vegetation community would be further evaluated as a research

natural area and designated as if the criteria are met (Map 37).

Rights-of-Way. The ACEC would be managed as a right-of-way exclusion area.

Communication Sites. Communication sites would be prohibited in Steamboat Mountain ACEC.

OHV Use. OHV use would be limited to existing roads and trails.

Recreation. Location of interpretive and directional signs along backcountry byways would be

coordinated with state and local governments and other interested parties for Steamboat Mountain.

A recreation plan and interpretive prospectus would be prepared and implemented for Steamboat

Mountain.

Leasable Fluid Minerals. The ACEC would be closed to fluid minerals leasing consideration.

Leasable Solid Minerals. The ACEC would be closed to leasable solid minerals exploration and leasing.

Salable Minerals. The ACEC would be closed to mineral material sales.

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 2-59 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

Locatable Minerals. Withdrawals from mineral location would be pursued in the ACEC. 

VRM. The ACEC would be managed as a VRM Class I area. 

2.5.8.1.6 Greater Sand Dunes ACEC 

The Greater Sand Dunes ACEC would be expanded to include the paleosol deposition area (Map 37). 

The expansion area would be managed as a research natural area (RNA).

The portion of the ACEC within the WSA containing the dunal ponds (flockets) would be further

evaluated as a research natural area and designated as such if the criteria are met (Map 37).

Rights-of-Way. The ACEC would be managed as a right-of-way avoidance area (within 1 mile or the 

visual horizon, whichever is closer). The expansion area of ACEC (paleosol deposition area) would be 

managed as a right of way exclusion area. 

OHV Use. The portion of the ACEC containing the Greater Sand Dunes Recreation Area would be open

to OHV use. The remainder of the ACEC would be limited to designated roads and trails.

Leasable Fluid Minerals. The ACEC would be closed to fluid mineral leasing.

Leasable Solid Minerals. The ACEC would be closed to leasable solid minerals exploration and leasing.

Locatable Minerals. Withdrawals from mineral location would be pursued in the ACEC.

VRM. The ACEC would be managed as a VRM Class I area.

2.5.8.1.7 Special Status Plant Species ACEC 

The Special Status Plant Species ACEC would be expanded into the JMH CAP area where such species

are located (Map 37).

The Special Status Plant Species ACEC would be expanded into the JMH CAP area where potential

habitat for such species is located (Map 37).

Rights-of-Way. The ACEC would be managed as a right-of-way exclusion area.

OHV Use. The ACEC would be closed to OHV use.

Leasable Minerals. The ACEC would be closed to all mineral leasing.

Leasable Solid Minerals. The ACEC would be closed to coal and sodium exploration.

Salable Minerals. The ACEC would be closed to mineral material sales.

Rangeland Management. Salt or mineral supplements would not be allowed within 1⁄2 mile of areas

where special status plant species occur.

Vegetation treatments would be designed to protect and conform to special status plant species.

2-60 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

2.5.8.1.8 Cushion Plant Community ACEC 

Cushion plant communities would be designated an ACEC (Map 37). 

The Cushion Plant Community ACEC would be further evaluated for designation as an RNA and 

designated as such if the criteria are met. 

Rights-of-Way. The ACEC would be managed as an exclusion area for rights-of-way or other surface 

disturbing activities.

Leasable Solid Minerals. The ACEC would be closed to leasable solid minerals exploration and leasing.

Salable Minerals. The ACEC would be closed to mineral material sales.

Locatable Minerals. Withdrawals from mineral location would be pursued in the ACEC.

2.5.8.2 Other Management Areas 

2.5.8.2.1 Pinnacles Geologic Feature 

The Pinnacles Geologic Feature would be designated an ACEC.

Rights-of-Way. The area would be managed as a right-of-way exclusion area.

OHV Use. The area would be closed to OHV use.

Leasable Fluid Minerals. The area would be closed to fluid minerals leasing.

Leasable Solid Minerals. The area would be closed to leasable solid minerals exploration.

Salable Minerals. The area would be closed to mineral material sales.

Locatable Minerals. Withdrawals from mineral location would be pursued.

VRM. The area would be managed as a VRM Class I area.

2.5.8.2.2 Pinnacles Geographic Area 

Rights-of-Way. The area would be managed as a right-of-way exclusion area.

OHV Use. The area would be closed to OHV use.

Leasable Fluid Minerals. The area would be closed to fluid minerals leasing.

Leasable Solid Minerals. The area would be closed to leasable solid minerals exploration and leasing.

Salable Minerals. The area would be closed to mineral material sales.

Locatable Minerals. Withdrawals from mineral location would be pursued.

VRM. The area would be managed as a VRM Class I.

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 2-61 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

2.5.8.2.3 Red Desert Watershed Management Area 

Leasable Fluid Minerals. The area would be closed to fluid minerals leasing. 

VRM. The area would be managed as a VRM Class I area. 

2.6 ALTERNATIVE 3 

Alternative 3 provides opportunities to use and develop the planning area while ensuring resource 

protection. The alternative would allow development and activities to occur throughout the planning area 

provided sensitive resources are protected and mitigation requirements are met. Mitigation requirements 

necessary to ensure the stability of the sensitive resource indicators would be determined through an 

adaptive management approach to resource use and protection. 

2.6.1 Management Actions Common to All Resource or Land Use Programs 

Monitoring Plan. An interdisciplinary monitoring plan would be developed to evaluate the overall 

effectiveness of implementing the management decisions for the planning area. Site-specific monitoring 

plans would be developed for project proposals. 

Resource indicators, developed as part of an interdisciplinary monitoring plan, would be used for 

determining the effects of all activities on sensitive resources, with emphasis on wildlife and wildlife 

habitat. Consideration would be given to such factors as weather, disease, drought, hunting pressure, 

introduction of nonnative species, and recreation activities. Monitoring data would be assessed and 

response actions would be determined by an interdisciplinary BLM team with input from stakeholders 

and other publics. Timing and sequencing for approving all actions and use authorizations would be 

imposed if indicators show unacceptable effects on sensitive resources. 

2.6.2 Land and Water Resources Management 

2.6.2.1 General Management Actions for Land and Water Resources 

Healthy Rangelands. Same as described in Management Actions Common to All Alternatives (Section 

2.2). 

Proper Functioning Condition. Same as described in Management Actions Common to All 

Alternatives (Section 2.2). 

Desired Plant Community. In addition to Management Actions Common to All Alternatives (Section 

2.2), DPC objectives for upland and riparian areas would be established for the planning area through 

individual site-specific activity and implementation planning, and as updated ecological site inventory 

data becomes available. DPC objectives would emphasize wildlife habitat, livestock grazing, watershed, 

and biodiversity values while maintaining or enhancing habitat for special status species. 

Vegetation Treatments. Similar to the No Action Alternative, vegetation treatments would be designed 

on a case-by-case basis. Such activities may include seeding, reseeding, fence construction, weed control, 

water development, and enhancement of fish and wildlife habitat. Vegetation treatments would be used 

to abate, alter, or transform vegetation communities in an effort to achieve DPC objectives, protect water 

quality, dissipate erosion, and conform to requirements to protect special status plant species and 

associated habitats (Appendix 6). This may include activities such as manual or mechanical 

manipulation, chemical treatments, and prescribed burns (Appendix 8). Prescribed burns would be the 

2-62 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

preferred method of vegetation manipulation to convert stands of brush to grasslands and to promote 

regeneration of aspen stands and/or shrub species. Low-intensity burns during periods of high soil 

moisture would be the preferred method/times in mountain shrub communities. Prescribed burns would 

be restricted in areas with surface coal or other fossil fuel outcrops. All vegetation treatments would be 

irregular in shape for edge effect, cover, and visual aesthetics. 

Areas proposed for treatment with prescribed burns would be rested 1 full year prior to treatment (unless 

vegetation cover prior to burning has adequate fine fuels to carry the fire) and 24 months after treatment. 

Treatments in aspen communities would be fenced on a case-by-case basis. 

Fences. Fences on public lands would be removed, modified, or reconstructed where documented 

wildlife conflicts with fencing occur. Herding control of livestock would be encouraged as an alternative 

to fencing. Similar to the No Action Alternative, fence construction would be in accordance with BLM 

design standards and located so as not to overly impede wildlife or wild horse movement. 

Watershed Health Assessments. Same as described for Management Actions Common to All 

Alternatives (Section 2.2). 

Native Vegetation. Same as described in the No Action Alternative (Section 2.3). 

2.6.2.2 Fire Management 

Fire Management Implementation Plan. Same as described in Management Actions Common to All 

Alternatives (Section 2.2). 

Fire Suppression. Similar to the No Action Alternative, full fire suppression for basin big 

sagebrush/lemon scurfpea vegetation associations would be applied. 

2.6.2.3 Water Resources Management 

Water Quality. In addition to Management Actions Common to All Alternatives (Section 2.2), the area 

within 500 feet to 1⁄4 mile of wetlands, riparian areas, and 100-year floodplains would be avoidance areas 

for surface disturbing activities. The appropriate distance would be determined on a case-by-case basis. 

Surface disturbing activities could be permitted within avoidance areas, provided that a mitigation plan is 

approved and a site-specific analysis determines that adverse impacts would not occur as a result of the 

activity, similar to the No Action Alternative. 

Permanent Facilities. Permanent facilities, such as storage tanks and structure pits, would not be 

allowed in 100-year floodplains, wetlands, and riparian areas, but structures that would enhance the 

protection and management of these areas would be considered. Proposals for linear crossings in these 

areas would be considered on a case-by-case basis. 

Erosion Control. Same as described for the No Action Alternative (Section 2.3). 

Colorado River Salinity Control. Same as described in Management Actions Common to All 

Alternatives (Section 2.2). 

Wetlands and Floodplains. Wetlands and floodplains would be managed in accordance with Executive 

Orders 11988 and 11990 and section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Specific actions would be implemented 

to protect the ecological integrity of the dunal ponds and other ecologically important ephemeral wetlands 

not covered under section 404 of the Clean Water Act, similar to Alternative 2. 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 2-63 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

Riparian Management Exclosures. Same as described in the No Action Alternative (Section 2.3). 

Fluid Mineral Wells. Same as described in Management Actions Common to All Alternatives (Section 

2.2). 

Aquifer Recharge Areas. Aquifer recharge areas would be managed to maintain or enhance recharge 

volume and ground water quality by limiting road density and surface occupancy to maintain a healthy 

recharge area. Studies would be conducted in relation to specific projects on a case-by-case basis to 

better define aquifer recharge area boundaries. 

2.6.2.4 Wild Horses Management 

Wild Horse Herd Management Area Boundaries and Appropriate Management Levels. The Great 

Divide Basin HMA would be expanded to include the entire JMH CAP planning area (Map 38). The 

appropriate management level would be maintained at 415 to 600 horses, but no more than 100 horses of 

the AML would be allowed in the expansion area. 

Activity and Monitoring Plans. Same as described in Management Actions Common to All 

Alternatives (Section 2.2). 

Water Developments. Water developments would be provided as needed to improve wild horse herd 

distribution and manage forage utilization. Water developments within sensitive wildlife habitats would 

be considered only if wildlife habitat and resource conditions are improved or maintained. 

Gathering Plan. Same as described in the No Action Alternative (Section 2.3). 

Public Education. Same as described in the No Action Alternative (Section 2.3). 

2.6.2.5 Livestock Grazing Management 

Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management. Same as described in Management Actions Common 

to All Alternatives (Section 2.2). 

Rangeland and Riparian Habitat. Same as described in the No Action Alternative (Section 2.3). 

Forage Utilization Levels. Same as described in Management Actions Common to All Alternatives 

(Section 2.2). 

Livestock Water Developments and Range Improvements. Similar to the No Action Alternative, 

livestock water developments and range improvements would be considered to maintain or improve 

resource conditions and/or enhance livestock distribution. Compatibility with special status plant species 

would be required. Water developments or range improvements proposed in sensitive wildlife habitat 

would be considered only if wildlife habitat and resource conditions are maintained or improved. 

Salt or Mineral Supplements. Salt or mineral supplements would not be allowed within 1⁄4 mile of 

riparian habitat, National Historic and Scenic Trails, areas inhabited by special status plant species, or 

other sensitive resource areas, unless analysis shows that watershed, riparian, and wildlife values, or the 

integrity of trails, would not be adversely affected. 

2-64 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

2.6.2.6 Vegetation Management 

Special Status Plant Species. Similar to the No Action Alternative, specific management actions related 

to known locations of special status species habitat include closing locations to surface disturbing 

activities or any disruptive activity that could adversely affect the plants or their habitat; location of new 

mining claims; mineral material sales; OHV use, including those vehicles used for geophysical 

exploration activities and surveying; and use of explosives and blasting. Surface disturbing activities also 

would be prohibited in special status plant species potential habitat areas. 

Rights-of-Way Limitations. Actual plant locations and/or potential habitat of Wyoming BLM sensitive 

plant species would be right-of-way exclusion areas. Exceptions could be considered on a case-by-case 

basis. 

Fire Suppression. Fire suppression activities would also be limited within special status plant species 

habitat. 

Threatened and Endangered Plant Species. Same as described in Management Actions Common to 

All Alternatives (Section 2.2). 

Invasive Species. Same as described in Management Actions Common to All Alternatives (Section 2.2). 

Forest and Woodland Health. Same as described in Management Actions Common to All Alternatives 

(Section 2.2). 

2.6.2.7 Wildlife Habitat Management 

Habitat Management Plan. Same as described in the No Action Alternative (Section 2.3). 

Water Developments. Same as described in Management Actions Common to All Alternatives (Section 

2.2). 

Special Status Wildlife Species. Same as described in the No Action Alternative (Section 2.3). 

Sensitive Habitat. Same as described in Management Actions Common to All Alternatives (Section 

2.2). 

Predator Damage Control. The planning area would be designated a Restricted Control Area, as 

described in Alternative 2. Lethal animal damage control would be allowed in animal damage control for 

both livestock and wildlife; however, nonlethal controls would be emphasized. 

Greater Sage-Grouse Leks, Nesting, and Early Brood-Rearing Habitat. NSO limitations would 

apply only to greater sage-grouse leks (with a 1⁄2-mile buffer). Disruptive activities would avoid occupied 

greater sage-grouse leks and within 1⁄2 mile of nesting and brood-rearing areas from sunset to 9:00 a.m. 

daily. Disruptive activities would avoid occupied greater sage-grouse leks from usually March 15 to May 

15. The actual area to be avoided, usually within 1⁄4 to 1⁄2 mile of the lek, and appropriate seasonal 

limitations would be determined on a case-by-case basis. Seasonal limitations on surface disturbing and 

disruptive activities (usually from March 15 to July 15) would apply within actual nesting and early 

brood-rearing habitat up to 2 miles from greater sage-grouse leks on a case-by-case basis (Map 39). 

Nesting and early brood-rearing habitats would be protected from habitat degradation, and measures 

would be taken to improve habitat quality within 2 miles from greater sage-grouse leks (Map 39) on an 

as-needed basis. 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 2-65 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

Greater Sage-Grouse Winter Range. Disruptive activities would be prohibited in greater sage-grouse 

winter range (Map 39) usually from November 15 to March 15. These areas are subject to change based 

on new data and scientific information. 

All Greater Sage-Grouse Habitats (Leks, Nesting, Early Brood-Rearing, and Winter Range). Same 

as described in the No Action Alternative (Section 2.3). 

Maintenance and Operational Activities in Greater Sage-Grouse Habitats. In greater sage-grouse 

habitats, surface disturbing maintenance and operational activities would require mitigation measures or 

development plans. These mitigation measures or development plans would be based on local situations 

on a case-by-case basis. 

Big Game Winter Range. Same as described in the No Action Alternative (Section 2.3). 

Big Game Birthing Areas. Same as described in the No Action Alternative (Section 2.3). 

Black-Footed Ferret. In addition to the management described in the No Action Alternative, measures 

would be taken, as appropriate, to reduce potential raptor perches in and around prairie dog towns and 

colonies, as described in Alternative 1. 

Mountain Plover. The mountain plover would be managed as described in Alternative 2. 

Game Fish and Special Status Fish Species. Game fish and special status fish species would be 

managed as described in the No Action Alternative. 

Raptor Nesting Sites. Raptor nesting sites would be managed as described in the No Action Alternative. 

Introduction and Reintroduction of Species. Same as described in Management Actions Common to 

All Alternatives (Section 2.2). 

2.6.3 Heritage Resources Management 

Heritage Resources Protection. In addition to Management Actions Common to All Alternatives 

(Section 2.2), an appropriate level of inventory and analysis of all surface disturbing activities would be 

conducted to determine the potential effect of the activity on heritage resources, similar to the No Action 

Alternative. 

Protection of Scientific Values. In addition to Management Actions Common to All Alternatives 

(Section 2.2), the Finley, Krmpotich, and Eden-Farson archaeological sites, and the paleosol deposition 

area, have been identified as important heritage resource sites. These sites would be managed to protect 

their scientific value. The confidential locations of the Finley, Krmpotich, and Eden-Farson 

archaeological sites would be maintained, but interpretive information would be developed and made 

available at the RSFO. The boundaries of the Greater Sand Dunes ACEC would be expanded to include 

the paleosol deposition area. Surface disturbing activities proposed in the paleosol deposition area would 

be evaluated on a case-by-case basis after an archaeological inventory of the area. The heritage resource 

inventory would include subsurface testing by remote sensing techniques, hand-dug test excavations, 

mechanical testing, or other appropriate methods approved by BLM in consultation with SHPO. 

Mitigation may include research-oriented data recovery excavation conducted pursuant to a Data 

Recovery Plan approved by BLM in consultation with SHPO. 

2-66 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

National Register Eligible Sites. All National Register-eligible historic sites would continue to be 

protected through provisions of the NHPA, and several high-profile sites would be nominated for 

inclusion in the NRHP. Project proponents would be required to fund the preparation of National 

Register nominations. Sites eligible for inclusion in the NRHP under Criterion D would be surrounded by 

a 100-foot avoidance area. 

Native American Sites. Areas located in Steamboat Mountain, Steamboat Rim, White Mountain Rim, 

Essex Mountain, Monument Ridge, Joe Hay Rim, and the Indian Gap Trail have been identified as 

respected places by tribal representatives. These locations may include sacred sites or traditional cultural 

properties and may be eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. Native American tribal leaders would be 

consulted prior to authorization of activities that could disrupt or disturb respected places. Surface 

disturbance and disruptive activities would be prohibited within a specific distance, but not less than 100 

feet, of these and other Native American respected places, similar to the No Action Alternative. 

Appropriate viewshed management areas associated with these sites would be determined through siteand activity-specific consultations with Native American representatives, SHPO, and the development 

proponent. Viewshed management goals would correspond with existing VRM classification. This may 

necessitate limiting, or mitigating the visibility of permanent intrusions generally within a 270-degree 

radius from the identified respected place to the prominent landscape features. 

Information would be gathered on the Indian Gap Trail, the trail would be mapped, and an interpretive 

plan developed. 

Expansion Era Roads and Associated Sites. Expansion era roads and associated sites have been 

identified and would continue to be protected under provisions of the NHPA. The portion of the roads 

and sites that contribute to their NRHP eligibility would be nominated for listing in the NRHP. Surface 

disturbing activities would be limited within 1⁄4 mile of eligible trail segments or sites. 

Historic Livestock Management Sites. Numerous livestock tending campsites and other pastoral 

agricultural sites have been identified throughout the JMH CAP planning area. Some of these locations 

may be eligible for inclusion in the NRHP within the context of the development of pastoral agriculture in 

Wyoming and the Rocky Mountain region. These sites would continue to be protected under provisions 

of the NHPA. Surface disturbance would be limited within a minimum area of 100 feet at identified sites 

determined eligible for the NRHP. 

Native and Euro-American Sites. Historic and archaeological sites within the context of early contact 

between Native Americans and Euro-American peoples have been identified, but they are understood 

only in general terms. The historical context of these sites would continue to be developed, and an 

interpretive program would be developed and implemented to improve public appreciation of these 

locations. Sites may be nominated to the NRHP and/or included in the Backcountry Byways program on 

a case-by-case basis. 

Paleontological Sites. Same as described in Management Actions Common to All Alternatives (Section 

2.2). 

Unique Geologic Features. Management of Boars Tusk and the surrounding area would be the same as 

described in the No Action Alternative. 

The Pinnacles Geographic Area (about 8,900 acres) would be an exclusion area for rights-of-way and a 

VRM Class I. The area within a 1⁄2 mile of the Pinnacles Geologic Feature, and including the features, 

would be closed to vehicular travel. 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 2-67 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

Tri-Territory Marker. Management would be the same as described in the No Action Alternative. 

2.6.4 Travel, Access, and Realty Management 

Travel management, access limitations, and realty actions would be developed if protection from 

unacceptable impacts to sensitive resource areas were possible. 

Transportation Planning. Transportation planning would provide for appropriate access routes to 

provide maximum protection for crucial habitats and sensitive resources. A transportation plan specific to 

the JMH CAP planning area would be developed in coordination with local governments and users. The 

transportation plan could include mitigation measures (such as offsite placement of facilities, remote 

control monitoring, restricted or prohibited surface use including road construction, multiple wells from a 

single pad, central tank batteries/facilities, pipelines and power lines concentrated in specific areas, based 

on site-specific analysis) in areas subject to seasonal limitations and CSU and NSO stipulations. 

Transportation planning would include coordination with local governments, stakeholders and other 

publics. 

Transportation planning would consider— 

• Access restrictions, such as seasonal road closures and/or gating, to limit frequency of access in 

crucial wildlife habitat. 

• Rerouting or rehabilitating existing roads and trails causing resource damage. This would be 

subject to county review of existing rights-of-way needs. 

• Concentrating stream and riparian area crossings in key locations to avoid disruptions. 

Exceptions may be granted if crossings would reduce adverse effects, benefit area objectives, and 

reduce miles of road (and/or frequency of use). Bridges may be required on Pacific, Jack 

Morrow, Parnell, and Rock Cabin creeks. 

• Posting speed limits as necessary to protect wildlife and public health and safety and to meet area 

objectives. 

Travel Management Plan. In conjunction with the overall transportation planning for JMH, a travel 

management plan (Map 29) would be developed for the Steamboat Mountain, White Mountain, the two 

northern calving areas, and Essex Mountain to control access in these areas. 

Road Installations. Proposed road installations and improvements would follow the Green River RMP 

management objectives and applicable BLM guidelines until a JMH Transportation Plan is prepared and 

approved. Exceptions to the plan would address site-specific conditions so as to minimize impacts on 

natural and cultural resource values. Similar to Alternative 2, proposed roads and improvements for 

Steamboat Mountain and White Mountain would follow the guidelines specified in Appendix 12. 

Geophysical Activities. Geophysical vehicular activities, including detonation activities, would be 

excluded from areas with NSO requirements, WSAs, ACECs, and other sensitive resource areas. 

Seasonal limitations would apply. Exceptions would be granted provided adequate mitigation measures 

could be implemented. 

Rights-of-Way. Areas would be designated as right-of-way avoidance or exclusion areas based on the 

location of specific sensitive resources. Areas closed to surface occupancy and mineral leasing would be 

right-of-way exclusion areas (Map 40). 

2-68 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

Linear Rights-of-Way. Similar to Alternative 2, utility and transportation corridors to accommodate 

major linear right-of-way needs would be established to coincide with existing roads, trails, and right-ofway easements. 

Winter Access. Winter access would be limited to specific roads identified for winter use. Where winter 

access on roads other than those identified for winter access in the transportation plan is necessary, routes 

would be determined on a case-by-case basis in accordance with transportation planning requirements. 

Plowing would be allowed as needed. 

OHV Management. Public lands in the JMH CAP planning area would remain open, limited, or closed 

(Map 41). The OHV management prescriptions would limit access to designated roads and trails in 

sensitive resource areas. Seasonal closures would be implemented in sensitive habitat areas. WSAs and 

specific sensitive resource areas would be closed, but the Greater Sand Dunes Recreation Area would 

remain open. Exceptions to OHV use may be granted in closed areas for scientific purposes or for 

emergency access needs. 

Over-the-Snow Vehicles. Same as described in Management Actions Common to All Alternatives 

(Section 2.2). 

Land Withdrawals and Exchanges. Same as described in Management Actions Common to All 

Alternatives (Section 2.2). 

Ownership Adjustments. Same as described in Management Actions Common to All Alternatives 

(Section 2.2). 

Access. Similar to the No Action Alternative, access to public, state, and private land would be provided 

throughout the planning area and would be restricted only where necessary to protect public health and 

safety and to protect sensitive resources. Access would be guaranteed across public lands to landlocked 

private and state lands consistent with the guidelines and objectives set down in FLPMA. 

2.6.5 Recreation Resources Management 

Management of recreation resources would allow for passive and active use of the planning area while 

maximizing the protection of environmental resources and the health and safety of users, similar to 

Alternative 2. Emphasis would be placed on the primitive experience for visitors, with less disruption of 

resources and more restrictions within the planning area, including OHV use. 

Backcountry Byways. More visitor information and interpretive services would be provided to enhance 

the visitor experience, similar to Alternative 2. Recreation project plans would be developed for the 

Backcountry Byways program (Tri-Territory Loop and Red Desert) and would include interpretive and 

directional signs. The location of these signs would be coordinated with state and local governments and 

other interested parties for the Red Desert view point from dugway of Steamboat Mountain, Chicken 

Springs overlook, Steamboat Mountain, Oregon Buttes, Honeycomb Buttes, and Indian Gap. 

Greater Sand Dunes Recreation Area. The parking area and camping facilities at the Greater Sand 

Dunes Recreation Area would be maintained in their current condition. To avoid conflicts with fluid 

minerals development on existing leases and to protect the health and safety of users, the recreation area 

would not be expanded or improved to accommodate additional users, similar to Alternative 1. 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 2-69 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

Recreation Project Plans. Recreation project plans and interpretive prospectuses would be prepared 

similar to Management Actions Common to All Alternatives (Section 2.2), except that plans and 

prospectuses would also be prepared for Native American sites, including Indian Gap. 

Camping. Similar to Alternative 2, specific areas would be designated for camping use to protect certain 

resources, such as sensitive plant species, riparian areas, greater sage-grouse leks, mountain plover 

aggregation areas, and big game birthing areas. To monitor resource use and impact and to minimize 

disturbance during sensitive seasonal periods, parties of 10 or more would require a group camping 

permit and would stay within designated group camping areas. 

Special Recreation Use Permits. Similar to Alternative 2, special recreation use permits for managed 

activities that would occur in the JMH CAP planning area would be issued and renewed through the 

RSFO. This would allow the RSFO to track the amount, location, and timing of organized activity 

occurring within the planning area to monitor resource pressure. Similar to the No Action Alternative, the 

permit evaluation process would consider the nature of the event, potential impacts to resources, conflicts 

with other events, and impacts to the quality of other visitors’ experiences. Mitigation measures 

necessary to protect the resources would be included in any permit issued. A plan of operation would be 

required for all commercial recreational operators and outfitters. The plan would describe the type, 

extent, and location of the recreation use and the mechanisms by which the operator/outfitter would 

prevent impacts to environmental resources. Any requests in special recreation use permit applications to 

remove natural resources would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis after an environmental analysis 

process. 

Recreational Mining and Other Similar Activity. Recreational mining and other similar activities 

would be limited to a 5-acre site located in the Dickie Springs-Oregon Gulch Placer Mining District area. 

A recreation site plan would be prepared and implemented to manage the site for recreational purposes. 

Continental Peak/South Pass Connecting Side Trail. The Continental Peak/South Pass Connecting 

Side Trail would be managed the same as described in Alternative 2. 

2.6.6 Minerals and Alternative Energy Resources Management 

Alternative 3 would allow development as long as sensitive resources are protected from unacceptable 

impacts. 

2.6.6.1 Leasable Fluid Minerals Management 

Oil and Gas Leases. In addition to Management Actions Common to All Alternatives (Section 2.2), 

lease sales would be offered based on industry interest in areas available for leasing and development 

(Map 42). Development rates in the planning area would be controlled by offering new leases, with 

stipulations that give BLM the authority to time and sequence development activities. The timing and 

sequencing restrictions would be implemented in a manner that protects the leaseholder’s contract rights, 

such as placing a lease in suspension until it can be developed without contributing to unacceptable 

impacts. This would allow interested parties to bid on leases in a systematic manner, whereby they could 

bid on all available areas in which they have an interest. Imposition of timing and sequencing restrictions 

would be based on monitoring of sensitive resource indicators that could include, but not be limited to, 

wildlife population trends, reproduction rates, observed ranges, and habitat integrity. An interdisciplinary 

team would review the monitoring data and determine acceptable levels of development activity. The 

timing and sequencing of development on an individual lease would include consideration of the 

following factors: 

2-70 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

• Data trends for indicators of the viability of potentially impacted wildlife and other sensitive 

resources, including impacts on indicators from other causes, such as disease, drought, or hunting 

approved through wildlife management activities by BLM or other agencies 

• Fragmentation of habitat and migration pathways due to preexisting development 

• Net amount of surface disturbance, including approved development activities, that will be 

implemented in nearby areas and planned reclamation of existing surface disturbances 

• Systematic development of the fluid mineral resources by the operator on individual leases and 

other leases within sensitive resource areas (i.e., allowing development of selected leases by an 

operator while other leases are held in suspension, followed by successive lease reinstatement and 

development as previously developed areas are reclaimed). 

Lease Stipulations. The lease stipulations notify the leaseholder that development activities may be 

limited, prohibited, or implemented with mitigation measures to protect specific resources (Table 2-2). 

As described in the Oil and Gas Leases paragraph for this section, stipulations may include provisions for 

timing and sequencing of development activities based on monitoring of sensitive resource indicators. 

Emphasis would be on protection of wildlife and wildlife habitat. 

Drilling Permits. In addition to Management Actions Common to All Alternatives (Section 2.2), for 

new leases BLM would issue COAs on APDs to implement lease stipulations. Operational requirements 

may include use of remote control for well operations, noise mitigation, and modification of structures for 

wildlife protection. For existing leases that do not contain stipulations, BLM could issue COAs that 

would allow necessary impacts for development to be technically feasible or economically viable. COAs 

for timing limitations would be based on monitoring of sensitive resource indicators, as described in the 

Oil and Gas Leases and Lease Stipulations paragraphs of this section. All APDs and development actions 

would be required to be in compliance with 43 CFR 3100. Development actions would not be permitted 

that did not comply with mandatory resource protection requirements, such as protection of threatened or 

endangered species and air and water quality regulations. In addition, refer to Section 2.6.4 for additional 

mitigation measures that may apply as part of the transportation plan. 

2.6.6.2 Leasable Solid Minerals Management 

Exploration. Most of the planning area would be open to coal exploration activities, with avoidance and 

mitigation requirements needed to protect the resources (Map 43). Areas closed to coal exploration 

activities would be similar to those specified for the No Action Alternative. In addition, the Cushion 

Plant Community ACEC, Pinnacles Geographic Area, Steamboat Mountain ACEC, and greater sagegrouse leks and the 1⁄2 mile surrounding them would be closed to coal exploration. The exploration 

activity would also be required to comply with existing standard practices, best management practices, 

and guidelines for surface disturbing activities (Appendices 5 and 6). 

Leasing. Coal leases could be offered in the parts of the Coal Occurrence and Development Potential 

Area that are open to leasing, as this area has been evaluated using the 20-point suitability screening 

process (Map 44). Areas outside this part of the planning area may also be leased for coal development 

but would have to meet the suitability criteria for coal leasing. To develop a mine on a lease, a mine plan 

and the required permits from the Office of Surface Mining, Reclamation and Enforcement, and state and 

local agencies, would have to be prepared. Restrictions on mining activity, such as NSO, or subsurface 

mining with controls on surface facilities, would be required on coal leases where needed for resource 

protection. The areas with coal leasing limitations and the areas closed to coal leasing for Alternative 3 

are the same as those specified in the No Action Alternative. 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 2-71 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

2.6.6.3 Locatable Minerals Management 

Locatable Mineral Withdrawals. Proposed withdrawals from locatable minerals identified in the Green 

River RMP would be pursued (Map 45). Withdrawals from mineral location would be pursued in the 

northern elk calving areas, the potential diamond development area of Steamboat Mountain ACEC, and 

areas with NSO requirements including active raptor next sites and Indian Gap. Other withdrawals could 

be pursued, as necessary. 

Withdrawals would be revoked for lands classified as prospectively valuable for oil shale. Upon 

revocation, the area would be open to the filing of mining claims, exploration, and development of 

locatable minerals. The White Mountain Petroglyphs ACEC and Boars Tusk, located in the oil shale 

classification lands, would be withdrawn from mineral location prior to the revocation. 

Withdrawals would be revoked for lands classified as prospectively valuable for coal. Upon revocation, 

the area would be open to filing of mining claims, exploration, and development of all locatable minerals. 

Areas that would be withdrawn from mineral location prior to the revocation of the coal classification 

include Greater Sand Dunes ACEC (western portion), Crookston Ranch, public water reserves, Indian 

Gap, Tri-Territory Marker, and South Pass Summit. Because Alternative 3 includes designation of the 

Special Status Plants ACEC, this area would be withdrawn to implement protection of these plants, which 

would be an equivalent action to withdrawal of special status plant species sites under the No Action 

Alternative. Active raptor nest sites would also be pursued for withdrawal. Specific management actions 

would be taken to provide for recreational mining in the designated area, including removal and 

stockpiling of soil, and excavating material to provide access for recreational miners. 

2.6.6.4 Salable Minerals Management 

Mineral Material Sales. The planning area would be open to mineral material sales where required to 

meet planning objectives, such as construction and maintenance of roads in the approved transportation 

plan, construction of recreational facilities, or other construction related to approved development 

activities (Map 46). Mining and reclamation plans would be required for each use of salable mineral 

materials. 

Areas currently closed to mineral material sales would remain closed, with the exception of Steamboat 

Mountain ACEC. The lava rock portion of Steamboat Mountain would be closed to mineral material 

sales, and the remainder of the ACEC would be available for salable mineral development as required to 

meet other planning objectives in this portion of the planning area. Areas closed to mineral materials 

sales under Alternative 3 would include Crookston Ranch, Oregon Buttes ACEC, Native American burial 

sites, Boars Tusk, White Mountain Petroglyphs, Sand Dunes ACEC, South Pass Historic Landscape 

ACEC and viewshed, the lava rock portion of Steamboat Mountain, Special Status Plant Species ACEC, 

and greater sage-grouse leks with a 1⁄2-mile buffer. 

2.6.6.5 Alternative Energy Management 

Alternative Energy Proposals. The planning area would be open to alternative energy development 

projects, such as wind or solar farms, consistent with the resource protection requirements and the 

transportation plan under this alternative. Permits or leases would that would allow these developments 

to occur would include mitigation requirements to protect sensitive resources, and would meet the 

location requirements for utility lines and roads required in the transportation plan. Site-specific 

assessments would be required to identify potential impacts from construction activity and operation 

noise on wildlife, heritage resources, and visual resources. 

2-72 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

2.6.7 Visual Resources Management 

The planning area would be managed to maintain or improve scenic quality by managing the impacts of 

human activities and other intrusions on the visual landscape (Map 47). The VRM classes provide the 

design standards for all surface disturbing projects. Projects would be designed, sited, screened, or 

painted to reduce visual impacts regardless of the VRM classification. 

VRM Class I Areas. Same as described in Management Actions Common to All Alternatives (Section 

2.2). 

VRM Class II Areas. Management actions on lands classified as VRM Class II would be designed to 

blend into the natural landscape. A visual transition area of 1 mile adjacent to each WSA would be 

managed as Class II to retain the existing character of the WSA landscape. A low level of change would 

be acceptable to the characteristic landscapes of the ACECs, thus South Pass Historic Landscape, White 

Mountain Petroglyphs, Steamboat Mountain, Special Status Plant Species, and Cushion Plant Community 

ACECs, and the part of Greater Sand Dunes ACEC outside the WSA would be managed as VRM Class 

II. Oregon Buttes ACEC lies entirely within the WSA and thus is managed as VRM Class I. Unique 

geological features and landforms, including Indian Gap and Boars Tusk, Split Rock, portions of White 

Mountain, the western part of the Red Desert Watershed that falls in the planning area, and the 

contributing portion of the National Historic Trail and National Scenic Trails, would also be managed as 

VRM Class II. Surface disturbing activities could be seen in these areas but would not attract the 

attention of the casual observer. 

VRM Class III Areas. Management actions on lands classified as VRM Class III would be designed to 

partially retain the existing character of the landscape and would allow a moderate level of change. The 

area known as Eden Valley would be managed as Class III. Surface disturbing activities could attract 

attention but would not dominate the view of the casual observer. 

VRM Class IV Areas. Management actions on lands classified as VRM Class IV could result in a major 

modification to the existing character of the landscape. The level of change to the landscape could be 

high. The remainder of the planning area not managed as VRM Class I, II, or III would be managed as 

Class IV. Surface disturbing activities could dominate the view of the casual observer and would be the 

major focus of attention. 

2.6.8 Management of Special Management Areas and Other Management

Areas 

Special management areas would continue to be managed to preserve and protect the integrity and 

character of the specific areas in accordance with ACEC policies and WSA interim management policies. 

Other resources and locations throughout the planning area that would be worthy of special protections 

would be designated as special management areas (Map 48). 

2.6.8.1 Special Management Areas 

2.6.8.1.1 Wilderness Study Areas 

Geophysical Activities. Geophysical exploration and related detonation activities would be prohibited. 

Rights-of-Way. These areas would be managed as right-of-way exclusion areas. 

Locatable Minerals. A plan of operations would be required for all activities greater than casual use. 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 2-73 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

2.6.8.1.2 Oregon Buttes ACEC 

Geophysical Activities. Geophysical activities and related detonation activities would be prohibited in 

Oregon Buttes ACEC. 

Rights-of-Way. The ACEC would be managed as a right-of-way exclusion area.

Recreation. Location of interpretive and directional signs along backcountry byways would be

coordinated with state and local governments and other interested parties for Oregon Buttes.

A recreation project plan and interpretive prospectus would be prepared and implemented for Oregon

Buttes.

Locatable Minerals. A plan of operations would be required for all activities greater than casual use.

2.6.8.1.3 South Pass Historic Landscape ACEC 

Rights-of-Way. The South Pass Historic Landscape ACEC (portion not visible) would be managed as a 

right-of-way avoidance area. The South Pass Historic Landscape ACEC (visible portion) would be 

managed as a right-of way exclusion area. 

OHV Use. OHV use within the South Pass Historic Landscape ACEC (visible portion) would be limited 

to designated roads and trails. OHV use within the nonvisible portion would be limited to existing roads 

and trails. 

Leasable Fluid Minerals. The South Pass Historic Landscape ACEC (visible portion) would be open to 

consideration of fluid minerals leasing with NSO requirements. 

The South Pass Historic Landscape ACEC (nonvisible portion) would be open to consideration of fluid 

minerals leasing consideration with stipulations to protect other resources. Stipulations could include but 

would not be limited to NSO requirements, CSU, and timing of development activity (Map 42). 

Leasable Solid Minerals. The South Pass Historic Landscape ACEC (visible portion) would be closed 

to leasable solid minerals exploration and leasing. 

Locatable Minerals. Withdrawal from mineral location would be pursued on South Pass Summit. 

Withdrawal from mineral location would also be pursued for the northern elk calving areas in part of the 

South Pass historic Landscape ACEC. 

VRM. The entire ACEC would be managed as a VRM Class II area. 

The South Pass Historic Landscape ACEC viewshed would be maintained from approximately 3 miles of 

the Oregon, Mormon, California, and Pony Express National Historic Trail routes. Intrusions within the 

viewshed area could be allowed provided the results of a visual analysis indicate they are not visible from 

the trail routes or that they can be mitigated. 

2.6.8.1.4 White Mountain Petroglyphs ACEC 

Recreation. A recreation plan and interpretive prospectus would be prepared and implemented. 

Leasable Fluid Minerals. The ACEC would be open to consideration of fluid minerals leasing with 

NSO requirements. 

2-74 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

Leasable Solid Minerals. White Mountain Petroglyphs Vista would be closed to coal and sodium 

exploration. 

VRM. The ACEC would be managed as VRM Class II area. 

2.6.8.1.5 Steamboat Mountain ACEC 

Steamboat Mountain ACEC would be expanded to include all of Indian Gap and the face of Steamboat 

Mountain. This would include portions of the basin big sagebrush/lemon scurfpea vegetation community 

(Map 48). 

Rights-of-Way. The southern portion of the ACEC would be managed as a right-of-way exclusion area. 

The remainder of the ACEC would be managed as a right-of-way avoidance area. 

Communication Sites. Communication sites would be prohibited in Steamboat Mountain ACEC. 

OHV Use. OHV use would be limited to designated roads and trails. 

Recreation. Location of interpretive and directional signs along backcountry byways would be 

coordinated with state and local governments and other interested parties for Steamboat Mountain. 

A recreation plan and interpretive prospectus would be prepared and implemented for Steamboat 

Mountain. 

Leasable Fluid Minerals. Steamboat Mountain ACEC would be open to consideration of fluid minerals 

leasing consideration with stipulations to protect other resources. Stipulations could include but would 

not be limited to NSO and CSU requirements and timing of development activity (Map 42). 

Leasable Solid Minerals. The entire ACEC would be closed to solid leasable solid minerals exploration 

and leasing. 

Salable Minerals. The lava portion of the ACEC would be closed to mineral material sales. The 

remainder of the ACEC would be open only when required to meet other planning objectives within the 

JMH CAP planning area. 

Locatable Minerals. Withdrawal from mineral location would be pursued in the potential diamond 

development area of Steamboat Mountain ACEC. 

VRM. The entire ACEC would be managed as a VRM class II area. 

2.6.8.1.6 Greater Sand Dunes ACEC 

The Greater Sand Dunes ACEC would be expanded to include the paleosol deposition area (Map 37).

Rights-of-Way. The ACEC would be managed as a right-of-way avoidance area.

OHV Use. The portion of the ACEC containing the Greater Sand Dunes Recreation Area would be open

to OHV use. The remainder of the ACEC would be limited to existing roads and trails. 

Leasable Fluid Minerals. The portion of the ACEC outside the WSA would be open to consideration of 

fluid minerals leasing with stipulations to protect other resources. Stipulations could include but would 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 2-75 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

not be limited to NSO and CSU requirements and timing of development activity (Map 42). Other 

portions of the ACEC would be closed to fluid mineral leasing (Map 42). 

Leasable Solid Minerals. The western portion of the ACEC would be closed to leasable solid minerals 

exploration and leasing. The eastern portion of the ACEC within the coal development potential area 

would be open to leasable solid minerals exploration and leasing using only subsurface mining methods 

and controls on surface facilities. 

Locatable Minerals. Withdrawals from mineral location would be pursued in the western portion of the 

ACEC. 

VRM. The ACEC would be managed as a VRM Class II area. 

2.6.8.1.7 Special Status Plants ACEC 

The Special Status Plant Species ACEC would be expanded into the JMH CAP area where such species

are located (Map 37).

Rights-of-Way. The ACEC would be managed as a right-of-way exclusion area.

OHV Use. The ACEC would be closed to OHV use.

Leasable Minerals. The ACEC would be open to consideration for mineral leasing with NSO

requirements.

Leasable Solid Minerals. The ACEC would be closed to coal and sodium exploration.

Salable Minerals. The ACEC would be closed to mineral material sales.

Locatable Minerals. Withdrawals from mineral location would be pursued where special status plants

occur.

Rangeland Management. Salt or mineral supplements would not be allowed within 1⁄4 mile of areas

where special status plant species occur.

Vegetation treatments would be designed to protect and conform to special status plant species.

2.6.8.1.8 Cushion Plant Community ACEC 

Cushion plant communities would be designated an ACEC (Map 37).

Rights-of-Way. The ACEC would be managed as an avoidance area for rights-of-way or other surface

disturbing activities.

Leasable Solid Minerals. The ACEC would be closed to leasable solid minerals exploration.

2.6.8.2 Other Management Areas 

2.6.8.2.1 Pinnacles Geologic Feature 

The Pinnacles Geologic Feature would continue to be managed as part of the Red Desert Watershed 

Management Area, as provided in the Green River RMP. 

2-76 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

Rights-of-Way. The area would be managed as a right-of-way exclusion area.

OHV Use. The area would be closed to OHV use.

Leasable Fluid Minerals. The area would be closed to fluid minerals leasing.

Leasable Solid Minerals. The area would be closed to leasable solid minerals exploration.

Salable Minerals. The area would be closed to mineral material sales.

VRM. The area would be managed as a VRM Class I area.

2.6.8.2.2 Pinnacles Geographic Area 

Rights-of-Way. The area would be managed as a right-of-way exclusion area.

OHV Use. The area would be closed to OHV use.

Leasable Fluid Minerals. The area would be closed to fluid minerals leasing.

Leasable Solid Minerals. The area would be closed to leasable solid minerals exploration.

Salable Minerals. The area would be closed to mineral material sales.

VRM. The area would be managed as a VRM Class I.

2.6.8.2.3 Red Desert Watershed Management Area 

OHV Use. OHV use would be limited to designated roads and trails. 

VRM. The area would be managed as a VRM Class II area. 

2.7 PROPOSED JMH CAP 

Parts of the Proposed JMH CAP that would amend the Green River RMP may be protested by parties 

who participated in the planning process and who have an interest that is or may be adversely affected by 

the approval of the decisions that amend the Green River RMP (43 CFR 1610.5-2). Management actions 

that may be protested are indicated in underlined italics below and in Table 2-1 under the Proposed JMH 

CAP. For more information on protest requirements see the Dear Reader letter at the beginning of the 

final EIS. 

2.7.1 Management Actions Common to All Resource or Land Use Programs 

The Proposed JMH CAP provides opportunities to use and develop the planning area while ensuring 

resource protection. The alternative would allow development and activities to occur throughout the 

planning area through an implementation, monitoring, and evaluation management strategy. This strategy 

establishes indicators to inform BLM of the adverse effects of actions within the planning area and 

prevents them from becoming significant through BLM’s ability to control the timing and location of 

some development activities. The implementation, monitoring, and evaluation strategy would apply to all 

land and resource programs in the Proposed JMH CAP. 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 2-77 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

Monitoring Plan. An implementation, monitoring, and evaluation process, including an interdisciplinary 

monitoring plan, would be used to evaluate the overall effectiveness of implementing the management 

decisions for the planning area and used as a basis for making management adjustments. 

The primary aspects of the process are an implementation strategy for the process, a monitoring plan, and 

a list of 12 sensitive resources and uses to help determine what, where, under what conditions, and when 

areas should be open to surface disturbing or disruptive activities. See Appendix 17 for a detailed 

description of the management strategy to be employed. 

Other detailed aspects of the implementation, monitoring, and evaluation strategy include the following: 

Upon completion of the JMH CAP, portions of crucial habitats and other areas of sensitive or important 

resources would be open to further consideration for various multiple-use activities, so long as crucial 

habitats and other sensitive or important resources would be protected from irreversible adverse effects. 

This would be accomplished through an implementation strategy that would include case-by-case review 

of all proposals, including a 12-point sensitive resource review criteria, application of mitigation 

measures to protect sensitive resources, and, where applicable, controlled location and timing of the 

various activities and related reclamation. For example, satisfactory reclamation of surface disturbance 

may be required before additional surface-disturbing activities would be allowed in big game crucial 

ranges, migration routes, and birthing areas. These sensitive resources currently are— 

1. Active (unstabilized) sand dunes 

2. Slopes greater than 20 percent 

3. Special management area values (visual, recreation opportunities, health and safety,

cultural/historical, etc.)

4. Integrity of the core area wildlife habitat 

5. Key habitat (unique vegetation and plant communities) 

6. Key habitat (e.g., escape cover, birthing areas) 

7. Cultural/Native American respected places, historic values 

8. Connectivity area (migratory corridor) 

9. Inaccessible areas (overlapping resource concerns, i.e., sensitive resources 1 to 8, above) 

10. Special status plant and animal species 

11. Stabilized dunes 

12. Visual values (VRM Class I and II areas). 

Portions of the JMH CAP planning area would be closed to long-term surface disturbing and disruptive 

activity, rights-of-way, fencing, power lines, pipelines, long-term and permanent structures or facilities, 

mineral leasing, mineral exploration and development activities, rangeland improvements, land 

treatments, and long-term and permanent land and resource use commitments or allocations, if they would 

result in irreversible adverse effects. This would be done to satisfy needs for adequate wildlife habitat 

and use of that habitat (crucial winter range, calving/fawning, migration corridors, etc.), watershed 

protection, protection of other sensitive resources, and for public health and safety. These are identified 

as NSO areas in Table 4-8 and Map 50. 

Additionally, in portions of Steamboat Mountain ACEC, Greater Sand Dunes ACEC, the White Mountain 

and Split Rock areas, and the core and connectivity areas, surface-disturbing and disruptive activities 

2-78 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

would be subject to extensive review and mitigation that would allow appropriate levels of activity while 

meeting objectives and safeguarding sensitive resources. Monitoring and evaluation would determine the 

effectiveness of the management prescriptions and mitigation measures. Adjustments could be made to 

ensure that further activity would not cause fragmentation and abandonment of habitat and would still 

meet stated management objectives, safeguard sensitive resources, and not result in irreversible adverse 

effects. This determination would be based on the effects on elk and their movement patterns and use of 

habitat, effects on other wildlife species and habitats, public health and safety, watershed condition, and 

effects on other sensitive resources. 

• Portions of the planning area would be closed to oil and gas leasing and development activities 

(Map 54). Other surface disturbing and disruptive activities in this portion of the planning area 

would be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Surface disturbing and disruptive activities such as 

rights-of-way, fencing, power lines, pipelines, long-term and permanent structures or facilities, 

rangeland improvements, land treatments, and long-term and permanent land and resource use 

commitments or allocations may be allowed if they would not result in irreversible adverse 

effects. Existing oil and gas leases in this portion of the planning area would be recognized, and 

exploration and development activities on these existing leases would be allowed as appropriate 

based on site-specific analysis. Intensive mitigation may be required, such as transportation 

planning; remote control of fluid mineral production facilities to limit travel; multiple-well pads 

to limit surface disturbances; limiting the number of pads per section in sensitive areas; use of 

directional drilling to minimize disturbance of sensitive areas; clustering or centrally locating 

ancillary facilities; shrub reclamation (containerized stock, transplanting, etc.) to restore, 

rehabilitate, or replace habitat; application of geotechnical material for construction; and potential 

unitization prior to exploration and development. Other resource projects or proposals could 

expect a similar in-depth consideration and may require similar mitigation measures (Table 2-2 

and Appendix 17). 

• Monitoring and evaluation would incorporate information from the elk study conducted in the 

JMH CAP planning area (see Section 3.1.6.1.3), application of the Wyoming Standards for 

Healthy Rangelands and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing, PFC determinations for riparian areas, 

and observations of impacts of activities and uses inside and outside the planning area. 

Appropriate mitigation would be applied to meet planning area management objectives. If it was 

determined that planning area management objectives were not being met, management would be 

adapted to address this situation. 

Resource indicators, developed as part of the planning area management strategy of the implementation, 

monitoring, and evaluation process, would be used for determining effects of all activities on all resource 

values. Consideration would be given to such factors as weather, disease, drought, hunting pressure, 

introduction of nonnative species, and recreation activities (part of the implementation, monitoring, and 

evaluation process). Monitoring data would be assessed and response actions would be determined by an 

interdisciplinary BLM team with input from stakeholders and other public entities, as part of the 

implementation, monitoring and evaluation process. Timing and sequencing for approving all actions and 

use authorizations would be applied where feasible, but could be excepted if indicators show effects on 

resources were within acceptable limits. 

2.7.2 Land and Water Resources Management 

Management Objective—The planning area would be managed to maintain or enhance land and water 

resources using ecological principles and science-based performance criteria. 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 2-79 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

2.7.2.1 General Management Actions for Land and Water Resources 

Healthy Rangelands. The Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands would apply to all resource uses 

on BLM-administered lands. These standards are the minimal acceptable conditions that address the 

health, productivity, and sustainability of the rangeland. The standards describe healthy rangelands rather 

than rangeland byproducts. Achievement of a standard is determined through observing, measuring, and 

monitoring appropriate indicators. An indicator is a component of a system whose characteristics (e.g., 

presence, absence, quantity, and distribution) can be observed, measured, or monitored based on sound 

scientific principles. The standards would direct the management of public lands and would focus the 

implementation of this activity plan toward the maintenance or attainment of healthy rangelands. 

Proper Functioning Condition. Riparian areas would be managed to attain and/or maintain a minimum 

standard of PFC, which is the minimum acceptable level of ecological condition for riparian areas. The 

PFC for different types of riparian-wetland systems is fully defined in TR 1737-15, “A User Guide to 

Assessing Proper Functioning Condition and the Supporting Science for Lotic Areas,” and TR 1737-16, 

“A User Guide to Assessing Proper Functioning Condition and the Supporting Science for Lentic Areas.” 

PFC can be summarized as the minimum acceptable level of ecological status where vegetation, 

landform, and/or woody debris create a level of inherent resiliency that allows the stream or wetland 

system to be protected from erosive forces, capture sediment, provide for infiltration, and create 

appropriate habitat. Riparian areas would be maintained, improved, or restored to enhance forage 

conditions, provide wildlife habitat, and improve stream and water quality. To achieve PFC, riparian 

areas would be managed to maintain dominance by species capable of stabilizing soils and stream banks. 

Riparian areas would be assessed on an as-needed basis to determine existing condition and whether 

specific management actions would be needed for improvement. 

Site-specific activity and implementation plans would be prepared where needed to identify methods to 

achieve or maintain proper functioning condition as a minimum. Plans could include measures to reduce 

erosion and sediment yield, promote ground cover, and enhance water quality. 

Desired Plant Community. Upland and riparian vegetation would be managed to achieve DPC 

objectives. This is a plant community that produces the kind, proportion, and amount of vegetation 

necessary for meeting or exceeding the land use plan requirements. DPC objectives for upland and 

riparian areas would be established for the planning area through individual site-specific activity and 

implementation planning and as updated ecological site inventory data become available. 

The DPC objectives would emphasize wildlife habitat, livestock grazing, watershed, and biodiversity 

values while maintaining or enhancing habitat for special status species. Particular attention would be 

given to mountain shrub, basin big sagebrush/lemon scurfpea, aspen, and other unique or important 

vegetation types. Site-specific DPC objectives are determined by an interdisciplinary team, usually 

comprised of specialists in soil, vegetation, hydrology, and biology. The team determines desired 

vegetative conditions for an area by considering ecological potential, current and anticipated resource 

uses, applicable publications, and professional judgment. 

Vegetation Treatments. Vegetative treatments would be designed on a case-by-case basis. Such 

activities may include seeding, reseeding, fence construction, weed control, and enhancement of fish and 

wildlife habitat. Vegetation treatments would be used to abate, alter, or transform vegetation 

communities in an effort to achieve DPC objectives, protect water quality, dissipate erosion, and conform 

to requirements to protect or enhance special status plant and/or wildlife species and associated habitats 

(Appendix 6). This may include activities such as manual or mechanical manipulation, chemical 

treatments, and prescribed burns (Appendix 8). Prescribed burns would be the preferred method of 

vegetation manipulation to convert stands of brush to grasslands and to promote regeneration of aspen 

2-80 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

stands and/or shrub species. Prescribed burns would generally be conducted in areas having greater than 

35 percent sagebrush composition, 20 percent desirable grass composition, and greater than 10 inches of 

precipitation. Low-intensity burns during periods of high soil moisture would be the preferred 

method/times in mountain shrub communities. Prescribed burns would be restricted in areas with coal or 

other fossil fuel outcrops. All vegetation treatments should be designed to be irregular in shape for edge 

effect, cover, and visual aesthetics. Areas proposed for treatment with prescribed burns would be rested 1 

full year prior to treatment (unless vegetation cover prior to burning had adequate fine fuels to carry the 

fire) and 24 months after treatment, unless an onsite analysis determined that this time frame should be 

expanded or reduced. Treatments in aspen communities would be fenced on a case-by-case basis. 

Herbicide loading sites would be prohibited within 500 feet of water sources, floodplains, riparian areas, 

and special status plant locations and would be used in accordance with the guidelines in Appendix 8, 

Standard Operating Procedures for Range Improvements and Vegetation Manipulations. 

Fences. Where documented wildlife conflicts with fencing on public lands occur, fences would be 

modified, reconstructed or, if necessary, removed. Herding control of livestock would be encouraged as 

an alternative to fencing. Fence construction would be in accordance with BLM design standards and 

located so as not to overly impede wildlife movement. Consideration would also be given to special 

status species and wild horse movement. 

Watershed Health Assessments. Watershed health assessments would be initiated to determine the 

condition of riparian areas and would be prioritized based on levels of development, rangeland standards, 

PFC, and other available data. Those watersheds with more sensitive baseline conditions would be the 

focus for increased monitoring efforts and mitigation. 

Native Vegetation. Native vegetation would be managed to allow natural plant succession to continue, 

with emphasis on mountain shrub, basin big sagebrush/lemon scurfpea, aspen, and other unique or 

important vegetation types. 

2.7.2.2 Fire Management 

Management Objective—The planning area would be managed to use prescribed fire as a management 

tool to help meet multiple use resource management goals and to provide cost effective protection from 

wildfire to life, property, and resource values. 

Fire Management Implementation Plan. Fire management in the planning area would be implemented 

through the Fire Management Implementation Plan for BLM-Administered Public Lands in the State of 

Wyoming. The plan emphasizes protecting natural resources and property while recognizing the essential 

role fire plays in restoring and maintaining the health of the public lands. The primary objectives of the 

plan are to use prescribed fire as a management tool to help meet multiple use resource management goals 

and to provide cost effective protection from wildfire to life, property, and resource values. The plan 

would be reviewed and updated as necessary to be consistent with federal wildland fire policy and the 

National Fire Plan. 

Fire Suppression. Wildland and prescribed fires would be managed in all vegetation types to maintain 

or improve biological diversity and the overall health of the public lands. In particular, plant species and 

age class diversity would be a priority; thus all wildfires would be suppressed to some degree depending 

on their potential impact on vegetation communities. Suppression techniques would be identified to 

reduce wildfire on portions of the landscape where fire could cause undesirable changes in plant 

community composition and structure. Full fire suppression for basin big sagebrush/lemon scurfpea plant 

communities would be applied. A site-specific analysis would be prepared for sensitive resource areas, 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 2-81 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

such as special status plant species sites, heritage sites, historic trails, and ACECs, to determine the type 

of fire suppression activity that would be acceptable. 

2.7.2.3 Water Resources Management 

Management Objective—The planning area would be managed to stabilize and conserve soils, to 

increase vegetative production, to maintain or improve surface and ground water quality, and to protect, 

maintain, or improve wetlands, floodplains, and riparian areas. 

Water Quality. All surface disturbing activities would be required to adopt design strategies that serve 

to reduce erosion and maintain or improve water quality. The area within 500 feet of wetlands, riparian 

areas, and 100-year floodplains and the area within 100 feet of the edge of the inner gorge of intermittent 

and large ephemeral drainages would be avoidance areas for surface disturbing activities. Surface 

disturbing activities could be permitted within avoidance areas, provided that a mitigation plan is 

approved and a site-specific analysis determines that adverse impacts would not occur as a result of the 

activity. 

Permanent Facilities. Permanent facilities such as storage tanks and structure pits would not be allowed 

in 100-year floodplains, wetlands, and riparian areas. However, structures that would enhance the 

protection and management of 100-year floodplains, wetlands, and riparian areas would be considered. 

Proposals for linear crossings in these areas would be considered on a case-by-case basis. 

Erosion Control. Areas with highly erodible soils would be avoidance areas for all surface disturbing 

activities. Surface disturbing activities could be permitted within avoidance areas, provided that a 

mitigation plan is approved and a site-specific analysis determines that unacceptable impact levels would 

not occur as a result of the activity. When applicable, erosion control plans would be required as part of 

surface disturbing project proposals. 

Colorado River Salinity Control. BLM would continue to participate with federal, state, and local 

government agencies to develop and implement salinity control plans for the Colorado River Basin and to 

maintain existing and future applicable water quality plans. 

Wetlands and Floodplains. Wetlands and floodplains would be managed in accordance with Executive 

Orders 11988 and 11990 and section 404 of the Clean Water Act. In addition, projects to improve the 

ecological integrity of the dunal ponds would be considered and evaluated. 

Riparian Management Exclosures. Riparian exclosures could be maintained and/or modified based on 

site-specific analysis. Where site-specific analysis determines they no longer serve their purpose, they 

could also be removed. New exclosures could be developed if they would benefit resources. Riparian 

exclosures are used to protect degraded riparian areas from further impacts associated with livestock 

grazing and to ensure reclamation of vegetation communities and ecological processes. Exclosures would 

remain closed to livestock grazing, and AUMs in these exclosures would not be available for livestock 

use. 

Fluid Mineral Wells. Water wells constructed to provide water for drilling of fluid mineral wells (oil, 

gas, or coalbed gas wells) would be constructed in compliance with BLM regulations for resource 

protection. Hydrogeologic investigations would be required where there was a reasonable expectation 

that surface water features were in connection with geologic formations being dewatered. Such 

investigations would serve to determine the extent of the potential impact and provide information that 

could assist in mitigation of undesirable effects related to development. Attributes that could trigger a 

hydrogeologic investigation would include, but would not be limited to, preexisting designation of an area 

2-82 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

as a recharge zone; similar water chemistry between surface waters and proximity of a proposed project to 

ground water; shallow water tables; springs and/or seeps; wetlands; streams or water courses; and/or 

underlying lithology that suggests surface/ground water communication, such as dipping geologic beds, 

fractures in the underlying rocks, and shallow producing zones. Mitigation requirements would also be 

implemented as needed to protect surface waters. Appropriate measures would be applied to protect 

ground water quality and prevent commingling of aquifers (Appendix 6) 

Aquifer Recharge Areas. Aquifer recharge areas would be managed to maintain or enhance recharge 

volume and ground water quality by limiting road density and surface occupancy to maintain a healthy 

recharge area. Studies would be conducted in relation to specific projects to better define aquifer 

recharge area boundaries. 

2.7.2.4 Wild Horses Management 

Management Objective—The planning area would be managed to protect, maintain, and control viable, 

healthy herds of wild horses in the Divide Basin Herd Management Area (HMA) at Appropriate 

Management Levels (AML) while retaining their free-roaming nature, to provide adequate habitat for 

free-roaming wild horses through management consistent with principles of multiple use and 

environmental protection, and to provide opportunity for the public to view wild horses. 

Wild Horse Herd Management Area Boundaries and Appropriate Management Levels. Wild horse 

populations would be managed within the Great Divide Basin HMA at an AML of 415 to 600 horses. 

The Great Divide Basin HMA boundaries would remain unchanged. 

Activity and Monitoring Plans. Land use decisions and site-specific activity planning would focus on 

ensuring that adequate forage was available to support the AML. Site-specific activity planning would be 

implemented to support herd management decisions throughout the entire Great Divide Basin HMA. 

Annual monitoring data would be collected to evaluate progress toward meeting management goals and 

objectives. 

Water Developments. Water developments would be provided as needed to improve wild horse herd 

distribution and manage forage utilization. Water developments within sensitive wildlife habitats would 

be considered only if wildlife habitat and resource conditions were improved or maintained. 

Compatibility with special status plant species would be required. 

Gathering Plan. A selective gathering plan would be developed and implemented to remove excess 

horses from inside and outside the HMA to maintain the existing AMLs. Gathering cycles would vary by 

gathering plan objectives, resource conditions, and needs. Fertility control would be initiated only if 

necessary. 

Public Education. Public education and enjoyment of wild horse herds is an important component of the 

National Wild Horse and Burro Program. Portions of this program would be implemented in the Great 

Divide Basin HMA by providing interpretive signs and access sites for viewing horses. 

2.7.2.5 Livestock Grazing Management 

Management Objective—The planning area would be managed to improve forage production and 

ecological conditions for the benefit of livestock use while providing for other resource values. 

Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management. The Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands and 

Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management (Appendix 10) would apply to all livestock grazing 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 2-83 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

activities on public lands. These standards and guidelines address management practices at the grazing 

allotment management plan (AMP) and watershed levels and are intended to maintain desirable 

conditions or improve undesirable rangeland conditions within reasonable time frames. If livestock 

grazing were determined to be a factor in not meeting the Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands, 

appropriate management actions would be implemented, as determined through cooperation between 

BLM, livestock operators, and interested publics. Achieving the standards or making significant progress 

toward achievement of the standards would be the first priority for all grazing allotments. 

Rangeland and Riparian Habitat. Implementation of grazing management systems (AMP) would assist 

in improving or maintaining the desired range condition. Approved AMPs, or other activity plans 

intended to serve as the functional equivalent to an AMP, for each of the designated grazing allotments 

would provide the necessary guidance for achieving grazing management objectives. Appropriate actions 

for improving degraded rangeland and riparian habitat could include, but would not be limited to, 

reduction of permitted AUMs, modified turnout dates, livestock water developments, range 

improvements, modified grazing periods, growing season rest, riparian pastures, exclosures, 

implementation of forage utilization levels, and livestock conversions. 

Forage Utilization Levels. Forage utilization levels for upland and riparian species would be in 

accordance with individual AMPs or other activity plans intended to serve as the functional equivalent of 

an AMP. Determination of forage utilization levels would be based on PFC guidelines, BLM reference 

handbooks, and professional judgment. 

Livestock Water Developments and Range Improvements. Livestock water developments and range 

improvements would be considered to maintain or improve resource conditions and/or enhance livestock 

distribution. Compatibility with special status plant species would be required. Water developments 

and/or range improvements proposed in sensitive wildlife habitat would be considered only if wildlife 

habitat and resource conditions were maintained or improved. 

Salt or Mineral Supplements. Salt or mineral supplements would be prohibited within 500 feet of 

riparian habitat and National Historic and Scenic Trails, unless analysis showed that these resources 

would not be adversely affected. These supplements would also be prohibited on areas inhabited by 

special status plant species, regardless of analysis findings. Placement of salt blocks at least 500 feet 

away from wells, troughs and other human-made water sources would be encouraged to better distribute 

livestock. 

2.7.2.6 Vegetation Management 

Management Objective—The planning area would be managed to maintain or enhance vegetation 

community health, composition, and diversity to meet watershed, wild horse, wildlife, and livestock 

grazing resource management objectives and to provide for plant diversity (desired plant communities). 

Special Status Plant Species. Special status plants are those species federally listed as threatened or 

endangered, proposed for listing, or candidates for listing under the ESA. They also include species 

designated by each BLM State Director as sensitive and any species designated by a state agency in a 

category implying potential endangerment or extinction. The State of Wyoming does not have an official 

list of designated sensitive, threatened, or endangered plant species. Surveys would be conducted of 

potential habitat for federally listed, proposed, or candidate threatened and endangered plant species prior 

to any surface disturbance. Should any such species be found, all disruptive activities would be halted 

until species-specific protective measures were developed and implemented. For listed species, protective 

measures would be developed and implemented with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 

2-84 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

Specific management actions related to known locations of special status species habitat include closing 

locations to surface disturbing activities or any disruptive activity that could adversely affect the plants or 

their habitat and closing locations of special status species to location of new mining claims, mineral 

material sales, OHV use, including vehicles used for geophysical exploration activities and surveying, and 

use of explosives and blasting. Known locations of special status plant species would be open to 

consideration for mineral leasing with no surface occupancy (NSO) requirements. 

Special status species potential habitat areas would be areas of controlled surface use (CSU) for surface 

disturbing activities. 

Rights-of-Way Limitations. Areas where Wyoming BLM sensitive plant species are known to exist 

and/or have potential habitat, would be right-of-way avoidance areas (Map 49). Exceptions could be 

granted by the Authorized Officer if analysis shows that there is no adverse impact to the plant 

populations. 

Fire Suppression. A site-specific analysis would be prepared for all fire management actions around 

special status plant species sites to determine the appropriate fire management response. Fire equipment 

and fire suppression techniques, such vegetation clearing, would be limited to existing roads and trails in 

special status plant species habitat. 

Threatened and Endangered Plant Species. Surveys would be conducted of potential habitat for 

federally listed, proposed, or candidate threatened and endangered plant species prior to any surface 

disturbance or depletion of water sources. Should a species be located, formal consultation with USFWS 

would occur. Management prescriptions to provide, maintain, or improve habitat would be developed on 

a case-by-case basis. 

Invasive Species. An invasive species is one that is nonnative to a particular ecosystem, and its 

introduction is likely to cause harm to the economy, environment, or human health. Federal agencies are 

directed under Executive Order 13112 to expand and coordinate efforts to prevent the introduction and 

spread of invasive species. Preventing the introduction and proliferation of invasive species would be 

accomplished through close monitoring and containment of infestations and through implementation of 

best management practices for all surface disturbing activities (Appendix 6). Public education regarding 

invasive species and the means to address them would also be promoted. 

Forest and Woodland Health. Management of conifer and aspen communities would be designed to 

promote forest and woodland health. Old decadent trees may be left standing or downed to provide cover 

or other habitat for wildlife (Animal Inn). Animal Inn is an education and information program focused 

on the value of dead, dying, and hollow trees for wildlife and fish. 

2.7.2.7 Wildlife Habitat Management 

Management Objective—The planning area would be managed to maintain, improve, or enhance the 

biological diversity of wildlife species while ensuring healthy ecosystems, to restore disturbed or altered 

habitat, with the objective of attaining desired native plant communities, while providing for wildlife 

needs and soil stability, and, to the extent possible, to provide suitable wildlife habitat and forage to 

support the WGFD strategic plan population objectives. 

Habitat Management Plan. A habitat management plan (HMP) identifies management actions to be 

implemented to achieve specific objectives related to RMP decisions. An HMP focuses on priority 

species and their habitats; therefore, the plan is generally limited to a specific geographic area. Plans 

would include habitat expansion efforts, threatened and endangered species reintroduction, and 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 2-85 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

population goals and objectives (in coordination with the WGFD). These plans would guide BLM in 

managing and rehabilitating wildlife habitat in site-specific locations within the planning area. HMPs 

would be prepared as needed for highly disturbed areas to mitigate wildlife habitat losses. To the extent 

possible, suitable wildlife habitat and forage would be provided to support the WGFD Strategic Plan 

objectives. Changes in the WGFD planning objective levels would be considered based on habitat 

capability, availability, and site-specific analysis. 

Water Developments. Wildlife water developments would be considered on a case-by-case basis to 

maintain or improve wildlife habitat and resource conditions. 

Special Status Wildlife Species. Special status wildlife species are those species federally listed as 

threatened or endangered, proposed for listing, or candidates for listing under the ESA. They also include 

species designated by each BLM State Director as sensitive, and any species designated by a state agency 

in a category implying potential endangerment or extinction. 

Federal agencies are required to ensure that actions they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of species listed as threatened or endangered or adversely modify or 

destroy their critical habitat under the ESA. The ESA requires federal agencies (e.g., BLM) to consult 

with the USFWS to determine whether their actions may affect any listed or proposed species and to 

document their determinations in a Biological Assessment (Appendix 3). Land use decisions would be 

implemented with appropriate conservation measures or with reasonable and prudent alternatives to avoid 

jeopardizing any species or habitat or to avoid the need to list species or their habitat. 

Surveys or searches would be conducted of potential habitat for federally listed, proposed, or candidate 

threatened and endangered wildlife species prior to any surface disturbance. Should a special status 

wildlife species be found, all disruptive activities would be halted until species-specific protective 

measures developed with the USFWS could be implemented. BLM would take proactive measures to 

improve habitat character on an as-needed basis per BLM 6840 policy and section 7 of the ESA. Specific 

management actions related to known locations of special status species habitat are outlined in Table 2-1. 

Sensitive Habitat. Crucial winter range or sensitive habitats, birthing areas, the connectivity area 

(migration corridor), nesting sites, and sensitive fisheries habitats would be maintained or improved. This 

would be accomplished by maintaining habitat or reducing habitat loss or alteration, improving habitat 

where possible, and by applying appropriate mitigation requirements (e.g., distance and seasonal 

limitations, rehabilitation) to all appropriate activities. Exceptions could be provided on a case-by-case 

basis should exception criteria (Appendix 4) be met. Seasonal limitations for wildlife habitat would be 

applied as necessary to protect sensitive wildlife areas from development and/or disruptive activities 

during crucial times in a wildlife species’ lifecycle, such as nesting, birthing, and wintering. Wildlife 

seasonal stipulations would not close an area to development but would protect wildlife species if weather 

or other habitat needs dictate that it is necessary (Appendix 5). BLM may grant exceptions to seasonal 

limitations if the wildlife biologist, in consultation with the WGFD, concluded that granting an exception 

would not jeopardize the population being protected. Criteria for exceptions are outlined in Appendix 4 

of this document. Seasonal limitations for the Proposed JMH CAP are shown in Table 2-3. 

Predator Damage Control. BLM would continue to coordinate with APHIS-WS and review their 

annual management plan for animal damage control activities on public lands. Proposed animal damage 

control activities not compatible with BLM planning and management prescriptions or objectives for 

other resource activities and uses would be identified on a case-by-case basis. BLM would determine 

appropriate planning strategies, with input from APHIS-WS. 

2-86 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

The JMH CAP planning area would be designated as a “restricted control area” for predator control in 

coordination with APHIS-WS. Restricted control areas are public land areas where predator damage 

management may be planned, but control activities may be limited to certain methods or times of the 

year. Emphasis would be placed on nonlethal methods. Control techniques and methods would be 

discussed at an annual meeting. 

Greater Sage-Grouse Leks, Nesting and Early Brood-Rearing Habitat. Site-specific evaluations 

would be conducted for breeding habitat (leks, nesting and early brood-rearing). Field searches conducted 

as part of these evaluations would determine if the site has the vegetation composition, height, and cover 

needs necessary to support greater sage-grouse breeding activities (Appendices 4, 5 and 6). 

Surface occupancy (long-term or permanent aboveground facilities) would be controlled within 1⁄4 mile of 

greater sage-grouse leks unless adverse impacts could be mitigated. Distances would be subject to change 

on a case-by-case basis dependent on applicable scientific research and site-specific analysis. Disruptive 

activities would also avoid occupied greater sage-grouse leks during appropriate evening and early 

morning hours, usually from 8:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m. daily. The actual area to be avoided and appropriate 

time frame (typically March 1 to May 15) would be determined and applied on a case-by-case basis. 

Seasonal limitations on surface disturbing and disruptive activities (usually from March 15 to July 15) 

would apply in nesting and early brood-rearing habitat (Map 50). These limitations would be determined 

and applied on a case-by-case basis. In addition, nesting and early brood-rearing habitats would be 

protected from habitat degradation, and measures would be taken to improve habitat quality within the 

areas identified on Map 50, on an as-needed basis. 

Greater Sage-Grouse Winter Range. Disruptive activities would be prohibited in greater sage-grouse 

winter range usually from November 15 to March 15 (Map 50). These areas are subject to change based 

on new data and scientific information. 

All Greater Sage-Grouse Habitats (Leks, Nesting, Early Brood-rearing, and Winter Range). The 

management practices in greater sage-grouse habitats would be designed to limit direct loss of habitat and 

prevent habitat degradation. Surface disturbing and disruptive activities would avoid these habitats. 

Measures would be taken to improve habitat character on an as-needed basis in conformance with BLM 

6840 policy and to the extent possible, with the Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Plan 

(WGSGCP). 

Avoidance areas may vary depending on natural topographic barriers, terrain, type of activity, line-ofsight distance, vegetation structure and cover, habitat needs, and other such factors. Exceptions to 

avoidance areas and seasonal limitations could be provided on a case-by-case basis provided appropriate 

mitigation could be implemented (Appendix 6 provides examples) and the exception criteria (Appendix 4, 

Procedures for Processing Proposals for Land Use Authorizations in areas of Seasonal Restriction) have 

been met. 

The actual area to be avoided and appropriate time frames would be determined on a case-by-case basis 

dependent on applicable scientific research and site-specific analysis and in coordination with commodity 

users and other appropriate entities. 

Mitigation of adverse effects (e.g., noise and traffic) on all habitats would be determined and applied on a 

case-by-case basis. 

Maintenance and Operational Activities in all Greater Sage-Grouse Habitats. In greater sage-grouse 

habitats, surface disturbing maintenance and operational activities would require mitigation measures or 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 2-87 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

development plans. These mitigation measures or development plans would be based on local situations 

on a case-by-case basis. 

Big Game Winter Range. Disruptive activities would be prohibited in big game (elk, deer, and 

antelope) crucial winter range between November 15 and April 30 (Map 50). Seasonal limitations may 

be excepted, provided criteria in the Procedures for Processing Applications in Areas of Seasonal 

Restriction (Appendix 4) can be met and appropriate mitigation can be implemented (as determined by 

BLM in coordination with commodity users). 

Big Game Birthing Areas. Surface disturbing and disruptive activities and the amount of habitat 

disturbed would be limited in big game birthing areas from May 1 to June 30. 

Black-Footed Ferret. The USFWS has established survey protocols for the black-footed ferret (listed as 

endangered under the ESA). Surveys for black-footed ferrets would be completed according to current 

USFWS protocol within 1 year prior to conducting any surface disturbing or disruptive activities in all or 

portions of potential ferret habitat areas (prairie dog colonies 200 acres or greater in size) because of the 

close association of the two species (Appendix 3). Should a ferret be found, all disruptive activities 

would be stopped until protective measures developed with the USFWS could be implemented. Surface 

disturbing activities could proceed provided the surveys result indicated no presence of black-footed 

ferrets. 

BLM would cooperate with USFWS and WGFD on any black-footed ferret reintroduction within the 

JMH CAP planning area. 

Measures would be taken, as appropriate, to reduce potential raptor perches in and around prairie dog 

towns and colonies, such as constructing anti-perch devices on power poles. 

Mountain Plover. Mountain plover surveys would be required prior to authorizing any surface 

disturbing or disruptive activities in potential plover habitat. Surveys would be conducted within suitable 

mountain plover habitat by a qualified biologist using protocol determined by the Rock Springs BLM 

biologist. Active mountain plover nesting aggregation areas (Map 17) would be avoidance areas for 

surface disturbing and disruptive activities within 1⁄4 mile of the area from April 10 to July 10. 

Traffic speeds on BLM roads during the brood-rearing period (June and July) would be limited within 1⁄4 

mile of nesting aggregation areas. Exceptions or other mitigation measures could be applied on a caseby-case basis, as determined by BLM in coordination with commodity users. 

Measures (e.g., avoidance, burying power lines, installation of antiperch devices, and exclusion for 

artificial nest structures) would be taken to limit hunting perches or artificial nest sites for avian predators 

within 1⁄4 mile of nesting aggregation areas. 

Game Fish and Special Status Fish Species. Seasonal limitations for surface disturbing activities to 

protect game and special status fish species during spawning would be applied. 

Raptor Nesting Sites. Active and historic raptor nesting sites (Map 17) would be protected and managed 

(e.g., through distance restrictions) for continued nesting activities. Different species of raptors may 

require different types of protective measures. Permanent or high-profile structures would be prohibited 

within a specified distance of active raptor nests. Distance would be determined on a case-by-case basis 

and would depend on the raptor species involved, natural topographic barriers, line-of-sight distances, and 

other such factors. Temporary disturbances associated with placement of facilities, such as pipelines, and 

other actions such as seismic activities, could be allowed within 1⁄2 to 1 mile of active raptor nests. 

2-88 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

Disruptive activities would be seasonally restricted within a 1⁄2 to 1-mile radius of occupied raptor nesting 

sites. Raptor nest surveys would be conducted within a 1-mile radius or linear distance of proposed 

surface uses or activities during raptor nesting season (see Table 2-3 for dates which vary by species). 

Seasonal limitations may be excepted, provided criteria in the Procedures for Processing Applications in 

Areas of Seasonal Restriction (Appendix 4) can be met, and appropriate mitigation can be implemented 

(as determined by BLM in coordination with commodity users). 

Introduction and Reintroduction of Species. BLM would cooperate with the Wyoming Game and Fish 

Department (WGFD) in studies for the introduction and reintroduction of native and nonnative (game) 

wildlife and fish species. 

BLM would cooperate with the USFWS in studies for, and reintroduction of, special status species. 

2.7.3 Heritage Resources Management 

Management Objective—The planning area would be managed to expand the opportunities for scientific 

study and educational and interpretive uses of cultural and paleontological resources, protect and preserve 

important cultural and paleontological resources and/or their historic record for future generations, 

resolve conflicts between cultural/paleontological resources and other resource uses, and to foster 

opportunities for Native Americans to use heritage resources. 

The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) would be consulted under provisions of the National 

Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) on any potential effects on heritage resources. Sites that are not 

eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) would be managed on a case-by-case basis 

according to their values. Sites that are listed or eligible for listing on the NRHP would be managed for 

their local, regional, and national significance in accordance with the NHPA and the Archaeological 

Resources Protection Act (ARPA). Sites would be managed to ensure against adverse effects, through 

proper mitigation if disturbance or destruction is not avoidable. Mitigation may include scientific 

information retrieval as well as other measures, such as interpretation and improved public appreciation 

of the heritage resource. 

Heritage Resources Protection. Heritage resources in special management areas would remain 

protected through specific and general management actions (mitigation requirements and site-specific 

management prescriptions) associated with designated ACECs, WSAs, and National Historic Trails 

(Appendix 7). Heritage resources are found in the Greater Sand Dunes ACEC (including Boars Tusk and 

Crookston Ranch), White Mountain Petroglyphs ACEC, South Pass Historic Landscape ACEC (including 

the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express National Historic Trails), and the TriTerritory Marker (Map 2). Other areas may be identified and included in the future pursuant to 

procedures, including public participation, outlined in Appendix 7. 

Protection of Scientific Values. Management of heritage resources would include inventories and 

mitigation as needed for specific projects. An appropriate level of analysis of all surface disturbing 

activities would be conducted to determine the potential effect of the activity on the resource and its 

eligibility for listing on the NRHP. Site stewardship and public education aspects of the Heritage 

Resource Program would continue to be implemented. Sites eligible for inclusion in the NRHP because 

of their scientific value would be protected. Preservation of the scientific information would be the 

preferred mitigation method should any such sites have to be impacted by other activities. These sites 

include Finley, Krmpotich, and Eden-Farson archaeological sites and the paleosol deposition area. Other 

sites will be included as they are located, recorded, and evaluated for NRHP eligibility. 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 2-89 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

The paleosol deposition area, including the Finley, Krmpotich, and Eden-Farson archaeological sites and 

geological deposits in the area, has been identified as an important heritage resource area. The paleosol 

deposition area would be designated the West Sand Dunes Archaeological District Special Management 

Area to be managed for scientific study, education, and interpretation. Site locations would be kept 

confidential, and surface disturbance would be limited in the vicinity. Heritage resource inventories in 

this area would be required to include analysis of subsurface deposits to ascertain whether they include 

important archaeological materials. Subsurface inventory would be required by remote sensing 

techniques, hand-dug test excavations, or mechanical testing prior to issuing any surface disturbing 

authorizations in the West Sand Dunes Archaeological District. Subsurface testing would require an 

approved testing plan and BLM–SHPO consultation. Mitigation may include research-oriented data 

recovery excavation. The testing strategy should be appropriate to meet the goal of finding buried 

paleosols and evaluating their potential association with archaeological materials. 

The Finley site would be nominated to the NRHP under the Register’s History of American Archaeology 

context and under the Earliest Americans context. 

The Krmpotich site would be nominated to the NRHP under the Register’s Earliest Americans context. 

National Register Eligible Sites. All National Register-eligible historic sites would be protected through 

provisions of the NHPA and ARPA. Sites eligible for inclusion in the NRHP under Criterion D because 

of their scientific information content would be surrounded by a 100-foot avoidance area, pursuant to the 

Protocol Agreement between BLM and SHPO (Appendix 7). Other select NRHP eligible sites would be 

nominated to the NRHP. BLM may request development proponents to fund preparation of NRHP 

nominations on a case-by-case basis. Sites with uncommon values may require different case-specific 

management. 

Native American Sites. Areas located in Steamboat Mountain, Steamboat Rim, White Mountain Rim, 

Essex Mountain, Monument Ridge, Joe Hay Rim, and the Indian Gap Trail have been identified as 

respected places, which may include sacred sites or Traditional Cultural Properties of Native Americans. 

These areas would continue to be protected by provisions of the NHPA and AIRFA. Consultation with 

Tribal leaders in accordance with the NHPA and AIRFA concerning management of all identified 

Traditional Cultural Properties (TCPs), sacred sites and respected places would continue on a regular 

basis. When activity is proposed in the vicinity of TCPs, sacred sites and/or eligible respected places, 

management would be developed through consultation with Tribal leaders, SHPO and the activity 

proponent based on the characteristics of the site and the proposed activity. Mitigation may include 

siting activity in such a way as to protect the foreground viewshed of the area of concern, if appropriate. 

Viewshed management goals would correspond with existing VRM classifications. This may necessitate 

limiting, or mitigating the visibility of permanent intrusions generally within a 270-degree radius from the 

identified respected place to the prominent landscape features. 

The Indian Gap Trail would be researched and mapped and a trail interpretive plan would be developed. 

Surface disturbance and disruptive activities would be prohibited within a specified distance, but not less 

than 100 feet, of these and other Native American respected places. Actual distance would be determined 

on a case-by-case basis. 

Expansion Era Roads and Associated Sites. Expansion Era roads would be managed similar to the 

historic trails covered in the Oregon/Mormon Pioneer National Historic Trails Management Plan (BLM 

1986), with prescriptions from that plan applied, although the 1⁄4-mile protective setback might not always 

be applicable. Management actions would include development of activity plans with the objective of 

2-90 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

preserving the historical integrity of significant NRHP contributing segments of the historic roads. 

Activity plans may include NRHP nomination of those Expansion Era roads that qualify. 

Historic Livestock Management Sites. Numerous livestock tending campsites and other pastoral 

agricultural sites have been identified throughout the JMH CAP planning area. Some of these locations 

may be eligible for inclusion in the NRHP within the context of the development of pastoral agriculture in 

Wyoming and the Rocky Mountain region. These sites would continue to be protected under provisions 

of the NHPA. NRHP eligible historic livestock management sites would be protected from surfacedisturbing activities within a minimum area of 100 feet. 

Native and Euro-American Sites. Historic and archaeological sites within the context of early contact 

between Native Americans and Euro-American peoples have been identified, but they are understood 

only in general terms. The historical context of these sites would continue to be developed, and an 

interpretive program would be developed to improve public appreciation of these locations. Some or all 

of these sites may be nominated to the NRHP and/or included in the Backcountry Byways program. 

Paleontological Sites. Documented significant fossil sites would be avoided to protect scientific and 

educational values. Management guidelines included in BLM Handbook 8270-1 would apply. If impacts 

are unavoidable, the site would be evaluated by a BLM-approved paleontologist (and may require a 

paleontological survey), who would coordinate with BLM in developing a mitigation plan. The mitigation 

plan may include activity monitoring, fossil documentation, recovery, and storage in a federally approved 

repository. 

Unique Geologic Features. The Boars Tusk area would be closed to surface disturbing activities, 

mineral material sales, and use of explosives and blasting. The area within a 1⁄2 mile radius of Boars Tusk 

(including Boars Tusk) would be closed to blasting and explosive charges. The Boars Tusk area would be 

open to consideration of activities such as fencing, interpretive signs, or transportation barriers to ensure 

protection of the site; however, facilities would be prohibited from being developed on the geologic 

feature. The Boars Tusk area would be a right-of-way avoidance area. The Boars Tusk and 

approximately 1,400 acres of BLM-administered public lands in the surrounding area would be closed to 

any surface mining activity, but open to consideration of subsurface mining methods. Activities or 

ancillary facilities related to subsurface mining would be prohibited. 

The Pinnacles Geologic Feature (about 1,300 acres) would be an exclusion area for rights-of-way. 

Surface use would also be controlled. The use of explosives on and within 1⁄2 mile of the Pinnacles 

Geologic Feature would be prohibited. The VRM classification for the Pinnacles Geologic Feature would 

be Class II. Vehicular travel within 1⁄2 mile of the Pinnacles Geologic Feature, and including the features, 

would be limited to designated roads and trails. The Pinnacles proper would be closed to surface 

disturbance. 

Mineral leasing and mineral locations actions would be as described in Section 2.7.6. 

Tri-Territory Marker. The Tri-Territory Marker would be an exclusion area for rights-of-way, and 

would be closed to surface disturbing activities. The Tri-Territory Marker would be withdrawn from 

mineral location and closed to coal and sodium exploration. The Tri-Territory Marker would be open for 

consideration of activities such as fencing, interpretive signs, or barriers to ensure protection of the area. 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 2-91 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

2.7.4 Travel, Access, and Realty Management 

Management Objective—The public lands in the planning area would be managed to support the goals 

and objectives of other resource programs, respond to public demand for land use authorizations, and 

acquire administrative and public access where necessary. 

Transportation Planning. A transportation plan for the JMH CAP planning area would be developed in 

coordination with local governments and users. The transportation plan could include mitigation 

measures (such as offsite placement of facilities, remote control monitoring, restricted or prohibited 

surface use including road construction, multiple wells from a single pad, central tank batteries/facilities, 

pipelines and power lines concentrated in specific areas, all based on site-specific analysis) in areas 

subject to seasonal limitations and CSU and NSO stipulations. Transportation planning would include 

coordination with local governments, stakeholders, and other publics. 

Transportation planning would provide for access to achieve multiple use goals while providing 

maximum protection for crucial habitats and sensitive resources. Transportation planning would 

consider— 

• Limiting points of access for all activities to minimize disruption. 

• Closing and rehabilitating unused roads and trails and those causing resource damage. This 

would be subject to county review of existing rights-of-way needs. The transportation plan and 

affected maps would be corrected to reflect closed roads and trails. 

• Avoiding construction of stream or riparian area crossings in sensitive areas, and closure of 

unnecessary crossings. Exceptions may be granted if crossings would reduce adverse effects, 

benefit area objectives, and reduce miles of road and/or frequency of use. Bridges (versus 

culverts) would be required for perennial stream crossings. 

• Limiting development zones to be accessed by designated routes. 

Travel Management Plan. In conjunction with the overall transportation planning for JMH, travel 

management plans (Map 29) would be developed for the two northern calving areas and the Steamboat 

Mountain, White Mountain, and Essex Mountain areas to control access in these areas. 

Road Installations. Proposed road installations and improvements would follow the Green River RMP 

management objectives and applicable BLM guidelines until a JMH transportation plan is prepared and 

approved. Exceptions to the plan would address site-specific conditions to minimize impacts on natural 

and cultural resource values. Proposed roads and improvements for Steamboat Mountain and White 

Mountain would follow the guidelines specified in Appendix 12. 

Geophysical Activities. The planning area would be open to geophysical exploration and related 

detonation activities, subject to appropriate mitigation and the same limitations applied to rights-of-way 

(Map 49). Exploration activities would be allowed in sensitive resource areas only if they could be 

performed with acceptable mitigation of impacts. Geophysical exploration (vehicles and detonation) 

activities would be prohibited in WSAs. Geophysical exploration (vehicles and detonation) activities 

would be prohibited within 1⁄2 mile of the Pinnacles Geologic Feature and would not be allowed in areas 

of sensitive heritage resources and geologic features, such as Boars Tusk, White Mountain Petroglyphs, 

special status plant species, and historic trails. Exceptions may be granted on a case-by-case basis, 

subject to appropriate site-specific analysis and mitigation requirements. 

2-92 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

Rights-of-Way. The planning area, with the exception of defined exclusion and avoidance areas, would 

be open to considering grants of rights-of-way 

The extent of right-of-way exclusion and avoidance areas, based on the location of specific sensitive 

resources, would be as shown on Map 49. 

Linear Rights-of-Way. To the extent possible, utility and transportation rights-of-way would be located 

to coincide with existing roads, trails, and other right-of-way or easement concentration areas where they 

would not create safety hazards or conflict with other resource objectives. 

Winter Access. Winter access would be subject to seasonal road closures. Where winter access on roads 

other than those identified for winter access in the transportation plan is necessary, routes would be 

determined on a case-by-case basis in accordance with transportation planning requirements. Plowing of 

roads would be considered on a case-by-case basis. 

Off-Highway Vehicle Management. Management of OHV activities would be in accordance with 

Executive Order 11644, as amended by Executive Order 11989, and applicable regulations (43 CFR 

8340) that address the use of OHVs on public lands. Designation and authorization of OHV use would be 

controlled to protect resource values, promote safety of users, and minimize conflict among various uses 

of public lands. OHV designations include Open, Limited to Designated Roads and Trails, Limited to 

Existing Roads and Trails, and Closed (see Glossary for definitions). Where OHV designations have not 

been made by BLM, use would be limited to existing roads and trails. 

Public lands in the JMH CAP planning area would remain open, limited, or closed (Map 52). The OHV 

management prescriptions identified in the Green River RMP would be implemented. In addition to these 

designations, the Pinnacles Geologic Feature would be closed to OHV use, and OHV use would be 

limited to designated roads and trails in the South Pass Historic Landscape ACEC (portion not visible), 

cushion plant community, and Steamboat Mountain Management Area. 

Specific roads and trails may be closed to OHV use for public health and safety reasons, restoration or 

remediation actions, or other valid reasons. 

Specific roads and trails may be closed or seasonally closed to OHV use on an as-needed basis for public 

health and safety reasons, restoration or remediation actions, habitat protection, or for other valid reasons 

as determined by BLM (Map 52). 

Exceptions to closed or limited OHV designations may be granted by the Authorized Officer in 

consideration of such factors as scientific purposes and emergency access needs. 

Over-the-Snow Vehicles. Travel by over-the-snow vehicles would be limited to the OHV designations 

and BLM trails designated for snow vehicle access. Any travel off existing routes would be considered 

on a case-by-case basis. 

Land Withdrawals and Exchanges. Public lands would be retained in federal ownership unless it was 

determined to be in the best public interest to dispose of some of them. 

Land withdrawals and exchanges identified in the Green River RMP would be pursued. Exchanges 

would conform to the JMH planning objectives and actions. BLM acquisition of lands would be 

considered to facilitate various resource management objectives. The preferred method for acquisition 

would be through exchange. Land exchanges are considered discretionary and voluntary real estate 

transactions between the willing parties involved. Exchanges for state lands in WSAs and other special 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 2-93 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

management areas would be considered to ensure easier and consistent management in these areas. 

Exchanges would be considered to acquire state or private lands that hold high cultural and historical 

value; important resource values, such as habitat for threatened and endangered species; and that would 

facilitate resource management objectives, such as preventing habitat fragmentation. 

Ownership Adjustments. Aquatic, wetland, and riparian habitat would not be suitable for disposal 

unless opportunities existed for land exchanges of equal or greater value (including monetary and 

functional resource values). 

Access. Access to public, state, and private land would be provided throughout the planning area and 

would be restricted only where necessary to protect public health and safety and to protect sensitive 

resources. Access would be guaranteed across public lands to landlocked private and state lands 

consistent with the guidelines and objectives set forth in the FLPMA. Access decisions would be 

consistent with existing regulatory requirements and would be made for the purposes of providing for the 

reasonable use and enjoyment of inholdings. 

2.7.5 Recreation Resources Management 

Management Objective—The planning area would be managed to ensure the continued availability of 

outdoor recreational opportunities sought by the public, while providing for other resource values, to meet 

legal requirements for the health and safety of visitors, and to reduce conflicts between recreation and 

other types of resource uses. 

Management of recreation resources would comply with applicable regulations (43 CFR 8300 et al.) for 

functions and activities, such as OHV, visitor services, special recreation use permits, and commercial 

operations. All management actions and recreation uses would focus on the health and safety of the user 

and would provide for recreational opportunities while protecting sensitive resources. 

Backcountry Byways. Recreation project plans would be developed for the Backcountry Byways 

program (Tri-Territory Loop and Red Desert) and would include interpretive and directional signs. The 

location of these signs would be coordinated with state and local governments and other interested parties 

for the Red Desert viewpoint from the dugway of Steamboat Mountain, the Chicken Springs overlook, 

Steamboat Mountain, Oregon Buttes, Honeycomb Buttes, and Indian Gap. 

Greater Sand Dunes Recreation Area. A recreation site plan would be prepared for expansion of the 

parking area and camping facilities in the Greater Sand Dunes Recreation Area. This plan would address 

public health and safety, resolving user conflict, and protecting adjoining resources. 

Recreation Project Plans. Recreation project plans and interpretive prospectuses would be developed as 

needed to address public demand and use of the Crookston Ranch historic site, Boars Tusk, wild horse 

viewing areas, Oregon Buttes, Honeycomb Buttes, Steamboat Mountain, National Historic Trails, White 

Mountain Petroglyphs, Indian Gap, and other Native American sites. 

Camping. Overnight camping would be allowed throughout the planning area, including WSAs, in 

accordance with BLM guidelines. Dispersed camping would be allowed within 200 feet of a water source 

except where necessary to protect water quality and wildlife and livestock watering areas. Camping 

designations are a discretionary action approved by a BLM Authorized Officer. Areas would be closed to 

camping if resource damage occurred. 

Special Recreation Use Permits. Special recreation use permits for managed activities that would occur 

in the JMH CAP planning area would be reviewed and subject to recommendations made by the RSFO. 

2-94 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

This would allow the RSFO to track the amount, location, and timing of organized activity occurring 

within the planning area to monitor resource pressure. The permit evaluation process would consider the 

nature of the event, potential impacts to resources, conflicts with other events, and impacts to the quality 

of other visitors’ experiences. Mitigation measures necessary to protect the resources would be included 

in any permit issued. A plan of operation would be required for all commercial recreational operators and 

outfitters. The plan would describe the type, extent, and location of the recreation use and the 

mechanisms by which the operator/outfitter would prevent impacts to environmental resources. Any 

requests in special recreation use permit applications to remove natural resources would be evaluated on a 

case-by-case basis after an environmental analysis process. 

Recreational and Other Similar Mining Activity. Recreational mining and other similar activity would 

be allowed in those parts of the planning area that are not withdrawn from mineral location, or where such 

withdrawals would not be pursued. Withdrawn areas include the White Mountain Petroglyphs ACEC. 

Withdrawals would be pursued for the Steamboat Mountain diamond potential area, the western portion 

of the Greater Sand Dunes ACEC, South Pass Summit, Tri-Territory Marker, Crookston Ranch, Pinnacles 

Geologic Feature, Public Water Reserves, special status plant species locations, and the northern elk 

birthing areas. 

Continental Peak/South Pass Connecting Side Trail. The Continental Peak/South Pass Connecting 

Side Trail would be managed as a side trail to the existing Continental Divide National Scenic Trail 

(CDNST). Management would be as described for the CDNST (BLM 1999). Existing primitive twotrack roads, BLM roads that provide legal public access through certain private lands, segments of crosscountry travel on BLM-administered public land, and an existing trail would be used as components of 

the CDNST. The existing primitive two-track roads and BLM road segments would continue to be open 

to motorized use. Cross-country travel routes would not be open to motorized use. 

2.7.6 Minerals and Alternative Energy Resources Management 

Management Objective—The planning area would be managed to maintain or enhance opportunities for 

mineral exploration and development while providing for other resource values. 

All minerals and energy resource management actions would recognize valid existing rights and ensure 

compliance with existing legal and regulatory requirements. These would include leases issued under the 

Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 and Amendments, mining claims filed under the Mining Act of 1872, and 

existing permits for sales of mineral materials. 

2.7.6.1 Leasable Fluid Minerals Management 

Oil and Gas Leases. Areas that cannot be offered for lease include WSAs and other areas where fluid 

mineral leasing and development would not be in compliance with other laws or with land use planning 

decisions that prohibit fluid mineral leasing and development in certain areas (Map 54). 

Upon completion of the JMH CAP, fluid mineral leasing, exploration, and development would be allowed 

in portions of the planning area with necessary mitigation. To meet the resource goals and objectives for 

the JMH CAP planning area (including providing adequate habitat and use of that habitat (crucial winter 

range, calving/fawning, migration corridors, etc.)), protection of sensitive resources, and protection of 

public health and safety, some areas would be closed to leasing (Map 54). Approximately 92,260 acres in 

portions of the Steamboat Mountain ACEC, Greater Sand Dunes ACEC, White Mountain Petroglyphs 

ACEC, Oregon Buttes ACEC, South Pass Historic Landscape ACEC, the White Mountain and Split Rock 

areas, and the core and connectivity areas would be closed to future oil and gas leasing (Area 3, Figure 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 2-95 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

A17-1, Appendix 17). As existing leases expire in Area 3 they would not be reoffered for lease 

(approximately 88,200 acres). 

The remainder of the planning area would be open to fluid mineral leasing. Plan implementation would 

provide that Area 2 be open to leasing, considering such factors as operational need, resource recovery, 

geology, and ability to mitigate impacts. Appropriate stipulations would be applied to protect sensitive 

resources. Approximately 35,500 acres (based on a 1⁄2-mile perimeter; see Appendix 17, Figures A17-1 

and -2) along the perimeter of Area 3 would be available for leasing with an NSO stipulation. Although 

current technologies suggest that the 1⁄2-mile perimeter is adequate at this time, these NSO areas may be 

expanded to include additional adjacent acreage provided the JMH CAP objectives could be met. 

To determine the effectiveness of lease stipulations/conditions of approval (COA) and to provide 

guidance for adopting new or modified stipulations/COAs, as needed to meet resource objectives, 

monitoring of sensitive resource indicators would occur. Indicators could include, but would not be 

limited to, wildlife population trends, reproduction rates, observed ranges, and habitat integrity. An 

interdisciplinary team would review the monitoring data to ensure that impacts were not exceeding 

acceptable levels as determined through this analysis (Appendix 17). Development levels may be 

adjusted and/or additional stipulations and COAs may be applied to new leases and proposed activities 

as appropriate and necessary to protect resource values. Proposed changes would be analyzed in 

subsequent NEPA documents (such as site-specific NEPA for well sites) in accordance with law and 

policy. Changes will be based on consideration of the following factors: 

• Data trends for indicators on the viability of potentially impacted wildlife and other sensitive 

resources, including impacts on indicators from other causes, such as disease, drought, or 

hunting 

• Fragmentation of habitat and migration pathways due to development activities 

• Net amount of surface disturbance, including approved development activities that will be 

implemented in nearby areas, and planned reclamation of existing surface disturbances 

• Amount and location of actual land use activity. 

Under the implementation, monitoring, and evaluation strategy, suspended leases in the planning 

area that were put in place during preparation of the JMH CAP would be reinstated within 3 years of 

signing the Record of Decision, or earlier with an approved development plan (Appendix 17). 

As leases expire within the portions of the planning area identified as open to future leasing (Areas 1 

and 2), they would be considered for subsequent lease offerings on a case-by-case basis and include 

stipulations identified in Table 2-2 and stipulations identified through monitoring as described in the 

implementation, monitoring, and evaluation management strategy (Appendix 17 and the Lease 

Stipulations paragraph (below)). Proposed changes would be analyzed in subsequent NEPA 

documents (such as site-specific NEPA for well sites) in accordance with law and policy. 

Buyout or exchange of existing leases from willing sellers may be considered on a case-by-case basis. 

Congressional legislation would be required to authorize lease buyouts. 

Lease Stipulations. The lease stipulations would be based on the resources and land use decisions. The 

lease stipulations would notify the leaseholder that development activities may be limited, prohibited, or 

implemented with mitigation measures to protect specific resources. Lease stipulations are identified in 

Table 2-2. The stipulations would condition the leaseholder’s development activities and provide BLM 

2-96 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

with the authority to require other mitigation or to deny some proposed exploration and development 

methods. The general types of resource protections in lease stipulations include: 

• CSU through limitation on the amount and type of surface disturbance 

• CSU through avoidance of other resources 

• Timing restrictions on development activity 

• NSO. 

Monitoring data would be assessed and appropriate management actions would be identified by an 

interdisciplinary BLM team (with input from stakeholders and other publics). Consideration would be 

given to such factors as weather, disease, drought, hunting pressure, introduction of nonnative species, 

and recreation activities. Lease stipulations may be adjusted or clarified (consistent with lease rights) 

based upon these data. Twelve basic sensitive resources and uses would be used to evaluate these lands 

and ensure that the appropriate mitigation is provided. These sensitive resources and uses may change 

or be added to in the future based upon the implementation, monitoring, and evaluation strategy (Section 

2.7.1 and Appendix 17). If the evaluation concluded that planning area management objectives are not 

being met, adjustments would be made to remedy the situation. 

Drilling Permits. A site-specific analysis would be performed prior to any development to identify and 

locate resource elements in the lease area that would require protection or mitigation measures. Any 

surface disturbing and disruptive activities involved with development of existing leases would be subject 

to extensive review and mitigation that would allow appropriate levels of activity while meeting 

objectives and protecting sensitive resources in the area. 

BLM specialists would review sensitive resources with lease operators to develop and implement 

measures to allow for effective development operations where impacts could be avoided or mitigated. 

COAs for Applications for Permit to Drill (APDs) would allow necessary impacts for development to be 

technically feasible or economically viable (Appendix 14). 

COAs for APDs would be based on site-specific analysis and would establish specific, necessary 

mitigation measures, not covered by stipulations, for resource and environmental protection (with 

emphasis on all interdisciplinary values), such as mitigation of effects to sensitive resources, seasonal 

limitations, noise reduction, and remote control operations. Some areas would need more intensive 

mitigation measures to protect sensitive resources and provide for public health and safety. These 

intensive mitigation measures or COAs would mostly apply to areas with overlapping sensitive resources 

(e.g., Areas 2 and 3 [Appendix 17]). Exceptions to lease stipulations and COAs would be allowed when 

site-specific analyses showed impacts to sensitive resources were within acceptable limits. See Appendix 

4 for criteria for exceptions in areas with timing limitations (seasonal restrictions). Well spacing 

requirements for oil and gas resource protection would defer to the Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation 

Commission guidance, with consideration for surface resource values. Timing of activities would be 

considered where consistent with lease rights and COAs for timing limitations would be based on 

monitoring of sensitive resource indicators, under the implementation, monitoring, and evaluation 

strategy, to ensure that unacceptable impacts do not occur. In addition, refer to Section 2.7.4 for 

additional mitigation measures that may apply as part of the transportation plan. 

2.7.6.2 Leasable Solid Minerals Management 

Exploration. Most of the planning area would be open to coal exploration activities, with avoidance and 

mitigation requirements needed to protect the resources (Map 55). Areas closed to coal exploration 

activities under the No Action Alternative (WSAs and Steamboat Mountain ACEC outside the area of 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 2-97 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

coal recommendation) would remain closed. In addition, Steamboat Mountain Management Area 

(outside the area of coal recommendation) would also be closed. 

Leasing. Lands within the Coal Occurrence and Development Potential Area have been identified as 

having a known or assumed potential for coal development (Map 56). These lands are reviewed against 

20 criteria to determine whether they would be suitable for development (43 CFR 3461). These criteria 

consider existing resource values, such as heritage resources, scenic values, wildlife, threatened and 

endangered species, natural landmarks, and watersheds. The coal planning decisions made in the 

GRRMP apply (see Appendix 2). Lands within the planning area with coal development potential (Map 

56) have been through the 20-point unsuitability criteria screening and multiple-use conflict analysis. 

Areas closed to coal leasing (unsuitable) include the western portion of Greater Sand Dunes ACEC, 

which includes the Sand Dunes WSA (Map 57). Lands within the planning area that have been through 

the 20-point unsuitability criteria screening process and would be acceptable for further coal leasing and 

development consideration (with appropriate conditions) are shown on Map 57. 

Important geological, ecological, and historic resources would be open to consideration for coal leasing 

and development by subsurface mining methods. Such areas acceptable for coal leasing that would 

include NSO requirements include Boars Tusk and Crookston Ranch. Areas acceptable for coal 

development by subsurface mining and controls on surface facilities include Steamboat Mountain ACEC, 

the eastern part of Greater Sand Dunes ACEC, Tri-Territory Marker, and raptor nest sites with a 1⁄2- to 1­

mile buffer. The portions of the Steamboat Mountain Management area within the Coal Occurrence and 

Development Potential Area would also be acceptable for leasing for subsurface mining with CSU. 

Leasing in big game habitat would be allowed provided that adequate habitat and overall activity levels 

can be maintained. 

Areas outside this part of the planning area may also be considered for leasing for coal development but 

would have to be reviewed through the site-specific application of the coal screening process and would 

have to meet the suitability criteria for coal leasing. Restrictions on mining activity, such as NSO, or 

subsurface mining with controls on surface facilities, would be required on coal leases where needed for 

resource protection. 

2.7.6.3 Locatable Minerals Management 

Locatable Mineral Withdrawals. Proposed withdrawals from locatable minerals identified in the Green 

River RMP would be pursued (Map 53). Other withdrawals could be pursued as necessary. Withdrawals 

from mineral location would be pursued in the northern elk calving areas (aspen stands plus adjacent, 

potential aspen habitat), the potential diamond development area of Steamboat Mountain ACEC, and the 

Pinnacles Geologic Feature. 

Withdrawals would be revoked for lands classified as prospectively valuable for oil shale. Upon 

revocation, the area would be open to the filing of mining claims, exploration, and development of 

locatable minerals. The White Mountain Petroglyphs ACEC, located in the oil shale classification lands, 

would be withdrawn from mineral location prior to the revocation. 

Other areas that would be withdrawn from mineral location prior to the revocation of the coal 

classification include Greater Sand Dunes ACEC (western portion), special status plant sites, Crookston 

Ranch, public water reserves, Tri-Territory Marker, and South Pass Summit. 

Valid existing rights to develop locatable mineral claims under the Mining Act of 1872 would be 

recognized (Map 53). In areas open to mineral location, mining claims could filed which would allow 

that claim be held and developed in accordance with applicable regulations (43 CFR 3809). Mining 

2-98 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

activities would also have to comply with other regulatory requirements, including limitations on air and 

water discharges, waste management, spill prevention, and endangered species. 

Surface disturbing exploration activities of 5 acres or less on mining claims would require a notice to 

BLM. A plan of operations would be required for exploration-related surface disturbances greater than 5 

acres, for all surface disturbances greater than casual use, and for a disturbance of any size in ACECs, 

WSAs, areas closed to OHV use, and any lands or waters known to contain Federally proposed or listed 

threatened or endangered species or their proposed or designated critical habitat. A plan of operations 

would specify how the operator intends to manage the mining operation and location of surface disturbing 

activities, including pits, adits or shafts, placement of waste rock and mine tailings, mills, conveyors, and 

surface impoundments. 

2.7.6.4 Salable Minerals Management 

Mineral Material Sales. Existing contracts for sales of mineral materials, such as sand and gravel, would 

be recognized. Mining of mineral materials would comply with applicable regulatory requirements (43 

CFR 3600) and air and water quality protection regulations. A site-specific analysis would be performed 

before any exploration or extraction activity to identify and locate resource elements that would require 

protection or mitigation measures. Mineral material sales that pose impacts, that cannot be adequately 

mitigated, to identified cultural and historic resources and other sensitive resources would not be allowed. 

The Proposed JMH CAP would allow development as long as sensitive resources are protected from 

unacceptable impacts. 

The planning area would be open to mineral material sales where required to meet planning objectives, 

such as construction and maintenance of roads in the approved transportation plan, or construction of 

recreational facilities, or other construction related to approved development activities (Map 58). Mining 

and reclamation plans would be prepared for each use of salable mineral materials to provide protection 

for sensitive resources and to restore disturbed areas. 

Areas currently closed to mineral material sales would remain closed. These would include Crookston 

Ranch, Oregon Buttes ACEC, Native American burial sites, Boars Tusk, White Mountain Petroglyphs, 

Greater Sand Dunes ACEC, South Pass Historic Landscape ACEC (visible portion), South Pass Summit, 

raptor nesting sites, WSAs, and special status plant species. Other areas closed to mineral materials 

sales would include the lava rock portion of Steamboat Mountain ACEC, the Pinnacles Geologic Feature, 

greater sage-grouse leks, and 1⁄2 mile around lek perimeter. 

The remainder of Steamboat Mountain ACEC and the Steamboat Mountain Management Area would be 

available for salable mineral development only when required to meet other planning objectives within 

the planning area. Greater sage-grouse nesting habitat would be open to mineral material sales only if 

related disturbance and reclamation could occur during one field season (Aug. 1 to Nov. 15) and the site 

could be returned (through reclamation efforts) to a condition usable by greater sage-grouse. 

2.7.6.5 Alternative Energy Management 

The planning area would be open to alternative energy development projects, such as wind or solar farms, 

consistent with the resource protection requirements and the transportation plan under this alternative. 

Permits or leases that would allow these developments to occur would include mitigation requirements to 

protect sensitive resources and would meet the location requirements for utility lines and roads required in 

the transportation plan. Site-specific assessments would be required to identify potential impacts from 

construction activity and operation noise on wildlife, heritage resources, and visual resources. 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 2-99 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

2.7.7 Visual Resources Management 

Management Objective—The planning area would be managed to maintain or improve scenic values 

and visual quality; and to establish priorities for managing the visual resources in conjunction with other 

resource values. 

The VRM classes provide the design standards for all surface disturbing projects (Map 59). Projects 

would be designed, sited, screened, or painted to reduce visual impacts regardless of the VRM 

classification. 

The four VRM classes (I, II, III, IV) set standards for planning, designing, and evaluating projects by 

identifying various permissible levels of landscape alteration while protecting overall regional scenic 

quality. The scenic quality of an area is a measure of its visual appeal. The VRM class objectives range 

from very limited management activity (Class I) to activity allowing major landscape modifications 

(Class IV). Visual resource classes would be retained or modified to enhance other resource objectives, 

such as heritage resources, recreation uses, wild horse viewing, and special management areas. Projects 

would be designed to meet the objectives of established visual classifications, and appropriate mitigation 

would be applied. 

VRM Class I Areas. The WSAs would be managed as VRM Class I areas to preserve the natural setting 

and existing character of the landscape. Oregon Buttes ACEC and the western portion of Greater Sand 

Dunes ACEC, which fall within a WSA, would also be managed as VRM Class I areas. 

VRM Class II Areas. Management actions on lands classified as VRM Class II would be designed to 

retain the existing character of the landscape. A visual transition area of 1 mile adjacent to each WSA 

would be managed as Class II to retain the existing character of the WSA landscape. A low level of 

change would be acceptable to the characteristic landscapes of the ACECs, thus the eastern portion of 

Greater Sand Dunes ACEC, South Pass Historic Landscape ACEC, and White Mountain Petroglyphs 

ACEC would be managed as VRM Class II areas (Map 59). 

Steamboat Mountain ACEC, Steamboat Mountain Management Area, and unique geological features and 

landforms, including portions of White Mountain, Pinnacles Geological Feature, and the West Sand 

Dunes Archaeological District, would also be managed as VRM Class II areas (Map 59). 

VRM Class III Areas. Split Rock, Eden Valley, portions of White Mountain, and the portion of the Red 

Desert Watershed within the planning area would be managed as VRM Class III (Map 59). 

VRM Class IV Areas. All areas not managed as VRM Class I, II, or III for this alternative would be 

managed as VRM Class IV (Map 59). 

2.7.8 Management of Special Management Areas and Other Management

Areas 

Management Objective—Special management areas would be managed to maintain or enhance the 

resource values and characteristics for which these areas were designated as special management areas. 

Special management areas would continue to be managed to preserve and protect the integrity and 

character of the specific areas in accordance with ACEC policies and WSA interim management policies. 

Other resources and locations throughout the planning area that would be worthy of special protections 

would be designated as special management areas (Map 60). 

2-100 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

2.7.8.1 Special Management Areas 

2.7.8.1.1 Wilderness Study Areas 

Geophysical Activities. Geophysical exploration and related detonation activities would be prohibited in 

these areas. 

OHV Use. These areas would be closed to OHV use.

Leasable Fluid Minerals. These areas would be non-discretionary closure areas for fluid minerals

leasing.

Leasable Solid Minerals. These areas would be closed to leasable solid minerals exploration and

leasing.

Salable Minerals. These areas would be closed to mineral material sales.

Locatable Minerals. A plan of operations would be required for all activities greater than casual use.

VRM. These areas would be managed as VRM Class I area to preserve the natural setting and existing

character of the landscape.

2.7.8.1.2 Oregon Buttes ACEC 

Geophysical Activities. Geophysical activities and related detonation activities would be prohibited

within the ACEC.

Rights-of-Way. The ACEC would be managed as a right-of-way exclusion area.

OHV Use. The ACEC would be closed to OHV use.

Recreation. Location of interpretive and directional signs along backcountry byways would be

coordinated with state and local governments and other interested parties for Oregon Buttes.

A recreation project plan and interpretive prospectus would be prepared and implemented for Oregon

Buttes.

Leasable Fluid Minerals. The ACEC would be closed to consideration of fluid minerals leasing.

The area would be managed as an NSO area for other surface disturbing and disruptive activities.

Leasable Solid Minerals. The ACEC would be closed to leasable solid minerals exploration and leasing.

Salable Minerals. The ACEC would be closed to mineral material sales.

Locatable Minerals. A plan of operations would be required for all activities greater than casual use.

VRM. The ACEC would be managed as a VRM Class I area.

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 2-101 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

2.7.8.1.3 South Pass Historic Landscape ACEC 

Rights-of-Way. The South Pass Historic Landscape ACEC (visible portion) would be managed as a 

right-of-way exclusion area for any right-of-way action that would adversely affect the viewshed (such as 

major transmission facilities or high profile facilities). The non-visible portion would be a right-of-way 

avoidance area. 

OHV Use. OHV use within the entire ACEC would be limited to designated roads and trails. 

Leasable Fluid Minerals. A portion of the South Pass Historic Landscape would be closed to fluid 

mineral leasing (Map 54). Portions of the South Pass Historic Landscape ACEC (visible portion) would 

be open to consideration of fluid minerals leasing with NSO requirements. Portions of the South Pass 

Historic Landscape ACEC would be open to consideration of fluid minerals leasing consideration with 

stipulations to protect other resources. Stipulations could include but would not be limited to NSO 

requirements, controlled surfaced use, and timing of development activity. As leases expire in the area 

open to leasing consideration, they would be considered for subsequent lease offerings on a case-by-case 

basis with lease stipulations to protect sensitive resources. Leases that expire in the area identified as 

closed to fluid mineral leasing would not be considered for subsequent lease offerings. A portion along 

the perimeter of the area identified as closed to future oil and gas leasing (Figure A17-2, Appendix 17) 

would be considered for leasing with an NSO stipulation. The existing stipulations established in the 

Green River RMP would still apply in the management of the visible and non-visible portions of the 

historic landscape. 

Leasable Solid Minerals. South Pass Historic Landscape ACEC (visible portion) would be closed to 

leasable solid minerals exploration and leasing. 

Salable Minerals. South Pass Historic Landscape ACEC (visible portion) would be closed to mineral 

material sales. 

Locatable Minerals. Withdrawal from mineral location would be pursued on South Pass Summit. 

Withdrawal from mineral location would also be pursued for the northern elk calving areas in part of the 

South Pass Historic Landscape ACEC. 

VRM. The entire ACEC would be managed as a VRM Class II area. 

The South Pass Historic Landscape ACEC viewshed would be maintained from approximately 3 miles of 

the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express National Historic Trails. Intrusions within 

the viewshed area could be allowed provided the results of a visual analysis indicate they are not visible 

from the trail routes or that they can be mitigated. 

2.7.8.1.4 White Mountain Petroglyphs ACEC 

Rights-of-Way. The ACEC would be managed as a right-of-way exclusion area. 

OHV Use. The ACEC would be closed to OHV use outside of identified access and designated parking 

areas. 

Recreation. A recreation project plan and interpretive prospectus would be prepared and implemented. 

Leasable Fluid Minerals. The ACEC would be closed to fluid minerals leasing consideration. 

The area would be managed as an NSO area for other surface disturbing and disruptive activities. 

2-102 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

Leasable Solid Minerals. White Mountain Petroglyphs Vista would be closed to coal and sodium 

exploration. 

Salable Minerals. The ACEC would be closed to mineral material sales. 

Locatable Minerals. Withdrawal from mineral location would be pursued. 

VRM. The ACEC would be managed as VRM Class II area. 

2.7.8.1.5 Steamboat Mountain ACEC 

Steamboat Mountain ACEC would be expanded to include the highest concentration and overlap of 

unique habitat features, natural systems, and cultural values. These include a portion of the sand dunes 

stabilized by the basin big sagebrush/lemon scurfpea plant community, and the Native American 

respected places of Indian Gap and portions of the Indian Gap Trail (Map 60). 

Rights-of-Way. The ACEC would be managed as a right-of-way avoidance area. 

Communication Sites. Communication sites would be prohibited in Steamboat Mountain ACEC. 

OHV Use. OHV use would be limited to designated roads and trails. 

Recreation. Location of interpretive and directional signs along backcountry byways would be 

coordinated with state and local governments and other interested parties for Steamboat Mountain. 

A recreation project plan and interpretive prospectus would be prepared and implemented for Steamboat 

Mountain. 

Leasable Fluid Minerals. Most of the ACEC would be closed to fluid minerals leasing consideration 

(Map 54). The remainder of the ACEC would be open to consideration of fluid minerals leasing 

consideration with stipulations to protect other resources. Stipulations could include but would not be 

limited to NSO and CSU requirements and timing of development activity. As leases expire in the area 

open to leasing consideration, they would be considered for subsequent lease offerings on a case-by-case 

basis based upon such factors as operational need, resource recovery, geology, and ability to mitigate 

impacts. Leases that expire in the area identified as closed to fluid mineral leasing would not be 

considered for subsequent lease offerings. A portion along the perimeter of the area identified as closed 

to future oil and gas leasing (Figure A17-2, Appendix 17) would be considered for leasing with an NSO 

stipulation. 

Leasable Solid Minerals. The portions of Steamboat Mountain ACEC within the coal development 

potential area would be open to leasable solid minerals exploration and leasing using only subsurface 

mining methods and controls on surface facilities (Map 57). 

Those portions outside the coal development potential area would be closed to leasable solid minerals 

exploration and leasing (Map 55 and Map 57). 

Salable Minerals. The lava portion of the ACEC would be closed to mineral material sales. The 

remainder of the ACEC would be open only when required to meet other planning objectives within the 

JMH CAP planning area. 

Locatable Minerals. Withdrawal from mineral location would be pursued in the potential diamond 

development area of Steamboat Mountain ACEC. 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 2-103 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

VRM. The entire ACEC would be managed as a VRM Class II area. 

2.7.8.1.6 Greater Sand Dunes ACEC 

The Greater Sand Dunes ACEC designation and boundaries would remain unchanged (Map 14). 

Rights-of-Way. The ACEC would be managed as a right-of-way avoidance area (within 1 mile or the 

visual horizon, whichever is closer). 

OHV Use. The portion of the ACEC containing the Greater Sand Dunes Recreation Area would be open 

to OHV use. The remainder of the ACEC would be limited to existing roads and trails. 

Recreation. A recreation site plan would be prepared for expansion of the parking area and camping 

facilities at the Greater Sand Dunes Recreation Area. The plan would address public health and safety, 

resolving user conflicts, and protecting adjoining resources. 

Leasable Fluid Minerals. A portion of the ACEC outside the WSA would be open to consideration of 

fluid minerals leasing with stipulations to protect other resources. Stipulations could include but would 

not be limited to NSO and CSU requirements and timing of development activity. Other portions of the 

ACEC would be closed to fluid mineral leasing (Map 54). 

As leases expire in the area open to leasing consideration, they would be considered for subsequent lease 

offerings on a case-by-case basis based upon such factors as operational need, resource recovery, 

geology, and ability to mitigate impacts. Leases that expire in the area identified as closed to fluid 

mineral leasing would not be considered for subsequent lease offerings. 

Leasable Solid Minerals. The western portion of the ACEC would be closed to leasable solid minerals 

exploration and leasing. The eastern portion of the ACEC within the coal development potential area 

would be open to leasable solid minerals exploration and leasing using only subsurface mining methods 

and controls on surface facilities. 

Salable Minerals. The ACEC would be closed to mineral material sales. 

Locatable Minerals. Withdrawals from mineral location would be pursued in the western portion of the 

ACEC. 

VRM. The ACEC would be managed as a VRM Class II area. 

2.7.8.1.7 Special Status Plants ACEC 

The Special Status Plant Species ACEC (identified in the Green River RMP) could be expanded into the 

Jack Morrow Hills CAP area on a case-by-case basis. 

Disruptive Activities. Potential habitat of special status plant species’ communities on federal lands or 

on split estate lands would require searches for the plant species prior to approving any project or activity. 

Should species be found, all disruptive activities would be halted until species-specific, protective 

measures are developed and implemented. For listed species, protective measures would be developed 

and implemented in coordination with the USFWS. 

Rights-of-Way. Areas where special status plants occur would be managed as rights-of-way avoidance 

areas. 

2-104 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

OHV Use. Areas where special status plants occur would be closed to OHV use. 

Leasable Fluid Minerals. Known locations of special status plant species would be open to 

consideration for mineral leasing with NSO requirements unless they occur in the area identified as 

closed to fluid mineral leasing (Map 54). 

Leasable Solid Minerals. Areas where special status plants occur would be closed to coal and sodium 

exploration as identified in the Green River RMP. 

Salable Minerals. Areas where special status plants occur would be closed to mineral material sales. 

Locatable Minerals. Withdrawals from mineral location would be pursued where special status plants 

occur. 

Rangeland Management. Salt or mineral supplements would not be allowed in areas where special 

status plant species occur. 

Vegetation treatments would be designed to conform to requirements to protect or enhance special status 

plant species. 

Herbicide loading sites would be prohibited within 500 feet of special status plant locations and would be 

utilized in accordance with the guidelines in Appendix 8, Standard Operating Procedures for Range 

Improvements and Vegetation Manipulations. 

Fire Management. Fire suppression vehicular activities would be limited to existing roads and trails in 

special status plant species habitat. 

A site-specific analysis would be prepared for all fire management activities around special status plant 

species sites to determine the appropriate fire management response. 

2.7.8.1.8 West Sand Dunes Archaeological District 

The paleosol deposition area would be designated a separate special management area called the West 

Sand Dunes Archaeological District to be managed for scientific study, education, and interpretation. 

Rights-of-Way. The area would be managed as a right-of-way avoidance area. 

Leasable Fluid Minerals. Most of the area would be open to consideration for fluid minerals leasing 

with requirements to protect sensitive resources. Approximately 6,660 acres would be closed to fluid 

mineral leasing (Map 54). A portion along the perimeter of the area identified as closed to future oil and 

gas leasing (Figure A17-2, Appendix 17) would be considered for leasing with an NSO stipulation. 

VRM. The area would be managed as a VRM Class II area. 

2.7.8.2 Other Management Areas 

2.7.8.2.1 Pinnacles Geologic Feature 

The Pinnacles Geologic Feature would continue to be managed as part of the Red Desert Watershed 

Management Area, as provided in the Green River RMP. 

Rights-of-Way. The area would be managed as a right-of-way exclusion area. 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 2-105 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

Geophysical Activities. Geophysical exploration vehicles and detonation activities would be prohibited 

within 1⁄2 mile of the Pinnacles Geologic Feature. 

OHV Use. The area would be closed to OHV use. 

Leasable Fluid Minerals. The area would be closed to fluid minerals leasing consideration (Map 54). 

Salable Minerals. The area would be closed to mineral material sales. 

Locatable Minerals. Withdrawals from mineral location would be pursued. 

VRM. The area would be managed as a VRM Class II area. 

2.7.8.2.2 Pinnacles Geographic Area 

The Pinnacles Geographic Area would continue to be managed as part of the Red Desert Watershed 

Management Area, as provided in the Green River RMP. 

Leasable Fluid Minerals. The area would be closed to fluid minerals leasing consideration (Map 54). A 

portion along the perimeter of the area identified as closed to future oil and gas leasing (Figure A17-2, 

Appendix 17) would be considered for leasing with an NSO stipulation. 

2.7.8.2.3 Steamboat Mountain Management Area 

The Steamboat Mountain Management Area is a geographic area which would include the Steamboat 

Mountain ACEC, the Steamboat Mountain ACEC proposed expansion, and additional area containing 

other important Native American cultural values, important watershed values, unique wildlife habitat 

features, and crucial and overlapping big game habitat. 

Rights-of-Way. The Steamboat Mountain Management Area would be managed as a right-of-way 

avoidance area. 

OHV Use. OHV use would be limited to designated roads and trails. 

Leasable Fluid Minerals. Approximately 77,000 acres would be closed to fluid mineral leasing (Map 

54). The remainder of the area would be open to consideration of fluid mineral leasing with mitigation to 

protect sensitive resources. 

As leases expire in portions of the area open to leasing consideration, they would be considered for 

subsequent lease offerings on a case-by-case basis with lease stipulations to protect sensitive resource. As 

leases expire in other portions (Area 2 in Appendix 17) of the area open to leasing consideration, they 

would be considered for subsequent lease offerings on a case-by-case basis based upon such factors as 

operational need, resource recovery, geology, and ability to mitigate impacts. Leases that expire in the 

area identified as closed to fluid mineral leasing would not be considered for subsequent lease offerings. 

A portion along the perimeter of the area identified as closed to future oil and gas leasing (Figure A17-2, 

Appendix 17) would be considered for leasing with an NSO stipulation. 

Leasable Solid Minerals. The Steamboat Mountain Management Area (outside area with coal 

recommendation) would be closed to leasable solid minerals exploration. 

The entire Steamboat Mountain Management Area would be open to solid minerals leasing for 

subsurface mining with controls on surface activities and facilities. 

2-106 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

Salable Minerals. The Steamboat Mountain Management Area would be closed to mineral material 

sales. 

VRM. The Steamboat Mountain Management Area would be managed as a VRM Class II area. 

2.7.8.2.4 Red Desert Watershed Management Area 

Leasable Fluid Minerals. Approximately 42,250 acres would be closed to fluid mineral leasing (Map 

54). The remainder of the area would be open to consideration of fluid mineral leasing with mitigation to 

protect sensitive resources. As leases expire in portions of the area open to leasing consideration, they 

would be considered for subsequent lease offerings on a case-by-case basis with lease stipulations to 

protect sensitive resource. As leases expire in other portions (Area 2 in Appendix 17) of the area open to 

leasing consideration, they would be considered for subsequent lease offerings on a case-by-case basis 

based upon such factors as operational need, resource recovery, geology, and ability to mitigate impacts. 

Leases that expire in the area identified as closed to fluid mineral leasing would not be considered for 

subsequent lease offerings. A portion along the perimeter of the area identified as closed to future oil and 

gas leasing (Figure A17-2, Appendix 17) would be considered for leasing with an NSO stipulation. 

OHV Use. OHV use would be limited to designated roads and trails. 

VRM. The area would be managed as a VRM Class III area. 

2.7.9 Air Resources Management 

Management Objective—The planning area would be managed to maintain and, where possible, 

enhance present air quality levels and, within the scope of BLM’s authority, minimize emissions that may 

add to acid rain, cause violations of air quality standards, or reduce visibility. 

FLPMA states that, “The public lands [should] be managed in a manner that will protect the quality of 

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

archaeological values.” NEPA indicates that any proposed federal action should comply with other 

existing environmental laws, regulations, and standards (Section 104 [42 USC 4334]). This would 

include the Clean Air Act. In particular, the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 indicate that federal 

actions should comply with state and local as well as federal laws, regulations, and standards. 

Management actions for air resources management in the planning area would be implemented consistent 

with the land use decisions of the Green River RMP (Appendix 2). 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 2-107 
Chapter 2 

Table 2-1. Summary Comparison of Alternatives 

MANAGEMENT ACTIONS COMMON TO ALL RESOURCE OR LAND USE PROGRAMS 

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

Monitoring Plan: An interdisciplinary monitoring plan would be developed to evaluate the overall effectiveness of implementing the management decisions for the planning area. No similar action No similar action 

Same as No Action Alternative 

No similar action No similar action 

Same as No Action Alternative 

No similar action No similar action 

Same as No Action Alternative 

No similar action 

No similar action 

An imevaluinterdwould effectmanaplannmakin

The p

are an the prlist of uses under areas disturAppeof the emplo

Other 

impleevalufollow• U

Caimovloswirwa

2-108 Jack Morrow 
Final EIS 

MANAGEMENT ACTIONS COMMON TO ALL RESOURCE OR LAND USE PROGRAMS 

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

wreuamrecthre

• P

plod(ppmeaimalacthadaoracpspppsin 

• A

SG

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Chapter 2 

MANAGEMENT ACTIONS COMMON TO ALL RESOURCE OR LAND USE PROGRAMS 

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

WacdaethleosMdthaAecawmsaadthmhshcs

• P

wleasapoSa

2-110 Jack Morrow 
Final EIS 

MANAGEMENT ACTIONS COMMON TO ALL RESOURCE OR LAND USE PROGRAMS 

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

felosimalacbreelepredeasmpmlililisddcaretrreampempecs(T

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Chapter 2 

MANAGEMENT ACTIONS COMMON TO ALL RESOURCE OR LAND USE PROGRAMS 

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

• M

ineC3WRLp(aiminawpothomto 

Site-specific monitoring plans would be developed for project proposals. No similar action 

Same as No Action Alternative 

No similar action 

Same as No Action Alternative 

No similar action 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Resource indicators, 

developed as part of an interdisciplinary monitoring plan, would be used for determining effects of all activities on sensitive resources, with emphasis on wildlife and wildlife habitat. 

Same Site-sbe deResopart omanaimpleevaludetermall res

2-112 Jack Morrow 
Final EIS 

MANAGEMENT ACTIONS COMMON TO ALL RESOURCE OR LAND USE PROGRAMS 

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

No similar action No similar action No similar action 

No similar action 

No similar action 

No similar action 

No similar action 

No similar action 

No similar action 

Consideration would be given 

to such factors as weather, disease, drought, hunting pressure, introduction of nonnative species, and recreation activities. 

Monitoring data would be 

assessed, and response actions would be determined by an interdisciplinary BLM team (with input from stakeholders and other public entities). 

Timing and sequencing for 

approving all actions and use authorizations would be imposed if indicators showed unacceptable effects on sensitive resources. 

Same Consifactorhuntinnative activitimpleevaluSame Monitand, rdetermBLM tstakeas pamonitTiminall actwould could showewithin 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Chapter 2 

LAND AND WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT

Management Objective: To maintain or enhance land and water resources using ecological principles and science-base

Management Actions for Land and Water Resources 

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

Healthy Rangelands: The Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands would direct on-the-ground management of public lands and would serve to focus the ongoing development and implementation of activity plans toward the maintenance or the attainment of healthy rangelands. 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same The WRanggrounand wdevelactivitor the range

Proper Functioning Condition: All riparian areas would be assessed to determine existing condition. Riparian habitat in PFC is the minimum acceptable level of ecological condition. Riparian areas would be maintained, improved, or restored to enhance forage conditions, provide wildlife habitat, and improve stream and water quality. Site-specific activity and implementation plans to reduce erosion and sediment yield, promote ground cover, and enhance water quality would be prepared for areas where needed. 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same All ripto detRiparminimecoloRiparimproforage habitawater Site-simpleerosiogrounqualitwhere 

2-114 Jack Morrow 
Final EIS 

Management Actions for Land and Water Resources 

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

Desired Plant Community: Desired plant community objectives for upland and riparian areas would be established for the planning area through individual site-specific activity and implementation planning, and as updated ecological site inventory data became available. Desired plant community objectives would focus on native plant communities. 

Same as No Action Alternative Desired plant community objectives would emphasize commodity uses while complying with existing regulations pertaining to sensitive resources. 

Same as No Action Alternative Desired plant community objectives would emphasize wildlife habitat, watershed, and biodiversity values. Particular emphasis would be placed on maintaining or enhancing habitat for special status species. 

Same as No Action Alternative Desired plant community objectives would emphasize wildlife habitat, livestock grazing, watershed, and biodiversity values while maintaining or enhancing habitat for special status species. 

Same Desirefor upbe esthrougand imupdatbecamSame Desirewould livestobiodivor enhstatus 

Vegetation Treatments: Vegetation treatments and methods would be considered on a case-by-case basis. Vegetation treatments would be designed to protect water quality, dissipate erosion, and conform to requirements to protect special status plant species. 

Same as No Action Alternative No similar Action 

Vegetation treatments and methods would be considered on a case-bycase basis, but limited to noxious weed control. 

Same as No Action 

Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative Same as No Action Alternative 

Same Vegetwould case Vegeto abavegetachieobjecdissiprequirspecispeci(Appe

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Chapter 2 

Management Actions for Land and Water Resources 

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

Prescribed burns would be the preferred method of vegetation treatments to convert stands of brush to grasslands and to promote regeneration of aspen stands and/or shrub species. No similar action Low intensity burns during periods of high soil moisture would be the preferred method and timing in mountain shrub communities. Prescribed burns would be restricted or prohibited in areas with coal or other fossil fuel surface outcrops. Prescribed burns would generally be conducted in areas having greater than 35 percent sagebrush composition, 20 percent desirable grass composition, and greater than 10 inches of precipitation. All vegetation treatments should be designed to be irregular in shape for edge effect, cover, and visual aesthetics. 

All methods of vegetation treatments would be considered on a case-bycase basis without preference. 

No similar action 

No similar action No similar action No similar action No similar action 

Prescribed burns would not be considered. 

No similar action 

No similar action No similar action No similar action 

Same as No Action 

Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Treatments in aspen 

communities would be fenced on a case-by-case basis. 

Same as No Action 

Alternative 

Same as No Action 

Alternative 

Same as No Action 

Alternative Same as No Action Alternative 

Same Prescprefertreatmto graregenshrub Same Treatwould basisSame Low ihigh sprefermounSame Prescor proother Same Prescconduthan 3compgrass 10 incSame All vedesigedge aesth

2-116 Jack Morrow 
Final EIS 

Management Actions for Land and Water Resources 

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

Areas treated with prescribed burns would be rested a minimum of two full growing seasons after treatment and fenced from livestock and big game animals if necessary. Herbicide loading sites would be prohibited within 500 feet of water sources, floodplains, riparian areas, and special status plant locations, and would be used in accordance with the guidelines in Appendix 8, Standard Operating Procedures for Range Improvements and Vegetation Manipulations. 

No similar action Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action 

Alternative Same as No Action Alternative 

Areas proposed for treatment with prescribed burns would be rested 1 full year prior to treatment (unless vegetation cover prior to treatment had adequate fine fuels to carry the fire) and would be rested 24 months after treatment. Same as No Action Alternative 

Areas prescfull yevegethad afire) aafter tanalyshoulSame Herbiprohibsourcand sand wwith thStandRangManip

Fences: Where documented wildlife conflicts with fencing on public lands occurred, fences would be modified, reconstructed, or if necessary, removed. Herding control of livestock would be encouraged as an alternative to fencing. Fence construction would be in accordance with BLM design standards and located so as not to overly impede wildlife or wild horse movement. 

Fences on public lands would be modified or reconstructed where documented wildlife conflicts with fencing occurred. No similar action Fence construction would be in accordance with BLM design standards with no special consideration for location. 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action 

Alternative Fence construction would be in accordance with BLM design standards and located so as not to overly impede wildlife. 

Same as No Action Alternative Same as No Action Alternative Same as No Action Alternative 

Same Wherwith fefencereconremovHerdiconsidfencinFence accorstandoverly Consiwild hstatus 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Chapter 2 

Management Actions for Land and Water Resources 

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

No similar action No similar action Fencing would be used to 

limit wild horses to the modified boundary of the Divide Basin Herd Management Area (which excludes the JMH CAP planning area). 

No similar action No sim

Watershed Health Assessments: Assessments of watershed health would be initiated based on levels of development, rangeland standards, PFC, and other available data. Those watersheds with more sensitive baseline conditions would be the focus for increased monitoring efforts and mitigation (Appendix 5). 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same Asseswould develPFC, Those sensitbe the efforts 

Native Vegetation:Native vegetation would be managed to allow natural plant succession to continue, with emphasis on mountain shrub, basin big sagebrush/lemon scurfpea, aspen, and other unique or important vegetation types. 

No similar action. Same as No Action 

Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same Native to allocontinshrubscurfpimpor

2-118 Jack Morrow 
Final EIS 

Fire Management 

Management Objective: To use prescribed fire as a management tool to help meet multiple use resource management goals; 

protection from wildfire to life, property, and resource values 

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

Fire ManagementImplementation Plan: Fire prescriptions identified in the Fire Management Implementation Plan for BLMAdministered Public Lands in the State of Wyoming would be implemented. The plan would be reviewed and updated as necessary to be consistent with federal wildland fire policy and the National Fire Plan. 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same Fire pManaBLM-the Stimplereviewto be fire po

Wildland and Prescribed Fire: Wildland and prescribed fires would be managed in all vegetation types to maintain or improve biological diversity and the overall health of the public lands. 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Prescribed burns would not be considered. Wildland fire would be managed within and outside prescription areas to improve biological diversity and the overall health of the public lands. 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same Wildlabe mamaintdiverspublic 

Fire Suppression:Full fire suppression would be applied for basin big sagebrush/lemon scurfpea vegetation associations. 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Limited fire suppression would be applied for basin big sagebrush/lemon scurfpea vegetation associations. 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same Full fifor bascurfp

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Chapter 2 

Water Resources Management

Management Objective: To stabilize and conserve soils; increase vegetative production; maintain or improve surface and g

protect, maintain, or improve wetlands, floodplains, and riparian areas

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

Water Quality: Land uses and surface disturbing activities would be designed to reduce erosion and to maintain or improve water quality. The area within 500 feet of wetlands, riparian areas, and 100-year floodplains, and within 100 feet of the edge of the inner gorge of intermittent and large ephemeral drainages would be avoidance areas for surface disturbing activities. Activities in these areas could be allowed if a site-specific analysis determined that no unacceptable impacts would occur to 100-year floodplains, wetlands, riparian areas, or water quality, and a plan to mitigate impacts to water quality were approved. 

Same as No Action Alternative The area within 250 feet of wetlands, riparian areas, and 100-year floodplains, and within 50 feet of the edge of the inner gorge of intermittent and large ephemeral drainages would be avoidance areas for surface disturbing activities. Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative The area within 1⁄4 mile of wetlands, riparian areas, and 100-year floodplains would be avoidance areas for surface disturbing activities. Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative The area within 500 feet to 1⁄4 mile of wetlands, riparian areas, and 100-year floodplains would be avoidance areas for surface disturbing activities. The appropriate distance would be determined on a case-bycase basis. Same as No Action Alternative 

Same Land activitreducimproSame The aripariafloodpedge and labe avdisturSame Activiallowedetermwould wetlanqualitto wat

2-120 Jack Morrow 
Final EIS 

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

Permanent Facilities: The 100-year floodplains, wetlands, and riparian areas would be closed to new permanent facilities (e.g., storage tanks, structure pits, etc.). Proposals for linear crossings in 100-year floodplains, wetlands, and riparian areas would be considered on a case-by-case basis. 

New permanent facilities would be allowed in floodplains provided there were no practicable alternatives (Executive Order (EO) 11988), and appropriate mitigation measures would be implemented. Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative Same as No Action Alternative 

New permanent facilities that would enhance the protection and management of 100-year floodplains, wetlands, and riparian areas would be considered. Same as No Action Alternative 

Same New penhanmanawetlanbe coSame Propoyear fripariaon a c

Erosion Control: Areas with highly erodible soils would be avoidance areas for surface disturbing activities unless site-specific analysis determined that soil degradation would not occur and that water quality would not be adversely affected. When applicable, erosion control plans would be required as part of surface disturbing project proposals. 

Same as No Action Alternative Same as No Action Alternative 

Surface disturbing activities would be prohibited in areas of highly erodible soils or that would be difficult to reclaim. No Similar Action 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action 

Alternative 

Same Areas be avdisturspecifdegrawater affectSame When plans surfac

Colorado River SalinityControl: BLM would participate with federal, state, and local government agencies to develop and implement salinity control plans for the Colorado River Basin. 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same BLM wstate, to devcontroBasin

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Chapter 2 

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

Wetlands and Floodplains: Wetlands and floodplains would be managed in accordance with EO 11988, EO 11990, and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Projects to improve the ecological integrity of the dunal ponds would be considered for development on BLMadministered public lands. 

Same as No Action Alternative Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative Specific actions would be implemented to protect the ecological integrity of the dunal ponds and other ecologically important ephemeral wetlands not covered under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. 

Same as No Action Alternative Same as Alternative 2 

Same Wetlamana11988the CSame Projecintegrconsidadmin

Riparian ManagementExclosures: Existing riparian management exclosures would be maintained or modified, and new exclosures would be developed for enhancement of wildlife habitat. Exclosures would be closed to livestock grazing. 

Existing exclosures could be removed and the area made available for livestock grazing; new exclosures would be considered only if they would benefit commodity uses. Same as No Action Alternative 

Existing exclosures would be maintained, and new exclosures would be considered only if they would benefit preservation of sensitive resources. Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative Same as No Action Alternative 

Existiexclosand/oanalydetermtheir premovdevelresouSame Exclolivesto

Fluid Mineral Wells: Water wells constructed to provide water for drilling of fluid mineral wells (oil, gas, or coalbed gas wells) would be constructed in compliance with BLM regulations for resource protection (43 CFR 3162.5). 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same Watewater (oil, gbe coBLM protec

2-122 Jack Morrow 
Final EIS 

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

Hydrogeologic investigations would be required where there was a reasonable expectation that surface water features were in connection with geologic formations being dewatered. Mitigation measures would be implemented, as needed, to protect surface waters. Appropriate measures would be applied to protect groundwater quality and prevent co-mingling of aquifers (Appendix 6). 

Hydrobe reqreasowater with gdewatMitigaimplesurfacApproapplieand p(Appe

Aquifer Recharge Areas:Aquifer recharge areas (Map 61) would be managed to maintain or enhance recharge volume and groundwater quality by limiting road density and surface occupancy. No similar action 

Aquifer recharge areas (Map 61) would be managed to maintain or enhance recharge volume and groundwater quality by limiting the amount of impermeable surfaces in the recharge areas. 

No similar action 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Studies would be conducted 

to better define aquifer recharge area boundaries. 

Same as No Action Alternative Studies would be conducted on a case-by-case basis to better define aquifer recharge area boundaries. Studies would be done primarily in relation to specific projects. 

Same Aquifewould enhangroundensiSame Studiecase-aquifeStudierelatio

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Chapter 2 

Wild Horses Management

Management Objective: To protect, maintain, and control viable, healthy herds of wild horses in the Divide Basin Herd Ma

Appropriate Management Levels (AML) while retaining their free-roaming nature; provide adequate habitat for free-roam

management consistent with principles of multiple use and environmental protection; and provide opportunity for the pu

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

Wild Horse Herd ManagementArea Boundaries and Appropriate ManagementLevels: The Divide Basin Wild Horse HMA boundaries (Map 62) would remain unchanged and the AML would be maintained at 415–600 horses. No similar action 

Same as No Action Alternative No similar action 

The Divide Basin Wild Horse HMA boundaries (Map 62) would be modified to exclude the JMH CAP planning area. The AML would be maintained at 415– 600 horses. No similar action 

The Divide Basin Wild Horse HMA boundaries (Map 62) would be expanded to include the entire JMH CAP planning area. The AML would be maintained at 415–600 horses. No more than 100 horses of the AML would be allowed in the expansion area. 

Same The DboundunchamaintNo sim

Activity and Monitoring Plans: In conformance with the Green River RMP objectives for vegetation management, a sitespecific activity plan would be prepared and implemented for the Divide Basin Wild Horse HMA to ensure adequate forage is available to support the AML of 415–600 horses. A monitoring program would be developed to support wild horse herd management decisions. 

Same as No Action Alternative Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative Same as No Action Alternative 

Same In conRMP manaplan wimpleWild Hforage of 415A mondevelmana

2-124 Jack Morrow 
Final EIS 

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

Water Developments: Water developments would be considered to maintain or improve resource conditions and/or enhance wild horse herd distribution and manage forage utilization. Water developments would be allowed within sensitive wildlife habitats in conformance with wildlife objectives. Compatibility with special status plant species would be required. 

Same as No Action Alternative Same as No Action Alternative Same as No Action Alternative 

No water developments for wild horse management would be constructed. No similar action No similar action 

Water developments would be provided, as needed, to improve wild horse herd distribution and manage forage utilization. 

Water developments within 

sensitive wildlife habitats would be considered only if wildlife habitat and resource conditions were improved or maintained. 

Same as No Action 

Alternative 

Same Wateprovidhorse forage Same Watewildlifonly icondimaintSame Compspecie

Gathering Plan: A selective gathering plan would be developed and implemented to remove excess horses from inside and outside the HMA to maintain the existing AMLs. Gathering cycles would vary by gathering plan objectives, resource conditions, and needs. Fertility control would be initiated only if necessary. 

Same as No Action Alternative Same as No Action Alternative Same as No Action Alternative 

A gathering plan would be developed and implemented to remove wild horses from the JMH CAP planning area. No similar action No similar action 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action 

Alternative 

Same as No Action 

Alternative 

Same A seledevelremovand oexistinSame GathegathecondiSame Fertiliif nec

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Chapter 2 

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

Public Education: Public education and interpretation for the public enjoyment of wild horse herds in the Divide Basin HMA would be provided through interpretive signs and access sites for viewing horses. 

Same as No Action Alternative 

No similar action Same as No Action 

Alternative 

Same Public for the herds be proand a

2-126 Jack Morrow 
Final EIS 

Livestock Grazing Management

Management Objective: To improve forage production and ecological conditions for the benefit of livestock use while provid

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management: The Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management would apply to all livestock grazing activities on public lands (Appendix 10). If livestock grazing were determined to be a factor for any allotment that did not meet the Wyoming BLM Standards for Healthy Rangelands, appropriate actions (as determined by an interdisciplinary BLM team in consultation with stakeholders) would be implemented. The BLM staff would work with livestock operators and interested publics to determine the most appropriate methods for meeting the standards. Significant progress toward meeting the standards would be made within a reasonable time frame (subject to climatic variability and other constraints). 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same The WRangLivestwould activit10). If livesto be did noStandapproan intconsube imThe BlivestopublicapprostandSignifthe streasoclimatconst

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Chapter 2 

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

Rangeland and RiparianHabitat: Appropriate actions for improving degraded rangeland and riparian habitat (i.e., meeting Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands) could include, but would not be limited to, reduction of permitted AUMs, modified turnout dates, livestock water developments, range improvements, modified grazing periods, growing season rest, riparian pastures, exclosures, implementation of forage utilization levels, and livestock conversions. No similar action No similar action 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Reductions of active 

AUMs would not be implemented unless it was the only appropriate action for meeting the Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands. 

No similar action 

Same as No Action Alternative No similar action 

Modified turnout dates would 

be the primary method for meeting the Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands. 

Same as No Action Alternative 

No similar action 

No similar action 

Same ApprodegrahabitaStandcould limited AUMslivestoimproperiodpastuof foralivesto

No sim

No sim

2-128 Jack Morrow 
Final EIS 

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

Forage Utilization Levels: Forage utilization levels for upland and riparian species would be in accordance with individual allotment management plans. Determination of forage utilization levels would be based on PFC Guidelines, BLM reference handbooks, and professional judgment (Appendix 10). 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same Foragand riaccormanaDeterlevels Guidehandbjudgm

Livestock Water Developmentsand Range Improvements: Livestock water developments and range improvements would be considered to maintain or improve resource conditions and/or enhance livestock distribution. Compatibility with special status plant species would be required. No similar action 

Livestock water developments and range improvements would be considered to enhance livestock production. Same as No Action Alternative 

No similar action 

Same as No Action Alternative Same as No Action Alternative 

Livestock water 

developments and range improvements proposed in sensitive wildlife habitat would be considered only if the habitat and resource conditions were improved. 

Same as No Action Alternative Same as No Action Alternative Livestock water developments and/or range improvements proposed in sensitive wildlife habitat would be considered only if the habitat and resource conditions were maintained or improved. 

Same Livestrange considresoulivestoSame CompspecieSame Livesrange sensiconsiresouor imp

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Chapter 2 

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

Salt or Mineral Supplements: Salt or mineral supplements would not be allowed within 500 feet of natural water sources and related riparian habitat and historic and scenic trails unless analysis showed that watershed, riparian, and wildlife values, or the integrity of trails would not be adversely affected. No salt or mineral supplements would be allowed in areas of special status plant species or other sensitive areas. No similar action 

Salt or mineral supplements would not be allowed within 250 feet of riparian habitat and historic and scenic trails, unless analysis showed that watershed, riparian, and wildlife values, or the integrity of trails would not be adversely affected. Same as No Action Alternative 

No similar action 

Salt or mineral supplements would not be allowed within 1/2 mile of riparian habitat, historic and scenic trails, areas inhabited by special status plant species, or other sensitive areas. No similar action 

No similar action 

Salt or mineral supplements would not be allowed within 1/4 mile of riparian habitat, historic and scenic trails, areas inhabited by special status plant species, or other sensitive areas, unless analysis showed that watershed, riparian, and wildlife values, or the integrity of trails would not be adversely affected. 

No similar action 

No similar action 

Same Salt onot be naturaripariascenic that wvaluenot be 

Same 

No sabe allplant Placefeet aother would distrib

2-130 Jack Morrow 
Final EIS 

Vegetation Management

Management Objective: To maintain or enhance vegetation community health, composition, and diversity to meet watershe

livestock grazing resource management objectives; and to provide for plant diversity (desired plant comm

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

Special Status Plant Species:Potential habitat of special status plant species’ communities on federal land or on split estate lands would require searches for the plant species prior to approving any project or activity. Should species be found, all disruptive activities would be halted until species-specific protective measures were developed and implemented. For listed species, protective measures would be developed and implemented with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Special status plant species potential habitat areas would be areas of controlled surface use (CSU) for surface disturbing activities. 

Same as No Action Alternative Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative Surface disturbing activities would be prohibited in special status plant species potential habitat areas. 

Same as No Action Alternative Same as No Action Alternative 

Same Potenplant land orequirprior tactivitdisrupuntil smeasimpleprotecdevelUSFWSame Specihabitacontrosurfac

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Chapter 2 

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

Known locations of special status plant species (Map 15) would be protected and closed to— • Surface disturbing activities 

that could adversely affect the plants or their habitat 

• Location of new mining 

claims (withdrawal from mineral location and entry under the land laws would be pursued) 

• Mineral material sales • All off-road vehicular use, 

including those vehicles used for geophysical exploration activities, surveying, etc. 

• Use of explosives and 

blasting. 

Known locations of special status plant species would be open to consideration for mineral leasing with no surface occupancy requirements. Locations of federally listed, proposed, or candidate species would be avoided or closed to surface disturbing activities depending on coordination with the USFWS. 

Known locations of Wyoming BLM sensitive plant species (Map 15) would be avoidance areas for surface disturbing activities. No similar action Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action 

Alternative Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative Same as No Action Alternative Same as No Action Alternative 

Same Knowplant protec• S

co

• L

(waw

• M• A

inga

• USame Knowplant considno suSame Locatpropobe avdisturcoord

Rights-of-Way Limitations: Areas where Wyoming BLM sensitive plant species are known to exist, and/or have potential habitat, would be ROW avoidance areas (Map 8). 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Actual plant locations, and/or potential habitat, of Wyoming BLM sensitive plant species would be ROW exclusion areas (Map 27). 

Same as Alternative 2 Same 

Areas plant and/obe RO

2-132 Jack Morrow 
Final EIS 

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

Exceptions could be granted by the Authorized Officer if analysis showed that there was no adverse impact to the plant populations. 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Exceptions would not be considered. 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same ExcepAuthothat ththe pl

Fire Suppression: Fire suppression vehicular activities would be limited to existing roads and trails in special status plant species habitat (Map 15). A site-specific analysis would be prepared for all fire management activities around special status plant species sites to determine the appropriate fire management response. 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same Fire swould trails habitaA siteprepaactivitspecieapprorespo

Threatened and EndangeredPlant Species: Potential habitat for listed, proposed, or candidate threatened and endangered plant species would be surveyed prior to any surface disturbance or depletion of surface water sources. If any listed plant species were identified, formal consultation with the USFWS would occur, and management prescriptions would be developed on a case-by-case basis. 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same Potenor canendansurvedisturwater specieconsuoccurwould case 

Invasive Species: EO 13112 regarding invasive species would be followed. 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same EO 13would 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Chapter 2 

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

The introduction of invasive species would be prevented and monitored, and populations would be controlled in a costeffective and environmentally sound manner. Public education on invasive species and their control would be promoted. All surface disturbing activities would be subject to best management practices (Appendix 6) that would eliminate or severely reduce the potential for introducing invasive species. 

The inwould and pin a cenviroPublic and thAll sube supractieliminpotenspecie

Forest and Woodland Health: Management of conifer and aspen communities would be designed to promote forest and woodland health. Old decadent trees may be left standing or downed to provide cover or other habitat for wildlife (e.g., Animal Inn). 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same ManacommpromoOld dstandor othAnima

2-134 Jack Morrow 
Final EIS 

Wildlife Habitat Management

Management Objective: To maintain, improve, or enhance the biological diversity of wildlife species while ensuring healthy e

or altered habitat, with the objective of attaining desired native plant communities, while providing for wildlife needs and so

possible, provide suitable wildlife habitat and forage to support the Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD) strategic 

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

Habitat Management Plan: Habitat management plans would be developed, as needed, for sensitive and/or highly developed and disturbed areas to mitigate wildlife habitat losses. Habitat management plans would include habitat expansion efforts, threatened and endangered species reintroduction, and population goals and objectives. To the extent possible, suitable wildlife habitat and forage would be provided to support the WGFD Strategic Plan objectives. Changes in the WGFD planning objective levels would be considered based on habitat capability, availability, and sitespecific analysis. 

Same as No Action Alternative Same as No Action Alternative Same as No Action Alternative Same as No Action Alternative 

A Habitat Management Plan would be prepared for the entire planning area to mitigate wildlife habitat losses. The habitat management plan would include habitat expansion efforts, threatened and endangered species reintroduction, and population goals and objectives. Same as No Action Alternative Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative Same as No Action Alternative Same as No Action Alternative Same as No Action Alternative 

Same HabitadeveldevelmitigaSame Habitaincludthreatreintroand oSame To the wildlifprovidStrateSame Chanobjecbased availa

Water Developments: Wildlife water developments would be considered on a caseby-case basis to maintain or improve wildlife habitat and resource conditions. 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same Wildlifconsidto maand re

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Chapter 2 

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

Special Status WildlifeSpecies:Potential habitat of special status wildlife species on federal land or on split estate lands would require searches for the species prior to approving any project or activity. Should species be found, all disruptive activities would be halted until species-specific protective measures could be implemented. Special status species’ habitat would be protected from degradation, and BLM would take proactive measures to improve habitat character on an as needed basis, in accordance with BLM 6840 policy and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. 

Same as No Action Alternative Only locations of federally listed, proposed, or candidate species would require species-specific protection measures as developed with the USFWS. Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative Same as No Action Alternative Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative Same as No Action Alternative Same as No Action Alternative 

Same Potenwildlifsplit esearcapproSame Shoudisrupuntil smeasUSFWSame Specibe proBLM wto impneedeBLM 6Enda

2-136 Jack Morrow 
Final EIS 

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

Sensitive Habitat: Crucial winter range or sensitive habitats, birthing areas, the connectivity area (migration corridor), nesting sites, and sensitive fisheries habitats would be maintained or improved. This would be accomplished by maintaining habitat or reducing habitat loss or alteration, improving habitat where possible, and by applying appropriate mitigation requirements (e.g., distance and seasonal limitations, rehabilitation) to all appropriate activities. Exceptions could be provided on a case-bycase basis should exception criteria (Appendix 4) be met. Mitigation requirements would be determined on a case-by-case basis. 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same Cruciahabitaconnenestinhabitaimproaccomor redimproby aprequirseasoall apcould basis (Apperequira cas

Predator Damage Control: The BLM would continue to coordinate with APHIS–Wildlife Services (WS) and review its annual management plan for animal damage control activities on public lands. 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same The BcoordServicmanacontro

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Chapter 2 

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

Proposed animal damage control activities not compatible with BLM planning and management prescriptions or objectives for other resource activities and uses would be identified on a case-by-case basis. APHIS-WS would be requested to amend or adjust the plan accordingly. APHIS-WS would determine the appropriate animal damage control methods in coordination with BLM. No similar action 

Same as No Action Alternative Same as No Action Alternative 

No similar action 

Proposed animal damage control activities not compatible with BLM planning and management prescriptions or objectives for other resource activities and uses would be identified on a case-by-case basis. BLM would determine appropriate planning strategies, with input from APHIS-WS. Non-lethal animal damage control for livestock protection would be allowed. Lethal animal damage control would be allowed only if it would benefit wildlife. 

The JMH CAP planning area 

would be designated as a “Restricted Control Area” for predator control in coordination with APHISWS. 

Same as Alternative 2 Non-lethal control would be emphasized but lethal methods would be allowed for animal damage control for both livestock and wildlife. Same as Alternative 2 

Same 

PropoactivitplannprescresouidentiBLM plannAPHIEmphlethal and man an

Same 

The Jbe deContrcoord

Greater Sage-Grouse Leks,Nesting and Early Broodrearing Habitat: Surface occupancy (long-term or permanent aboveground facilities) would be controlled within 1⁄4 mile of greater sagegrouse leks (Map 7). 

Same as No Action Alternative 

No similar action Surface occupancy (longterm or permanent 

aboveground facilities) would be prohibited within 1⁄2 mile of greater sage-grouse leks (Map 39). 

Surfapermawould within leks (could be sucase scienanaly

2-138 Jack Morrow 
Final EIS 

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

No similar action Disruptive activities would avoid occupied greater sage-grouse leks from 8:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m. daily. No similar action No similar action Disruptive activities would avoid occupied greater sage-grouse leks from, usually, February 1 through June 30. The actual area to be avoided, usually within 1⁄4 to 1⁄2 mile of the lek, and appropriate seasonal limitations would be determined on a caseby-case basis. 

No similar action 

Same as No Action Alternative 

No similar action 

No similar action 

No similar action 

Surface occupancy (longterm or permanent 

aboveground facilities) would be prohibited in greater sage-grouse concentration areas (Map 28). No similar action 

Disruptive activities would 

avoid occupied greater sage-grouse leks and concentration areas 24 hours daily. 

No similar action 

No similar action 

No similar action 

No similar action 

No similar action 

Disruptive activities would 

avoid occupied greater sagegrouse leks and within 1⁄2 mile of nesting/brood-rearing areas from sunset to 9:00 a.m. daily. 

Disruptive activities would 

avoid occupied greater sagegrouse leks from, usually, March 1 through May 15. The actual area to be avoided, usually within 1⁄4 to 1⁄2 mile of the lek, and appropriate seasonal limitations would be determined on a case-bycase basis. 

No sim

Same 

Disrupoccupfrom 8

No sim

No simDisrupoccupfrom, 15. Tand adetermdepenresea

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Chapter 2 

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

No similar action Seasonal limitations on surface disturbing and disruptive activities (usually from February 1 through July 31) would apply up to 2 miles from greater sagegrouse leks (nesting and early brood-rearing habitat) on a caseby-case basis (Map 7). Nesting and early brood-rearing habitats would be protected from habitat degradation, and measures would be taken to improve habitat quality within 2 miles of greater sage-grouse leks on an as needed basis. 

Seasonal limitations for disruptive activities would be determined on a caseby-case basis. Seasonal limitations on surface disturbing and disruptive activities (usually from March 15 through July 15) would apply within actual nesting and early brood-rearing habitat up to 1 mile from greater sage-grouse leks on a case-by-case basis (Map 16). Nesting and early broodrearing habitats would be protected from habitat degradation, and measures would be taken to improve habitat quality within 1 mile of greater sage-grouse leks on an as needed basis. 

No similar action No similar action Nesting and early broodrearing habitats would be protected from habitat degradation, and measures would be taken to improve habitat quality within greater sage-grouse concentration areas on an as needed basis. 

No similar action Seasonal limitations on surface disturbing and disruptive activities (usually from March 15 through July 15) would apply within actual nesting and early broodrearing habitat up to 2 miles from greater sage-grouse leks on a case-by-case basis (Map 39). Nesting and early broodrearing habitats would be protected from habitat degradation, and measures would be taken to improve habitat quality within 2 miles of greater sage-grouse leks on an as needed basis. 

No simSeasodistur(usua15) wbroodcase Nestinhabitahabitawould qualitMap 5

Greater Sage-Grouse WinterConcentration Areas: Disruptive activities would be prohibited in greater sage-grouse winter concentration areas from November 15 through April 30. 

No similar action No similar action No similar action No sim

Greater Sage-Grouse WinterRange: No similar action No similar action Surface occupancy (longterm or permanent 

aboveground facilities) would be prohibited in greater sage-grouse winter range (Map 28). 

No similar action No sim

2-140 Jack Morrow 
Final EIS 

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

No similar action No similar action No similar action Disruptive activities would be 

prohibited in greater sagegrouse winter range usually from November 15 through March 15 (Map 39). These areas are subject to change based on new data and scientific information. 

Same Disrupprohibwinte15 thrThese based inform

All Greater Sage-GrouseHabitats (Leks, Nesting, EarlyBrood-Rearing, and WinterRange): Seasonal limitations may be excepted, provided criteria in the Procedures for Processing Proposals for Land Use Authorizations in Areas of Seasonal Restriction (Appendix 4) can be met, and appropriate mitigation can be implemented (Appendix 6), as determined by BLM in coordination with commodity users and other appropriate entities. Avoidance areas may vary depending on natural topographic barriers, terrain, vegetation structure and cover, type of activity, line of sight distance, habitat needs, etc. Greater sage-grouse habitats would be protected from habitat degradation, and measures would be taken to improve habitat on an as needed basis in accordance with BLM 6840 policy. 

No similar action Same as No Action Alternative Same as No Action Alternative 

No similar action 

Same as No Action Alternative Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action 

Alternative Same as No Action Alternative Same as No Action Alternative 

Same SeasoexcepProcefor Laof Seacan bmitiga(Appein cooand oSame Avoidon naterraincoverdistanSame Greatbe prodegrataken needeBLM 6

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Chapter 2 

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

No similar action No similar action 

No similar action 

No similar action 

No similar action 

No similar action 

No similar action 

No similar action 

The msage-desigand to Surfaactivit

Mitiga

noisedetermcase 

Maintenance and OperationalActivities in Greater SageGrouse Habitats: No similar action No similar action No similar action In greater sage-grouse 

habitats, surface disturbing maintenance and operational activities would require mitigation measures or development plans. These mitigation measures or development plans would be based on local situations on a case-by-case basis. 

Same In gresurfacoperamitigaplansdevelon locbasis

2-142 Jack Morrow 
Final EIS 

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

Big Game Winter Range: Disruptive activities would be prohibited in big game (elk, deer, and antelope) crucial winter range between November 15 and April 30 (Map 7). Seasonal limitations may be excepted, provided criteria in the Procedures for Processing Applications in Areas of Seasonal Restriction (Appendix 4) can be met and appropriate mitigation can be implemented (as determined by BLM in coordination with commodity users). No similar action 

No similar action No similar action 

No similar action 

Same as No Action Alternative Same as No Action Alternative 

Vegetative character of big 

game (elk, deer, and antelope) crucial winter range would be restored on a case-by-case basis using BLM reclamation and monitoring practices (Appendix 9). 

Same as No Action Alternative Same as No Action Alternative No similar action 

Same Disrupprohibantelobetwe(Map Same SeasoexcepProceApplicRestrand aimplein coousers

No sim

Big Game Birthing Areas: Surface disturbing and disruptive activities and the amount of habitat disturbed would be limited in big game birthing areas from May 1 through June 30. No similar action 

No similar action No similar action 

Surface disturbing activities would be prohibited in big game birthing areas. Vegetative character of big game birthing areas would be restored on a case-bycase basis using BLM reclamation and monitoring practices (Appendix 9). 

Same as No Action Alternative No similar action 

Same Surfaactivitdisturgame througNo sim

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Chapter 2 

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

Black-Footed Ferret: Black-footed ferret searches would be completed according to current USFWS protocol within 1 year prior to conducting any surface disturbing or disruptive activities in all or portions of potential ferret habitat areas (i.e., prairie dog colonies 200 acres or greater in size). Should a ferret be found, all disruptive activities would be stopped until protective measures developed with the USFWS could be implemented. BLM would cooperate with USFWS and WGFD on any black-footed ferret reintroduction within the JMH CAP planning area. No similar action 

Same as No Action Alternative Same as No Action Alternative Same as No Action Alternative Measures would be taken, as appropriate, to reduce potential raptor perches in and around prairie dog towns and colonies. 

Same as No Action Alternative Same as No Action Alternative Same as No Action Alternative Same as Alternative 1 

Same as No Action Alternative Same as No Action Alternative Same as No Action Alternative Same as Alternative 1 

Same BlackcompUSFWcondudisrupof potprairie greateShoudisrupuntil pwith thimpleSame BLM wand WreintroplannSame Measapproperchtowns 

Mountain Plover: Mountain plover surveys would be required prior to authorizing any surface disturbing or disruptive activities in potential plover habitat. Surveys would be conducted within suitable mountain plover habitat by a qualified biologist using a protocol determined by the Rock Springs BLM biologist. 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same MounrequirsurfacactivitSurvesuitabqualifdetermbiolog

2-144 Jack Morrow 
Final EIS 

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

No similar action No similar action No similar action 

Active mountain plover 

nesting aggregation areas (Map 17) would be avoidance areas for surface disturbing and disruptive activities from April 10 to July 10. 

No similar action No similar action 

Active mountain plover nesting aggregation areas (Map 17) would be avoidance areas for surface disturbing and disruptive activities within 1⁄4 mile of the area from April 10 to July 10. 

Traffic speeds on BLM roads 

during the brood-rearing period (June and July) would be limited within 1⁄4 mile of nesting concentration areas. Exceptions or other mitigation measures could be applied on a case-bycase basis, as determined by BLM in coordination with commodity users. 

Measures (i.e., avoidance, 

burying power lines, installation of anti-perch devices, and exclusion for artificial nest structures) would be taken to limit hunting perches or nest sites for avian predators within 1⁄4 mile of nesting aggregation areas. 

Same as Alternative 2 Same as Alternative 2 Same as Alternative 2 

Same 

Active aggreavoiddisturwithin 10 to 

Same 

Traffic the brJuly) nestinExcepmeascase-BLM users

Same 

Measpowedevicnest slimit hsites of nes

Game Fish and Special StatusFish Species: Seasonal limitations for surface disturbing activities to protect game and special status fish species during spawning would be applied as necessary. 

No similar action Same as No Action 

Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same Seasodisturand sspawnneces

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Chapter 2 

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

Raptor Nesting Sites: Active and historic raptor nesting sites (Map 17) would be protected and managed for continued nesting activities. Permanent or high profile structures would be prohibited within a specified distance of active raptor nests. Distance would be determined on a caseby-case basis and would depend on the raptor species involved, natural topographic barriers, lineof-sight distances, etc. Temporary disturbances associated with placement of facilities, such as pipelines, and other actions such as seismic activities could be allowed within 1⁄2 to 1 mile of active raptor nests. Disruptive activities would be seasonally restricted within a 1⁄2­to 1-mile radius of occupied raptor nesting sites. Raptor nest surveys would be conducted within a 1-mile radius or linear distance of proposed surface uses or activities proposed during raptor nesting season (see Table 2-3 for dates, which vary by species). 

Same as No Action Alternative No similar action No similar action Disruptive activities during the nesting season (February 1 to July 31) would be prohibited within a 1⁄4-mile radius of occupied raptor nest sites. No similar action 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Permanent or high profile 

structures would be prohibited within 1⁄2 to 1 mile of active raptor nests. 

Same as No Action 

Alternative Disruptive activity restrictions within the specified distance (usually within a 1⁄2- to 1-mile radius) of occupied raptor nests would be applied yearround. 

Same as No Action 

Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative Same as No Action Alternative Same as No Action Alternative Same as No Action Alternative Same as No Action Alternative 

Same Active sites and mactivitSame Permwould distanDistancase-depeninvolvline-oSame Tempwith ppipeliseismwithin nestsSame Disrupseasomile rsites. Same Raptocondulinear uses raptor for da

2-146 Jack Morrow 
Final EIS 

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

Different species of raptors may require different types of protective measures. 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same Differrequirmeas

Introduction and Reintroduction of Species: BLM would cooperate with the WGFD in studies for the introduction and re-introduction of native and non-native (game) wildlife and fish species. BLM will cooperate with the USFWS in studies for, and reintroduction of, special status species. 

Same as No Action Alternative Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative Same as No Action Alternative 

Same BLM win stuintrod(gameSame BLM wUSFWreintrospecie

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Chapter 2 

HERITAGE RESOURCES MANAGEMENT 

Management Objective: To expand the opportunities for scientific study, and educational and interpretive uses of cultural and protect and preserve important cultural and paleontological resources and/or their historic record for future generations; reso

cultural/paleontological resources and other resource uses; and to foster opportunities for Native Americans to use heritage re

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

Heritage ResourcesProtection: Heritage resources in special management areas would remain protected through specific and general management actions (mitigation requirements and sitespecific management prescriptions) associated with designated ACECs, WSAs, and National Historic Trails (Appendix 7). Heritage resources are found in the Greater Sand Dunes ACEC (including Boars Tusk and Crookston Ranch), White Mountain Petroglyphs ACEC, South Pass Historic Landscape ACEC (including the Oregon Trail, California Trail, Mormon Pioneer Trail, and Pony Express Route), and the Tri-Territory Marker (Map 2). Other areas may be identified and included in the future pursuant to procedures, including public participation, outlined in Appendix 7. 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same Heritamanaprotecgener(mitigspecifassocWSAs(Appefound ACEC CrookPetroHistorthe OMormExpreMarkeidentipursupublic Appe

2-148 Jack Morrow 
Final EIS 

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

Protection of Scientific Values: Sites that are eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) because of their scientific value would be protected. Preservation of the scientific information would be the preferred mitigation method should any such sites have to be impacted by other activities. These sites include Finley, Krmpotich, and EdenFarson archaeological sites in the paleosol deposition area. Other sites would be included as they are located, recorded, and evaluated for NRHP eligibility. No similar action No similar action 

Same as No Action Alternative No similar action No similar action 

Same as No Action Alternative Greater Sand Dunes ACEC would be expanded to include the paleosol deposition area. The Greater Sand Dunes ACEC would be managed as a Research Natural Area (RNA). Surface disturbing activities would be prohibited. 

Same as No Action Alternative Greater Sand Dunes ACEC would be expanded to include the paleosol deposition area. Surface disturbing activities would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis following appropriate archeological inventory. 

Same Sites the Nvalue Preseinformmitigasites activitKrmparchaDune(paleosites wlocateNRHP No simThe p

be demanaSand be maeduca

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Chapter 2 

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

No similar action No similar action No similar action The confidential location of the Finley, Krmpotich, Eden-Farson, and other archeological sites as appropriate would be maintained. Interpretive information would be developed and made available at the Rock Springs Field Office (RSFO). 

No similar action 

No similar action 

No similar action 

Same as No Action Alternative 

No similar action 

The Finley Site would be 

nominated to the NRHP under the Register’s History of American Archaeology context and under the Earliest Americans context. 

The Krmpotich Site would be 

nominated to the NRHP under the Register’s Earliest Americans context. 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Subsurface inventory would 

be required by remote sensing techniques, handdug test excavations, or mechanical testing prior to issuing any surface disturbing authorizations in the paleosol deposition area. Subsurface testing would require an approved testing plan and BLM-SHPO consultation. Mitigation may include research-oriented data recovery excavation. 

Same as Alternative 2 Same as Alternative 2 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same Subsu

requirtechnexcavprior tauthoDuneSubsuapproSHPO includrecov

Same 

The Fto the HistorconteAmer

Same 

The KnominRegisconte

Same The cKrmparchawould informmade 

2-150 Jack Morrow 
Final EIS 

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

National Register EligibleSites: All NRHP eligible historic sites would be protected through provisions of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA). No similar action Pursuant to the Protocol agreement between the BLM and the Wyoming SHPO (Appendix 7), sites eligible for inclusion in the NRHP under Criterion D because of their scientific information content would be surrounded by a 100-foot avoidance area. No similar action 

Same as No Action Alternative 

No similar action 

Same as No Action Alternative 

No similar action 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Eligible historic properties 

would be nominated for inclusion in the NRHP. 

Sites eligible for inclusion in the NRHP under Criterion D because of their scientific information content would be surrounded by a 300-foot avoidance area. 

BLM would require 

development proponents to fund preparation of NRHP nominations on a case-bycase basis. 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Several high-profile historic properties would be nominated for inclusion in the NRHP. 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as Alternative 2 

Same All NRprotecNHPA 

Nomieligiba cas

Same PursubetweSHPO inclusD, beinformsurrouarea. 

BLM 

propoNRHP case valuespecif

Native American Sites: Native American respected places (located generally in the Steamboat Mountain, Steamboat Rim, White Mountain Rim, Essex Mountain, Monument Ridge, and Joe Hay Rim areas) and the Indian Gap Trail would be protected by provisions of the NHPA and the American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA). 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same Native (locatMounMounMonuareasbe proNHPA 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Chapter 2 

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

Tribal leaders would be consulted and Traditional Cultural Properties (TCP), including respected places, would be protected. No similar action 

Same as No Action Alternative No similar action 

Same as No Action Alternative This would include negotiating for related viewsheds with tribal leaders, the State Historic Preservation Officer, and development proponents. 

Same as No Action Alternative This would include negotiating for related foreground viewsheds with tribal leaders, the State Historic Preservation Officer, and development proponents. 

Consconceidentirespeon a rWhen 

viciniteligibmanathrougleadepropocharapropoincludto prothe ar

Surface disturbance and disruptive activities would be prohibited within a minimum of 100 feet of respected places. Actual distance would be determined on a case-by-case basis. No similar action 

Same as No Action Alternative 

No similar action 

Same as No Action Alternative 

The Indian Gap Trail would 

be researched and mapped, and a trail interpretive plan would be developed. 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as Alternative 2 

Same Surfaactivitminimplacedeterm

Same 

The Inreseainterp

2-152 Jack Morrow 
Final EIS 

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

Expansion Era Roads andAssociated Sites: Expansion Era Roads would be managed similar to the historic trails covered in the Oregon, Mormon Pioneer National Historic Trails Management Plan (BLM 1986), with prescriptions from that plan applied, although the 1⁄4-mile protective setback might not always be applicable. Management actions would include development of activity plans with the objective of preserving the historical integrity of significant NRHP contributing segments of the historic roads. Activity plans may include NRHP nomination of those Expansion Era Roads that qualify. 

Same as No Action Alternative No similar action 

Expansion era roads and associated sites eligible for the NRHP would be protected from activities that would affect their NRHP eligibility status. Activities would be limited within 1⁄4 mile of these roads and sites. 

Expansion Era Roads and 

associated sites eligible for the NRHP would be nominated for listing. 

Same as Alternative 2 Contributing portions of Expansion Era Roads and associated sites eligible for the NRHP would be nominated for listing. 

Same 

ExpanmanacoverPioneManaprescalthousetbaapplicwould plans the hiNRHP historSame ActivinominRoad

Historic Livestock Management Sites: Some historic livestock management sites may be eligible for inclusion in the NRHP within the context of the development of pastoral agriculture in Wyoming and the Rocky Mountain region. There is no special management or recognition provisions for these sites under existing management. 

NRHP eligible historic livestock management sites would be protected from surface disturbing activities within an area determined on a case-bycase basis. 

NRHP eligible historic livestock management sites would be protected from surface disturbing activities within a minimum area of 300 feet. 

NRHP eligible historic livestock management sites would be protected from surface disturbing activities within a minimum area of 100 feet. 

Same NRHP 

manaprotecactivit100 fe

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Chapter 2 

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

Native and Euro-American Sites: Important historic and archaeological sites within the context of early contact between Native and Euro-American peoples would be protected by provisions of the NHPA. 

Interpretive signs would be installed where development occurs adjacent to unprotected sites of interest. 

An interpretive program, based on BLM and Native American investigation of detailed historical context, would be developed and implemented. Sites would be protected through formal listing in the NRHP and/or through inclusion in the Backcountry Byways program. 

An interpretive program on Native and Euro-American peoples would be developed and implemented. Sites would be included in the NRHP and/or Backcountry Byways program on a caseby-case basis. 

Same An intand Edevelwould and/oon a c

Paleontological Sites:Documented significant fossil sites would be avoided to protect scientific and educational values. Management guidelines included in BLM Handbook 8270-1 would apply. If impacts were unavoidable, the site would be evaluated by a BLM-approved paleontologist (and may require a paleontological survey) who would coordinate with the BLM in developing a mitigation plan that may include activity monitoring, fossil documentation, recovery, and storage in a federally approved repository. 

Same as No Action Alternative Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative Same as No Action Alternative 

Same Docuwould and eguide8270-If impwould approrequirwould develincluddocumin a fe

Unique Geologic Features:The Boars Tusk area (90 acres) would be closed to surface disturbing activities, mineral material sales, and use of explosives and blasting. 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same The Bwould activituse o

2-154 Jack Morrow 
Final EIS 

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

The area within a 1⁄2-mile radius of Boars Tusk (including Boars Tusk) would be closed to blasting and explosive charges. The Boars Tusk area would be open to consideration of activities such as fencing, interpretive signs, or transportation barriers to ensure protection of the site. Facilities would be prohibited from being developed on the geologic feature. The Boars Tusk area would be a ROW avoidance area, and OHV use would be limited to designated roads and trails. The Boars Tusk and approximately 1,400 acres of BLM-administered public lands in the surrounding area would be closed to any surface mining activity but open to consideration of subsurface mining methods. Activities or ancillary facilities related to subsurface mining would be prohibited. No similar action No similar action 

Same as No Action Alternative Same as No Action Alternative Same as No Action Alternative Same as No Action Alternative 

No similar action 

No similar action 

Same as No Action Alternative Same as No Action Alternative Same as No Action Alternative Same as No Action Alternative 

The Pinnacles Geographic 

Area (about 8,900 acres) would be an exclusion area for ROWs. 

No similar action 

Same as No Action Alternative Same as No Action Alternative Same as No Action Alternative Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as Alternative 2 

No similar action 

Same The aBoars would exploSame The Bto confencintranspprotecbe proon the Same The BROW would and trSame The B1,400 public would mininconsidmethofacilitiwould 

The P

(abouexcluuse w

The P

close

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Chapter 2 

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

Mineral leasing and mineral locations actions would be as described in the minerals section for this alternative. No similar action No similar action Vehicular travel within 1⁄2 mile of the Pinnacles Geologic Feature, and including the features, would be limited to designated roads and trails. 

Mineral leasing and mineral locations actions would be as described in the minerals section for this alternative. 

No similar action 

No similar action 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Mineral leasing and mineral locations actions would be as described in the minerals section for this alternative. 

No similar action 

The VRM classification for 

the Pinnacles Geographic Area (8,900 acres) would be Class I. 

The area within 1⁄2 mile of the Pinnacles Geologic Feature, and including the features, would be closed to vehicular travel. 

Mineral leasing and mineral locations actions would be as described in the minerals section for this alternative. 

No similar action 

Same as Alternative 2 

Same as Alternative 2 

Mineractionminer

The u

1⁄2 milFeatu

The V

PinnaClass 

Same 

VehicPinnaincludlimited 

Tri-Territory Marker: The Tri-Territory Marker would be an exclusion area for ROWs and would be closed to surface disturbing activities. The Tri-Territory Marker would be withdrawn from mineral location and closed to coal and sodium exploration. The Tri-Territory Marker would be open for consideration of activities such as fencing, interpretive signs, or barriers to ensure protection of the area. 

Same as No Action Alternative Same as No Action Alternative Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative Same as No Action Alternative Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative Same as No Action Alternative Same as No Action Alternative 

Same The Texclusbe cloactivitSame The Twithdclosed exploSame The Topen such barriearea. 

2-156 Jack Morrow 
Final EIS 

TRAVEL, ACCESS, and REALTY MANAGEMENT 

Management Objective: To manage the public lands to support the goals and objectives of other resource programs; respon

use authorizations; and to acquire administrative and public access where necessary 

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

Transportation Planning:No similar action No similar action 

No similar action No similar action 

A transportation plan would be developed for the JMH CAP planning area in coordination with local governments and users. The transportation plan could include mitigation measures (such as offsite placement of facilities, remote control monitoring, restricted or prohibited surface use including road construction, multiple wells from a single pad, central tank batteries/facilities, pipelines and power lines concentrated in specific areas, based on site-specific analysis) in areas subject to seasonal limitations, and CSU and NSO stipulations. 

Same as Alternative 2 Same as Alternative 2 

Same A trandevelarea igoverSame The trmitigaplacemonitsurfacconstsingle batterpoweareasanalylimitatstipula

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Chapter 2 

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

Transportation planning would provide for appropriate ingress, egress, and access routes that would follow BLM guidelines and road classifications defined in the Green River RMP (Appendix 12). Arterial roads would be hightraffic volume roads that provide primary access to the planning area; collector roads would provide access to large blocks of land; local roads would serve smaller areas; and resource roads would provide access to resource locations. 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Transportation planning would provide for appropriate access routes to provide maximum protection for crucial habitats and sensitive resources. Transportation planning would consider— • Limiting points of 

access for all activities to minimize disruption 

• Closing and 

rehabilitating unused roads and trails (subject to county review of existing ROWs needs), and those causing resource damage. (Transportation plan and affected maps would be corrected to reflect closed roads and trails.) 

Transportation planning would provide for appropriate access routes to provide maximum protection for crucial habitats and sensitive resources. Transportation planning would consider— • Access restrictions such 

as seasonal road closures and/or gating to limit frequency of access in crucial wildlife habitat 

• Re-routing or 

rehabilitating existing roads and trails (subject to county review of existing ROWs needs) causing resource damage. 

Transproviduse gprotecsensitTransconsid• A

sga

• R

eto Rd

2-158 Jack Morrow 
Final EIS 

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

• Avoiding construction of 

stream or riparian area crossings in sensitive areas and closing unnecessary crossings. Exceptions may be granted if crossings would reduce adverse effects, benefit area objectives, and reduce miles of road and/or frequency of use. Bridges (instead of culverts) would be required for perennial stream crossings 

• Limiting development 

zones that would be accessed by designated routes. 

• Concentrating stream 

and riparian area crossings in key locations to avoid disruptions. Exceptions may be granted if crossings would reduce adverse effects, benefit area objectives, and reduce miles of road (and/or frequency of use). Bridges may be required on Pacific, Jack Morrow, Parnell, and Rock Cabin creeks 

• Posting speed limits, as 

necessary, to protect wildlife and public health and safety, and to meet area objectives. 

• C

rloEceafrbMc

Travel Management Plan: No similar action A travel management plan 

would not be developed. Travel management would follow the OHV designations in the Steamboat Mountain and White Mountain areas. 

In conjunction with the overall transportation planning for JMH, travel management plans would be developed for the two northern calving areas and the Steamboat Mountain, White Mountain, and Essex Mountain areas to control access in these areas. 

Same as Alternative 2 Same 

In contransptravel develcalvinMounEssex acces

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Chapter 2 

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

Road Installations: Proposed roads and improvements would follow the Green River RMP management objectives and applicable BLM guidelines. No similar action No similar action 

Proposed roads and improvements would follow the Green River RMP transportation guidelines and the Green River Basin Advisory Council (GRBAC) transportation recommendations. 

No similar action 

No similar action 

Proposed roads and improvements would follow the Green River RMP management objectives and applicable BLM guidelines until a JMH Transportation Plan was prepared and approved. 

Proposed roads and 

improvements for Steamboat Mountain and White Mountain would follow the guidelines specified in Appendix 12. 

Exceptions to the JMH 

Transportation Plan would be considered only if beneficial to natural and cultural resource values. 

Same as Alternative 2 Same as Alternative 2 Exceptions to the JMH Transportation Plan would be considered if they included site-specific conditions that would minimize impacts on natural and cultural resource values. 

Same 

Propowould manaapplicJMH Tprepa

Same 

Propofor StMounspecifSame ExcepPlan wincludwould and c

Geophysical Activities:Geophysical activities would be required to conform to the OHV Use designations of the Green River RMP. 

No similar action Geophysical activities would 

be required to conform to the OHV Use designations of the Green River RMP for those portions of the planning area outside of areas with no surface occupancy requirements, WSAs, ACECs, and other sensitive resource areas. 

Same as Alternative 2 No sim

2-160 Jack Morrow 
Final EIS 

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

No similar action Geophysical exploration and related detonation activities would be prohibited in WSAs. No similar action Exceptions may be granted on a case-by-case basis subject to appropriate site-specific analysis and mitigation requirements. 

Geophysical and related 

detonation activities would be allowed throughout the planning area, subject to seasonal limitations and limitations for sensitive plant species locations. No similar action 

No similar action 

No similar action 

Geophysical and related detonation activities would be excluded from areas with no surface occupancy requirements, WSAs, ACECs, and other sensitive resource areas. Seasonal limitations would apply. 

Same as No Action 

Alternative 

No similar action 

No similar action 

Same as Alternative 2 Same as No Action Alternative 

No similar action 

Same as No Action 

Alternative 

The p

geophdetonapprolimitat49). Ealloweonly if accepSame GeopdetonprohibGeopand dprohibPinnaSame Excepcase-appromitiga

Rights-of-Way:The planning area, with the exception of defined exclusion and avoidance areas, would be open to considering grants of ROWs. The ROW limitations listed in the Green River RMP would apply as applicable to utilities and other realty actions (Map 8). 

Same as No Action Alternative The extent of ROW exclusion and avoidance areas would be as shown on Map 18. 

Same as No Action Alternative The extent of ROW exclusion and avoidance areas would be as shown on Map 27. 

Same as No Action Alternative The extent of ROW exclusion and avoidance areas would be as shown on Map 40. 

Same The pof defareasgrants The eavoidon Ma

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Chapter 2 

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

Linear Rights-of-Way: No similar action No similar action To the extent possible, utility 

and transportation ROWs would be located to coincide with existing roads, trails, and other ROW or easement concentration areas where they would not create safety hazards or conflict with other resource objectives. 

Same as Alternative 2 Same 

To the transplocateroadseasemthey wor conobjec

Winter Access: Winter access would be subject to seasonal road closures. No similar action Plowing of roads would be considered on a case-by-case basis. 

Winter access would be limited only by weather and road conditions. 

No similar action 

Plowing of roads would be allowed as needed. 

Winter access would be limited to specific roads identified for winter use. 

Where winter access on 

roads, other than those identified for winter access in the transportation plan, was necessary, routes would be determined on a case-by-case basis. Plowing of roads would be allowed for emergencies only. 

Same as Alternative 2 Where winter access on roads, other than those identified for winter access in the transportation plan, was necessary, routes would be determined on a case-bycase basis in accordance with transportation planning requirements. Same as Alternative 1 

Same 

WinteseasoSame Wherthan tin the necesdetermin accplann

Same 

Plowiconsid

Off-Highway VehicleManagement: Open to OHV use: Greater Sand Dunes Recreation Area. 

Open to OHV use: Same as No Action Alternative 

Open to OHV use: Same as No Action Alternative 

Open to OHV use: Same as No Action Alternative 

Open Same GreatArea. 

2-162 Jack Morrow 
Final EIS 

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

Closed to OHV use: WSAs, Crookston Ranch, Boars Tusk, Special Status Plants, Oregon Buttes ACEC, and White Mountain Petroglyphs ACEC. No similar action OHV use limited to designated roads and trails: Red Desert Watershed, Steamboat Mountain ACEC, and South Pass Historic Landscape ACEC (visible portion). OHV use limited to designated roads and trails: No similar action 

Closed to OHV use: Same as No Action Alternative No similar action OHV use limited to designated roads and trails: South Pass Historic Landscape (visible portion) and the Pinnacles Geologic Feature. OHV use limited to designated roads and trails: No similar action 

Closed to OHV use: Same as No Action Alternative Closed to OHV use: Raptor nest sites (plus 1/2­to 1-mile buffer), paleosol deposition area, Pinnacles Geographic Area, slopes>20 percent, geologic hazards, greater sage-grouse concentration areas, elk and mule deer birthing areas, and wetlands, floodplains, and riparian areas. OHV use limited to designated roads and trails: All of the planning area that is not designated as open or closed. OHV use limited to designated roads and trails: No similar action 

Closed to OHV use: Same as No Action Alternative Closed to OHV use: Raptor nest sites (plus 1/2 to 1 mile buffer), Pinnacles Geographic Area, slopes>25 percent and greater sagegrouse leks (plus 1⁄2-mile buffer). OHV use limited to designated roads and trails: Same as No Action Alternative OHV use limited to designated roads and trails: Cushion Plant Community ACEC. 

CloseSame WSAsTusk, Buttes PetroClosePinnaOHV and trSame Red DMounHistorportioOHV and trSouth ACEC plant Moun

OHV use limited to existing roads and trails: Remainder of planning area not designated as open, closed, or limited to designated roads and trails. 

OHV use limited to existing roads and trails: Remainder of planning area not designated as open, closed, or limited to designated roads and trails. 

OHV use limited to existing roads and trails: No similar action 

OHV use limited to existing roads and trails: Remainder of planning area not designated as open, closed, or limited to designated roads and trails. 

OHV trails: Remadesigto des

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Chapter 2 

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

OHV use limited to seasonal access: Steamboat Mountain, elk and mule deer birthing and crucial winter range areas, antelope crucial winter range, greater sage-grouse leks (plus 2-mile buffer), and raptor nesting sites (plus 1⁄2- to 1-mile buffer) on an as needed basis. Specific roads and trails may be closed to OHV use for public health and safety reasons, for restoration or remediation actions, or for other valid reasons. Exceptions to closed or limited OHV designations may be granted by the authorized officer for such reasons as scientific purposes, emergency access needs, etc. 

OHV use limited to seasonal access: Raptor nesting sites (plus 1⁄4-mile buffer), greater sage-grouse leks (plus 1­mile buffer) and mountain plover aggregation areas. Same as No Action Alternative Same as No Action Alternative 

OHV use limited to seasonal access: Elk, mule deer, and antelope crucial winter range and mountain plover aggregation areas (plus 1⁄4-mile buffer). Same as No Action Alternative Same as No Action Alternative 

OHV use limited to seasonal access: Elk and mule deer birthing and crucial winter range areas, antelope crucial winter range and, greater sagegrouse leks (plus 2-mile buffer), mountain plover aggregation areas (plus 1⁄4­mile buffer). Same as No Action Alternative Same as No Action Alternative 

OHV Steamdeer bareasgreateand ramile bSame Speciclosed and sremedreasoSame Excepdesigauthoscientacces

Over-the-Snow Vehicles: Over-the-snow vehicles would be required to follow OHV use designations and BLM trails designated for snow vehicle access. Exceptions would be considered on a case-by-case basis. 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same Over-requirdesigdesigExcepcase-

2-164 Jack Morrow 
Final EIS 

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

Land Withdrawals and Exchanges: Withdrawals and exchanges identified in the Green River RMP would be pursued. Exchanges for state lands in WSAs and other special management areas would be considered to avoid conflicting management objectives in these areas. Exchanges would conform to the JMH planning objectives and actions. BLM acquisition of lands would be considered to facilitate various resource management objectives. The preferred method for acquisition would be through exchange. Land exchanges are considered discretionary and voluntary real estate transactions between the willing parties involved. 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same Withdin the pursuExchaand owould conflicthese ExchaJMH pBLM aconsidresouThe pwould exchadiscreestate willing 

Ownership Adjustments: Aquatic, wetland, and riparian habitat would not be suitable for disposal unless opportunities exist for land exchanges of equal or greater value, including monetary and functional resource values. 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same Aquatwould unlesexchaincludresou

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Chapter 2 

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

Access: Access to public, state, and private lands would be provided throughout the planning area and would be limited when necessary to protect public health and safety and to protect sensitive resources. Access would be guaranteed across public lands to landlocked private and state lands consistent with FLPMA. 

Access to public, state, and private lands would be provided throughout the planning area and would be limited on a case-by-case basis to protect sensitive resources only in areas of high development potential. Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative Same as No Action Alternative 

Same Acceslands the pllimited public protecSame Accespublic state 

2-166 Jack Morrow 
Final EIS 

RECREATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT 

Management Objective: To ensure the continued availability of outdoor recreational opportunities sought by the public, while 

values; to meet legal requirements for the health and safety of visitors; and to reduce conflicts between recreation and oth

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

Backcountry Byways: Recreation project plans would be developed for backcountry byways. Location of interpretive and directional signs along backcountry byways would be coordinated with state and local governments and other interested parties for— 1) Red Desert viewpoint from dugway of Steamboat Mountain 2) Chicken Springs overlook 

Same as No Action Alternative Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative Location of interpretive and directional signs along backcountry byways would be coordinated with state and local governments and other interested parties for— 1) Red Desert viewpoint from dugway of Steamboat Mountain 2) Chicken Springs overlook 3) Steamboat Mountain 4) Oregon Buttes 5) Honeycomb Buttes 6) Indian Gap 

Same as No Action Alternative Same as Alternative 2 

Same Recredevelbyway

Same 

Locatdirectbywaystate other 1) Reof Ste2) Ch3) Ste4) Ore5) Ho6) Ind

Greater Sand Dunes Recreation Area: A recreation site plan would be prepared for expansion of the parking area and camping facilities in the Greater Sand Dunes Recreation Area. The plan would address public health and safety, resolving user conflicts, and protecting adjoining resources. 

No similar action No similar action No similar action Same 

A recprepaarea aGreatArea. health conflicresou

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Chapter 2 

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

Recreation Project Plans: A recreation project plan and interpretive prospectus would be developed, as necessary, for— 1) Crookston Ranch historic site 2) Boars Tusk 3) Wild horse viewing areas 4) Oregon Buttes 5) Honeycomb Buttes 6) Steamboat Mountain 7) National Historic Trails 8) White Mountain Petroglyphs 

Same as No Action Alternative 

A recreation project plan and interpretive prospectus would be prepared and implemented for— 1) Crookston Ranch historic site 2) Boars Tusk 3) Oregon Buttes 4) Honeycomb Buttes 5) Steamboat Mountain 6) National Historic Trails 7) White Mountain Petroglyphs 8) Native American sites, including Indian Gap. 

Same as Alternative 2 A rec

interpprepa1) Cro2) Bo3) Wi4) Ore5) Ho6) Ste7) Na8) Wh9) NaIndian 

Camping: Dispersed camping would be allowed within 200 feet of a water source where there were no conflicts with water quality and wildlife and livestock watering areas. Dispersed camping would be prohibited within 200 feet of a water source where there were conflicts with water quality and wildlife and livestock watering areas. Areas would be closed to camping throughout JMH if resource damage occurred. 

Same as No Action Alternative Same as No Action Alternative Same as No Action Alternative 

Camping would be allowed in designated areas only. Parties of five or more would be required to have a group camping permit and to stay within designated group camping areas. No similar action Same as No Action Alternative 

Camping would be allowed in designated areas only. Parties of 10 or more would be required to have a group camping permit and to stay within designated group camping areas. 

No similar action 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same Dispewithin where water livesto

Same 

Dispeprohibsourcwith wlivestoSame Areas througoccur

2-168 Jack Morrow 
Final EIS 

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

Special Recreation UsePermits: Application for special recreation use permits would follow existing policy (permits could be issued through any Wyoming field office without review by the RSFO). A Plan of Operation would be required for all commercial recreational operators and outfitters. 

Same as No Action Alternative Same as No Action Alternative 

Special recreation use permits for managed activities in the JMH CAP planning area would be issued and renewed, and fees would be collected through the RSFO. Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as Alternative 2 Same as No Action Alternative 

Speci

be revrecomconsisprior tSame A Plarequirrecrea

Recreational Mining and OtherSimilar Activity: Recreational mining and other similar activity would be allowed throughout the planning area, except where closed or restricted by Wyoming DEQ Guideline No. 19 Noncoal: Non-commercial Recreation Panning and Dredging. 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Recreational mining and other similar activity would be prohibited in the planning area. 

Recreational mining and other similar activity would be limited to a 5-acre site that would be designated in the Dickie Springs-Oregon Gulch Gold Placer Mining District area. A recreation site plan would be prepared and implemented to manage the site for recreational purposes. 

Recreactivitparts withdwhere pursu

Continental Peak/South PassConnecting Side Trail: No similar action No similar action The Continental Peak/South 

Pass Connecting Side Trail would be managed as a side trail to the existing Continental Divide National Scenic Trail (CDNST). 

Same as Alternative 2 Same 

The CConnmanaContiTrail (

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Chapter 2 

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

No similar action No similar action Management would be as 

described for the CDNST (BLM 1999). Existing primitive two-track roads, BLM roads that provide legal public access through certain private lands, segments of cross-country travel on BLM-administered public land, and an existing trail would be used as components of the CDNST. The existing primitive twotrack roads and BLM road segments would continue to be open to motorized use. Cross-country travel routes would not be open to motorized use. 

Same as Alternative 2 Same 

Manafor the primitthat pthrougsegmBLM-existincompexistinBLM to be countopen 

2-170 Jack Morrow 
Final EIS 

MINERALS AND ALTERNATIVE ENERGY RESOURCES MANAGEMENT 

Management Objective: To maintain or enhance opportunities for mineral exploration and development while providing for oth

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

Leasable Fluid Minerals Management 

Oil and Gas Leases: Suspended leases in the planning area would be reinstated. No similar action 

Same as No Action Alternative 

No similar action 

Same as No Action Alternative 

No similar action 

Same as No Action Alternative 

No similar action 

Unde

monitsuspearea prepabe reithe Ran ap(Appeof the new lclose

Nomi

open would case monit

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Chapter 2 

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

As leases expire outside the core area, they would be considered for subsequent lease offerings; within the core area, they would be excluded from subsequent lease offerings. The core area would be closed to new leasing. New leases would be issued outside the core area. WSAs would be non-discretionary closure areas for oil and gas leasing. 

As leases expire within the entire planning area, they would be considered for subsequent lease offerings. The core area would be open to new leasing. Same as No Action Alternative Same as No Action Alternative 

As leases expire in nonsensitive resource areas, they would be considered for subsequent lease offerings; in sensitive resource areas (including the core area), they would be excluded from subsequent lease offerings. Same as No Action Alternative New leases would be issued only in non-sensitive resource areas outside the core area. Same as No Action Alternative 

As leases expire within the entire planning area, they would be considered for subsequent lease offerings on a case-by-case basis, unless monitoring of resource indicators under the adaptive management strategy showed they should not be offered for lease. The core area would be open to new leasing unless monitoring of resource indicators under the adaptive management strategy showed new leases should not be issued. New leases would be issued outside the core area unless monitoring of resource indicators under the adaptive management strategy showed new leases should not be issued. Same as No Action Alternative 

As lea

plannfuture consiofferinand inTable of resimpleevaluTwelvuses lands stipulresoube adthe imevalu

A por

open based operageoloimpacarea of new 

Portio

the coleaseoperageoloimpac

Same WSAs closu

2-172 Jack Morrow 
Final EIS 

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

No similar action No similar action Funding would be pursued 

for lease buy-out and exchanges. Purchase or exchange of existing leases would be negotiated with willing leaseholders in areas that should be closed to leasing for protection of sensitive resources. Where existing leases in sensitive resource areas could not be exchanged or purchased, development would be allowed under valid existing rights. Existing surface structures, pipelines, and service roads would be reclaimed to predevelopment conditions on lease buy-outs and exchanges. Congressional legislation would be required to authorize lease buy-outs. 

No similar action Buy-o

leaseconsiCongrequir

Lease Stipulations: Stipulations on new leases would be specified to protect other resources and land uses consistent with the Green River RMP. Lease stipulation categories include— 1) Surface disturbance limitations 2) Timing and access restrictions for development activity to protect wildlife 3) Protection of sensitive resources 4) No surface occupancy in designated areas (see Table 2-2 for applicable stipulations and associated acreages for this alternative). 

Stipulations on new leases would address only legally mandated resource protection requirements, including the Endangered Species Act (see Table 2-2 for applicable stipulations and associated acreages for this alternative). 

Stipulations on new leases would be specified to protect other resources and land uses (see Table 2-2 for applicable stipulations and associated acreages for this alternative). 

Stipulations on new leases would be specified to protect other resources and land uses (see Table 2-2 for applicable stipulations and associated acreages for this alternative). 

Stipulspecifand laapplicacrea

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Chapter 2 

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

No similar action No similar action 

No similar action 

No similar action 

No similar action 

No similar action 

Additional stipulations on new 

leases may include provisions for imposing timing and sequencing of development activities based on monitoring of sensitive resource indicators. Emphasis would be on wildlife and wildlife habitat. 

Monitoring data would be 

assessed, and appropriate management actions would be determined by an interdisciplinary BLM team (with input from stakeholders and other public entities). Consideration would be given to such factors as weather, disease, drought, hunting pressure, introduction of nonnative species, and recreation activities. 

No simSame Monit

and awould interdfrom sentitieadjusdata. to sucdrougintrodand re

Drilling Permits: Conditions of Approval (COA) for Applications for Permit to Drill (APD) would allow necessary impacts in order for development to be technically feasible or economically viable. 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same CondApplicwould order technviable

2-174 Jack Morrow 
Final EIS 

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

COAs for APDs would be based on site-specific analysis and would include general surface control, avoidance, and other requirements for mitigation of development impacts consistent with the Green River RMP. Exceptions to lease stipulations and COAs would be allowed when site-specific analyses showed impacts to sensitive resources were within acceptable limits. Well spacing requirements for oil and gas resource protection would defer to the Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission guidance with consideration for surface resource values. No similar action 

COAs for APDs would be based on site-specific analysis and would include mitigation measures to protect other resources as required by the regulations for oil and gas development in 43 CFR §3100. Same as No Action Alternative Well spacing requirements for oil and gas resource protection would defer to the Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission guidance without consideration for surface resource values. 

No similar action 

COAs for APDs would be based on site-specific analysis and would establish specific, necessary mitigation measures, not covered by stipulations, for resource and environmental protection, such as avoidance of sensitive resources, seasonal limitations, noise reduction, and remote control operations. Same as No Action Alternative Same as No Action Alternative 

No similar action 

COAs for APDs would be based on site-specific analysis and would establish specific, necessary mitigation measures, not covered by stipulations, for resource and environmental protection (with emphasis on wildlife and wildlife habitat), such as mitigation of effects to sensitive resources, seasonal limitations, noise reduction, and remote control operations. Same as No Action Alternative Same as No Action Alternative 

COAs for timing limitations 

would be based on monitoring of sensitive resource indicators to ensure unacceptable impacts did not occur. 

COAs 

site-sestabmitigastipulenviroemphvalueto senlimitaremo

Same ExcepCOAs specifsensitaccepSame Well sgas reto the Consewith cresouCOAs 

consilease of senunder and eunacc

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Chapter 2 

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

Leasable Solid Minerals Management 

Exploration: Areas shown on Map 11 (including WSAs) would be closed to coal and sodium exploration, as identified in the Green River RMP. No similar action Exploration activities in open areas would be allowed on a case-by-case basis with mitigation measures to protect sensitive resources. Steamboat Mountain ACEC (outside area with coal recommendation) would be closed to exploration. No similar action 

The entire planning area (except for WSAs) would be open to coal and sodium exploration activities subject to avoidance and right-ofway limitations as needed. 

No similar action 

No similar action No similar action 

No similar action 

The entire planning area would be closed to coal and sodium exploration activity. 

No similar action 

No similar action 

No similar action 

No similar action 

Same as No Action Alternative 

The Cushion Plant 

Community ACEC and greater sage-grouse leks (with 1⁄2-mile buffer) would be closed to coal exploration. 

Exploration activities in open 

areas would be subject to appropriate mitigation and right-of-way limitations (Map 40). 

Steamboat Mountain ACEC 

would be closed to exploration. 

No similar action 

Areas WSAssodiuthe GNo simSame Explowould basis protecSame Steamarea wwould The S

Manacoal rclose

Leasing: Federal coal lands within the Coal Occurrence and Development Potential Area would be open to further consideration for coal leasing and development. 

Same as No Action Alternative 

No similar action Same as No Action 

Alternative. 

Same FederOccuPotenfurtheand d

2-176 Jack Morrow 
Final EIS 

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

Areas closed to leasing would include the Sand Dunes WSA and the western part of the Greater Sand Dunes ACEC. Areas acceptable for leasing for subsurface mining with no surface occupancy requirements would include Boars Tusk and Crookston Ranch. Areas acceptable for leasing for subsurface mining with controlled surface use would include Steamboat Mountain ACEC, TriTerritory Marker, raptor nesting sites and the eastern part of Greater Sand Dunes ACEC. No similar action Leasing in big game habitat would be allowed, provided that adequate habitat and overall activity levels could be maintained. Additional areas could become acceptable for leasing consideration through future sitespecific application of the coal screening process. 

Same as No Action Alternative Same as No Action Alternative Areas available for leasing for subsurface mining with controlled surface use would include raptor nesting sites, Tri-Territory Marker and the eastern part of Greater Sand Dunes ACEC. No similar action No similar action Same as No Action 

Federal coal lands within the Coal Occurrence and Development Potential Area would be closed to leasing and development to protect other resource values in the planning area. No similar action No similar action No similar action 

No similar action 

No similar action 

Same as No Action Alternative Same as No Action Alternative Same as No Action Alternative No similar action 

Same as No Action 

Alternative 

Same as No Action 

Alternative 

Same Areas the SawesteDuneSame Areas subsuoccupincludRancSame Areas subsusurfacMounraptor part oAreas 

subsusurfacMoun

Same Leasiallowehabitacould Same Additiaccepthrougof the 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Chapter 2 

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

Locatable Minerals Management 

Locatable Mineral Withdrawals: Proposed withdrawals from locatable minerals identified in the Green River RMP would be pursued (Map 5). Other withdrawals could be pursued, as necessary. No similar action No similar action Withdrawals from mineral location under the coal and oil shale classifications would be revoked. With the exception of withdrawn areas, the planning area would be open to mineral location. A notice would be required for exploration activities when surface disturbance would be 5 acres or less and when less than 1,000 tons of presumed ore would be removed for testing. 

Same as No Action Alternative 

No similar action Withdrawal from mineral 

location would be pursued for Indian Gap. Same as No Action Alternative Same as No Action Alternative Same as No Action Alternative 

Withdrawals from mineral location would be pursued over the entire planning area (Map 34). 

No similar action 

No similar action Same as No Action Alternative No similar action No similar action 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Withdrawals from mineral 

location would be pursued in the northern elk calving areas and the potential diamond development area of Steamboat Mountain ACEC. 

Withdrawals from mineral 

location would be pursued in areas with no surface occupancy requirements, including active raptor nest sites and Indian Gap. Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action 

Alternative 

Same as No Action 

Alternative 

Same PropominerRMP Other as neWithd

would calvinadjacpotenof Stethe P

No simSame Withdunder classiSame With tareasopen Same A notexplodisturand wpresutestin

2-178 Jack Morrow 
Final EIS 

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

A plan of operations would be required when exploration exceeded notice level activity, for mining activities, or when material was extracted for commercial use. A plan of operations would be required for all activities greater than casual use occurring within ACECs, WSAs, areas designated as “closed” to off-road vehicle use, and any lands or waters known to contain federally proposed or listed threatened or endangered species or their proposed or designated critical habitat. 

Same as No Action Alternative Same as No Action Alternative 

No similar action No similar action 

Same as No Action 

Alternative 

Same as No Action 

Alternative 

Same A plan requirnotice activitextracSame A plan requircasuaWSAsto off-or wapropoendanpropohabita

Salable Minerals Management 

Mineral Material Sales: Areas shown on Map 12 would be closed to mineral material sales. No similar action 

Areas shown on Map 24 would be closed to mineral material sales 

No similar action 

The entire planning area would be closed to mineral material sales (Map 35). 

No similar action 

Areas shown on Map 46 would be closed to mineral material sales. 

The lava portion of the 

Steamboat Mountain ACEC would be closed to mineral material sales. 

Areas closed Same The la

Mounminer

No similar action No similar action No similar action No similar action The r

MounMounbe oponly wplannplann

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Chapter 2 

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

No similar action No similar action The remainder of the planning area would be open to mineral material sales where such activity would not cause unacceptable impacts (Map 12). Mining and reclamation plans would be required for use areas, and use and management would be in conformance with other resource objectives. 

No similar action 

No similar action 

The remainder of the planning area would be open to mineral material sales where such activity would not cause unacceptable impacts (Map 24). Same as No Action Alternative 

No similar action 

No similar action 

No similar action Same as No Action Alternative 

The area within 1⁄2 mile of 

greater sage-grouse leks would be closed to mineral material sales. 

No similar action 

The remainder of the 

planning area would be open to mineral material sales where such activity would not cause unacceptable impacts (Map 46). Same as No Action Alternative 

The a

sage-minerGreatwould sales reclamfield sand th(throucondigrous

The P

would sales

The rwould sales cause 58). Same Mininbe reqand mconfoobjec

2-180 Jack Morrow 
Final EIS 

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

Alternative Energy Management 

Alternative Energy Proposals: No similar action The planning area would 

be open to alternative energy development, such as wind or solar farms, where development would comply with statutory resource protection standards. 

The planning area would be closed to alternative energy development proposals. 

The planning area would be open for consideration of alternative energy development proposals where such activity would not cause unacceptable impacts to sensitive resources. Transmission and utility lines and access roads would comply with ROW limitations and requirements of the JMH transportation plan. 

Same The p

considevelactivitimpacTransaccesROW the JM

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Chapter 2 

VISUAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT 

Management Objective: To maintain or improve scenic values and visual quality; and to establish priorities for managing 

conjunction with other resource values 

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

VRM Class I Areas: WSAs would be managed as VRM Class I areas to preserve the natural setting and existing character of the landscape. Oregon Buttes ACEC and the western portion of Greater Sand Dunes ACEC, which fall within a WSA, would also be managed as a VRM Class I area. No similar action 

Same as No Action Alternative Same as No Action Alternative 

No similar action 

Same as No Action Alternative Same as No Action Alternative 

All ACECs (which includes 

Indian Gap), unique geologic features and landforms including Boars Tusk (plus a 1-mile buffer), Freighter Gap, portions of White Mountain, and the portion of the Red Desert Watershed within the planning area, would be managed as VRM Class I areas. 

Same as No Action Alternative Same as No Action Alternative No similar action 

Same WSAs Class settinlandsOregowesteDuneWSA, VRM 

No sim

2-182 Jack Morrow 
Final EIS 

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

VRM Class II Areas: The eastern portion of Greater Sand Dunes ACEC, South Pass Historic Landscape ACEC, White Mountain Petroglyphs ACEC, and areas adjacent to WSAs would be managed as VRM Class II areas (Map 13). The southern portion of Steamboat Mountain ACEC would be managed as a VRM Class II area (Map 13). No similar action No similar action No similar action No similar action 

The South Pass Historic Landscape ACEC, Greater Sand Dunes ACEC, White Mountain Petroglyphs ACEC, and areas adjacent to WSAs would be managed as VRM Class II areas (Map 25). No similar action No similar action 

No similar action No similar action 

No similar action 

No similar action No similar action No similar action 

All sensitive habitat areas, 

wetlands, riparian areas, and floodplains would be managed as VRM Class II areas (Map 36). 

Split Rock would be 

managed as a VRM Class II area. 

The portions of the National 

Historic Trail and National Scenic Trails located within the planning area would be managed as VRM Class II areas (Map 36). 

Same as No Action Alternative Steamboat Mountain ACEC would be managed as a VRM Class II area (Map 47). No similar action No similar action Unique geological features and landforms, including Indian Gap and Boars Tusk, Split Rock, portions of White Mountain, and the portion of the Red Desert Watershed within the planning area, would be managed as VRM Class II areas (Map 47). The portions of the National Historic Trail and National Scenic Trails within the planning area would be managed as VRM Class II areas (Map 47). 

Same The eDuneLandsPetroadjacas VRSteammana(Map The SManamana

No sim

UniqulandfoMounFeatuArchemana(Map No sim

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Chapter 2 

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

VRM Class III: Eden Valley, portions of White Mountain, Split Rock, and the portion of the Red Desert Watershed within the planning area would be managed as VRM Class III (Map 13). The northern portion of Steamboat Mountain ACEC would be managed as a Class III area (Map 13). 

No areas would be managed as VRM Class III. No similar action 

All areas not managed as VRM Class I or II for this alternative would be managed as VRM Class III (Map 36). Same as No Action Alternative 

Eden Valley would be managed as VRM Class III (Map 47). No similar action 

Same Eden Mounof the the plas VRNo sim

VRM Class IV: All areas not managed as VRM Class I, II, or III for this alternative would be managed as VRM Class IV (Map 13). 

All areas not managed as VRM Class I or II for this alternative would be managed as VRM Class IV (Map 25). 

No areas would be managed as VRM Class IV. 

All areas not managed as VRM Class I, II, or III for this alternative would be managed as VRM Class IV (Map 47). 

All areI, II, omana

2-184 Jack Morrow 
Final EIS 

MANAGEMENT OF SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREAS AND OTHER MANAGEMENT AREAS 

Management Objective: To maintain or enhance the resource values and characteristics for which the area was designated as 

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

Wilderness Study Areas 

Geophysical Activities: Geophysical exploration and related detonation activities would be prohibited. 

No similar action Same as No Action 

Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same Geopdetonprohib

Rights-of-Way: No similar action No similar action These areas would be 

managed as ROW exclusion areas. 

Same as Alternative 2 No sim

OHV Use: These areas would be closed to OHV use. 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same These use. 

Leasable Fluid Minerals: These areas would be nondiscretionary closure areas for fluid minerals leasing. 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same These discreminer

Leasable Solid Minerals: These areas would be closed to leasable solid minerals exploration and leasing. 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same These leasaand le

Salable Minerals: These areas would be closed to mineral material sales. 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same These miner

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Chapter 2 

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

Locatable Minerals: A plan of operations would be required for all activities greater than casual use. No similar action 

Same as No Action Alternative No similar action 

No similar action Withdrawals from mineral location would be pursued in the entire planning area. 

Same as No Action Alternative No similar action 

Same A plan requircasuaNo sim

VRM: These areas would be managed as VRM Class I areas to preserve the natural setting and existing character of the landscape. 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same These VRM naturaof the 

Oregon Buttes ACEC 

Geophysical Activities: Geophysical activities and related detonation activities would be prohibited within the ACEC. 

No similar action Same as No Action 

Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same Geopdetonprohib

Rights-of-Way:The ACEC would be managed as a ROW avoidance area. 

Same as No Action Alternative 

The ACEC would be managed as a ROW exclusion area. 

Same as Alternative 2 Same 

The AROW 

OHV Use: The ACEC would be closed to OHV use. 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same The Ause. 

2-186 Jack Morrow 
Final EIS 

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

Recreation: No similar action A recreation project plan and interpretive prospectus would be developed, as necessary, for Oregon Buttes. 

No similar action Same as No Action Alternative 

Location of interpretive and directional signs along backcountry byways would be coordinated with state and local governments and other interested parties for Oregon Buttes. A recreation project plan and interpretive prospectus would be prepared and implemented for Oregon Buttes. 

Same as Alternative 2 Same as Alternative 2 

Same Locatdirectbywaystate other ButtesSame A recinterpprepaOrego

Leasable Fluid Minerals: The ACEC would be closed to consideration of fluid minerals leasing. 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same The Aconsidleasin

Leasable Solid Minerals: The ACEC would be closed to leasable solid minerals exploration and leasing. 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same The Aleasaand le

Salable Minerals: The ACEC would be closed to mineral material sales. 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same The Aminer

Locatable Minerals: A plan of operations would be required for all activities greater than casual use. No similar action 

Same as No Action Alternative No similar action 

No similar action Withdrawal from mineral location would be pursued in the entire planning area. 

Same as No Action Alternative No similar action 

Same A plan requircasuaNo sim

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Chapter 2 

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

VRM: The ACEC would be managed as a VRM Class I area. 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same The AVRM 

South Pass Historic Landscape ACEC 

Rights-of-Way: South Pass Historic Landscape ACEC (visible portion) would be managed as a ROW exclusion area. South Pass Historic Landscape ACEC (non-visible portion) would be managed as a ROW avoidance area. 

The entire ACEC would be managed as a ROW avoidance area. No similar action 

Same as No Action Alternative Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative Same as No Action Alternative 

South ACEC manafor anadveras mahigh-pSame South ACEC mana

OHV Use: OHV use within South Pass Historic Landscape ACEC (visible portion) would be limited to designated roads and trails. OHV use within South Pass Historic Landscape ACEC (nonvisible portion) would be limited to existing roads and trails. 

Same as No Action Alternative Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative Same as No Action Alternative 

OHV would and trNo sim

2-188 Jack Morrow 
Final EIS 

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

Leasable Fluid Minerals: South Pass Historic Landscape ACEC (visible portion) would be open to consideration of fluid minerals leasing with no surface occupancy requirements. Portions of South Pass Historic Landscape ACEC (non-visible portion) would be open to consideration of fluid minerals leasing with controlled surface use requirements (Map 10). No similar action No similar action 

No similar action No similar action No similar action No similar action 

The entire ACEC would be closed to fluid minerals leasing No similar action No similar action No similar action 

Same as No Action Alternative South Pass Historic Landscape ACEC (nonvisible portion) would be open to consideration of fluid minerals leasing with stipulations to protect other resources (Map 42). Stipulations could include, but would not be limited to, no surface occupancy requirements, controlled surface use, and timing of development activity. No similar action No similar action 

PortioLandswould fluid moccupPortioLandsportiominerstipul(Map but wsurfaccontrodevelA porLandsfluid mAs lealeasinconsiofferinwith lesensiexpire to fluiconsiofferinperimclose(Figurbe coNSO 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Chapter 2 

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

Leasable Solid Minerals: South Pass Historic Landscape ACEC (visible portion) would be closed to leasable solid minerals exploration and leasing. 

The entire ACEC would be open to leasable solid minerals exploration and leasing with avoidance and ROW limitations, as needed. 

The entire ACEC would be closed to leasable solid minerals exploration and leasing. 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same South ACEC closed explo

Salable Minerals: South Pass Historic Landscape ACEC (visible portion) would be closed to mineral material sales. 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same South ACEC closed 

Locatable Minerals: No similar action Withdrawal from mineral location would be pursued on South Pass Summit. No similar action 

No similar action Same as No Action Alternative No similar action 

Withdrawal from mineral location would be pursued for the entire ACEC. No similar action No similar action 

No similar action Same as No Action Alternative Withdrawal from mineral location would be pursued for the northern elk calving areas in part of the South Pass historic Landscape ACEC. 

No simSame Withdwould SummSame Withdwould calvinPass 

2-190 Jack Morrow 
Final EIS 

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

VRM: The entire ACEC would be managed as a VRM Class II area. The South Pass Historic Landscape ACEC viewshed would be maintained from approximately 3 miles of the Oregon, Mormon, California, and Pony Express Trail routes. Intrusions within the viewshed area could be allowed, provided the results of a visual analysis indicated they were not visible from the trail routes or that they could be mitigated. 

Same as No Action Alternative The South Pass Historic Landscape viewshed would be reduced to approximately 1 mile in each direction from the center of the Oregon, Mormon Pioneer, California, and Pony Express Trail routes. Same as No Action Alternative 

Managed as a VRM Class I area. The South Pass Historic Landscape viewshed would be expanded to approximately five miles of the Oregon, Mormon, California and Pony Express trail routes. Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative Same as No Action Alternative Same as No Action Alternative 

Same The eas a VSame The SACEC from aOregoPony Same Intruscould of a vwere or tha

White Mountain Petroglyphs ACEC 

Rights-of-Way:The ACEC would be managed as a ROW exclusion area. 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same The AROW 

OHV Use: The ACEC would be closed to OHV use outside of identified access and parking areas. 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same The Ause odesig

Recreation: A recreation project plan and interpretive prospectus would be developed, as necessary. 

Same as No Action Alternative 

A recreation plan and interpretive prospectus would be prepared and implemented. 

Same as Alternative 2 Same 

A recinterpprepa

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Chapter 2 

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

Leasable Fluid Minerals: The ACEC would be open to consideration of fluid minerals leasing with no surface occupancy requirements. 

Same as No Action Alternative 

The ACEC would be closed to fluid minerals leasing. 

Same as No Action Alternative 

The AminerThe aNSO and d

Leasable Solid Minerals: White Mountain Petroglyphs Vista would be closed to coal and sodium exploration. 

The ACEC would be open to coal and sodium exploration activities subject to avoidance and ROW limitations as needed. 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same White would explo

Salable Minerals: The ACEC would be closed to mineral material sales. 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same The Aminer

Locatable Minerals: Withdrawal from mineral location would be pursued. 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same Withdwould 

VRM: The ACEC would be managed as VRM Class II area. 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Would be managed as VRM Class I area. 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same The AVRM 

2-192 Jack Morrow 
Final EIS 

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

Steamboat Mountain ACEC 

Steamboat Mountain ACEC designation and boundaries would remain unchanged (Map 14). No similar action 

Steamboat Mountain ACEC designation would be removed. 

No similar action 

Steamboat Mountain ACEC would be expanded to include the area of highest concentration and overlap of big game habitat features, natural systems, and cultural values. These include the largest portion of elk crucial winter range and birthing area overlap, a portion of the sand dunes stabilized by the basin big sagebrush/ lemon scurfpea plant community, and the Native American respected places of Indian Gap and portions of the Indian Gap Trail (Map 37). 

The basin big 

sagebrush/lemon scurfpea vegetation community would be further evaluated as an RNA and designated as though the criteria were met (Map 37). 

Steamboat Mountain ACEC would be expanded to include all of Indian Gap and the face of Steamboat Mountain. This would include portions of the basin big sagebrush/lemon scurfpea vegetation community (Map 48). No similar action 

Steamexpanconcehabitaculturportioby the scurfpNative Indian Gap T

No sim

Rights-of-Way: The ACEC would be managed as a ROW avoidance area. 

No similar action The ACEC would be 

managed as a ROW exclusion area. 

The southern portion of the ACEC would be managed as a ROW exclusion area. The remainder of the ACEC would be managed as a ROW avoidance area. 

Same The AROW 

Communication Sites: Communication sites would be prohibited in Steamboat Mountain ACEC. 

Communication sites would be considered on Steamboat Mountain. 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same CommprohibACEC

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Chapter 2 

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

OHV Use: OHV use would be limited to designated roads and trails. 

OHV use would be limited to existing roads and trails. 

Same as Alternative 1 Same as No Action 

Alternative 

Same OHV desig

Recreation: Location of interpretive and directional signs along backcountry byways would be coordinated with state and local governments and other interested parties for the Red Desert viewpoint from Dugway of Steamboat Mountain. A recreation project plan and interpretive prospectus would be developed, as necessary, for Steamboat Mountain. 

Same as No Action Alternative Same as No Action Alternative 

Location of interpretive and directional signs along backcountry byways would be coordinated with state and local governments and other interested parties for Steamboat Mountain. A recreation plan and interpretive prospectus would be prepared and implemented for Steamboat Mountain. 

Same as Alternative 2 Same as Alternative 2 

Same Locatdirectbywaystate other MounSame A recinterpprepaSteam

2-194 Jack Morrow 
Final EIS 

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

Leasable Fluid Minerals: No similar action No similar action 

No similar action No similar action 

The ACEC would be closed to fluid minerals leasing consideration. No similar action 

Steamboat Mountain ACEC would be open to consideration of fluid minerals leasing consideration with stipulations to protect other resources (Map 42). Stipulations could include, but would not be limited to, no surface occupancy requirements, controlled surface use, and timing of development activity. No similar action 

Most fluid m(Map ACEC consiconsiproteccould limiterequirand tiAs lealeasinconsiofferinbased operageoloimpacarea iminerconsiofferinperimclose(Figurbe coNSO 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Chapter 2 

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

Leasable Solid Minerals: The portions of Steamboat Mountain ACEC within the coal development potential area would be open to leasable solid minerals exploration and leasing using only subsurface mining methods and controls on surface facilities (Map 6). Those portions outside the coal development potential area would be closed to leasable solid minerals exploration and leasing (Map 6 and Map 11). 

Same as No Action Alternative Same as No Action Alternative 

The entire ACEC would be closed to solid leasable solid minerals exploration and leasing. No similar action 

Same as Alternative 2 No similar action 

Same The pACEC potenleasaand lemininsurfacSame Those develclosed exploMap 5

Salable Minerals: The entire ACEC would be closed to mineral material sales. No similar action 

No similar action No similar action 

Same as no Action Alternative No similar action 

The lava portion of the ACEC would be closed to mineral material sales. The remainder of the ACEC would be open only when required to meet other planning objectives within the JMH CAP planning area. 

Same The labe cloSame The ropen other JMH 

Locatable Minerals: No similar action No similar action Withdrawal from mineral 

location would be pursued in the entire ACEC. 

Withdrawal from mineral location would be pursued in the potential diamond development area of Steamboat Mountain ACEC. 

Same Withdwould diamoSteam

VRM: The southern portion of the ACEC would be managed as a VRM Class II area. The northern portion would be managed as a VRM class III area. 

The entire ACEC would be managed as a VRM class IV area. 

The entire ACEC would be managed as a VRM Class I area. 

The entire ACEC would be managed as a VRM class II area. 

Same The eas a V

2-196 Jack Morrow 
Final EIS 

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

Greater Sand Dunes ACEC 

The Greater Sand Dunes ACEC designation and boundaries would remain unchanged (Map 14). No similar action No similar action 

Same as No Action Alternative No similar action No similar action 

The Greater Sand Dunes ACEC would be expanded to include the paleosol deposition area (Map 37). The expansion area would be managed as an RNA. The portion of the ACEC within the WSA containing the dunal ponds (flockets) would be further evaluated as an RNA and designated as such if the criteria are met (Map 37). 

Same as Alternative 2 No similar action No similar action 

Same The GdesigremaiNo simNo sim

Rights-of-Way:The ACEC would be managed as a ROW avoidance area (within 1 mile or the visual horizon, whichever is closer). No similar action 

Same as No Action Alternative No similar action 

Same as No Action Alternative The expansion area of ACEC (paleosol deposition area) would be managed as a ROW exclusion area. 

The ACEC would be managed as a ROW avoidance area. No similar action 

Same The AROW or the closeNo sim

OHV Use: The portion of the ACEC containing the Greater Sand Dunes Recreation Area would be open to OHV use. The remainder of the ACEC would be limited to existing roads and trails. 

Same as No Action Alternative 

The portion of the ACEC containing the Greater Sand Dunes Recreation Area would be open to OHV use. The remainder of the ACEC would be limited to designated roads and trails. 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same The pthe GArea The relimited 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Chapter 2 

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

Recreation: A recreation site plan would be prepared for expansion of the parking area and camping facilities at the Greater Sand Dunes Recreation Area. The plan would address public health and safety, resolving user conflicts, and protecting adjoining resources. 

No similar action No similar action No similar action Same 

A recprepaarea aGreatArea. health conflicresou

Leasable Fluid Minerals: No similar action No similar action No similar action 

No similar action No similar action No similar action 

The ACEC would be closed to fluid mineral leasing. No similar action No similar action 

The portion of the ACEC outside the WSA would be open to fluid minerals leasing consideration with stipulations to protect other resources (Map 42). Stipulations could include, but would not be limited to, no surface occupancy requirements, controlled surface use, and timing of development activity. Other portions of the ACEC would be closed to fluid mineral leasing (Map 42). No similar action 

Same A porWSA leasinto proStipulnot be occupsurfacdevelSame Other close54). As lealeasinconsiofferinbased operageoloimpacarea iminerconsiofferin

2-198 Jack Morrow 
Final EIS 

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

Leasable Solid Minerals: The western portion of the ACEC would be closed to leasable solid minerals exploration and leasing. The eastern portion of the ACEC within the coal development potential area would be open to leasable solid minerals exploration and leasing using only subsurface mining methods and controls on surface facilities. 

Same as No Action Alternative Same as No Action Alternative 

The entire ACEC would be closed to leasable solid minerals exploration and leasing. No similar action 

Same as No Action Alternative Same as No Action Alternative 

Same The wwould minerSame The ewithin area wminerusing methofaciliti

Salable Minerals: The ACEC would be closed to mineral material sales. 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same The Aminer

Locatable Minerals: Withdrawals from mineral location would be pursued in the western portion of the ACEC. 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Withdrawals from mineral location would be pursued in the entire ACEC. 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same Withdwould portio

VRM: The ACEC would be managed as a VRM Class II area. 

Same as No Action Alternative 

The ACEC would be managed as a VRM Class I area. 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same The AVRM 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Chapter 2 

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

Special Status Plants ACEC 

The Special Status Plant Species ACEC (identified in the Green River RMP) could be expanded into the JMH CAP planning area on a case-by-case basis. No similar action 

The Special Status Plant Species ACEC would not be expanded into the JMH CAP planning area. No similar action 

The Special Status Plant Species ACEC would be expanded into the JMH CAP planning area where such species are located (Map 37). The Special Status Plant Species ACEC would be expanded into the JMH CAP area where potential habitat for such species is located (Map 37). 

Same as Alternative 2 No similar action 

Same The SACEC RMP) JMH Cby-caNo sim

Disruptive Activities: Potential habitat of special status plant species’ communities on federal lands or on split estate lands would require searches for the plant species prior to approving any project or activity. Should species be found, all disruptive activities would be halted until species-specific, protective measures were developed and implemented. For listed species, protective measures would be developed and implemented in coordination with the USFWS. 

Same as no Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same Potenplant land orequirprior tactivitdisrupuntil smeasimpleprotecdevelcoord

Rights-of-Way: Areas where special status plants occur would be managed as ROW avoidance areas. 

Same as No Action Alternative 

The ACEC would be managed as a ROW exclusion area. 

The ACEC would be managed as a ROW exclusion area. 

Same Areas occur avoid

2-200 Jack Morrow 
Final EIS 

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

OHV Use: Areas where special status plants occur would be closed to OHV use. 

Same as no Action Alternative 

The ACEC would be closed to OHV use. 

Same as Alternative 2: The ACEC would be closed to OHV use. 

Same Areas occur 

Leasable Fluid Minerals: Known locations of special status plant species would be open to consideration for mineral leasing with no surface occupancy requirements. 

Known locations of special status plant species would be open to consideration for mineral leasing with controlled surface use requirements. 

The ACEC would be closed to all mineral leasing. 

The ACEC would be open to consideration for mineral leasing with no surface occupancy requirements. 

Knowplant considno suunlesidentileasin

Leasable Solid Minerals: Areas where special status plants occur would be closed to coal and sodium exploration as identified in the Green River RMP. 

Areas where special status plants occur would be open to coal and sodium exploration subject to avoidance and ROW limitations as needed. 

The ACEC would be closed to coal and sodium exploration. 

Same as Alternative 2: The ACEC would be closed to coal and sodium exploration. 

Same Areas occur sodiuGreen 

Salable Minerals: Areas where special status plants occur would be closed to mineral material sales. 

Same as no Action Alternative 

The ACEC would be closed to mineral material sales. 

Same as Alternative 2: The ACEC would be closed to mineral material sales. 

Same Areas occur mater

Locatable Minerals: Withdrawals from mineral location would be pursued where special status plants occur. 

Same as no Action Alternative 

Same as no Action Alternative 

Same as no Action Alternative 

Same Withdwould status 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Chapter 2 

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

Rangeland Management:Salt or mineral supplements would not be allowed in areas where special status plant species occur. Vegetation treatments would be designed to protect and conform to special status plant species. Herbicide loading sites would be prohibited within 500 feet of special status plant locations and would be used in accordance with the guidelines in Appendix 8, Standard Operating Procedures for Range Improvements and Vegetation Manipulations. 

Same as No Action Alternative No similar action Same as No Action Alternative 

Salt or mineral supplements would not be allowed within 1⁄2 mile of areas where special status plant species occur. Same as No Action Alternative Same as No Action Alternative 

Salt or mineral supplements would not be allowed within 1⁄4 mile of areas where special status plant species occur. Same as No Action Alternative Same as No Action Alternative 

Same No sabe allstatus Vegetdesigto proplant Same Herbiprohibstatus used guideOperaImproManip

Fire Management: Fire suppression vehicular activities would be limited to existing roads and trails in special status plant species habitat. A site-specific analysis would be prepared for all fire management activities around special status plant species sites to determine the appropriate fire management response. 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same Fire swould trails habitaA siteprepaactivitspecieapprorespo

2-202 Jack Morrow 
Final EIS 

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

Cushion Plant Community ACEC 

No similar action No similar action 

No similar action No similar action 

Cushion plant communities would be designated an ACEC (Map 37). The Cushion Plant Community ACEC would be further evaluated for designation as an RNA and designated as such if the criteria were met. 

Same as Alternative 2 No similar action 

No simNo sim

Rights-of-Way: No similar action No similar action The ACEC would be 

managed as an exclusion area for ROWs or other surface disturbing activities. 

The ACEC would be managed as an avoidance area for ROWs or other surface disturbing activities. 

No sim

Leasable Solid Minerals: No similar action No similar action The ACEC would be closed 

to leasable solid minerals exploration and leasing. 

The ACEC would be closed to leasable solid minerals exploration. 

No sim

Salable Minerals: No similar action No similar action The ACEC would be closed 

to mineral material sales. 

No similar action No sim

Locatable Minerals: No similar action No similar action Withdrawals from mineral 

location would be pursued. 

No similar action No sim

West Sand Dunes Archeological District 

No similar action No similar action No similar action No similar action The p

be demanaSand be maeduca

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Chapter 2 

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

Rights-of-Way:No similar action No similar action No similar action No similar action The a

ROW 

Leasable Fluid Minerals: No similar action No similar action No similar action No similar action Most 

considleasinsensit6,660 mineralong identigas le17) wwith a

VRM: No similar action No similar action No similar action No similar action The a

VRM 

Pinnacles Geologic Feature 

The Pinnacles Geologic Feature would continue to be managed as part of the Red Desert Watershed Management Area, as provided in the Green River RMP. 

Same as No Action Alternative 

The Pinnacles Geologic Feature would be designated an ACEC. 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same The Pwould part oManaGreen 

Rights-of-Way: No similar action No similar action The area would be managed 

as a ROW exclusion area. 

Same as Alternative 2 Same 

The aROW 

Geophysical Activities:No similar action No similar action No similar action No similar action Geop

detonprohibPinna

2-204 Jack Morrow 
Final EIS 

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

OHV Use: OHV use would be limited to existing roads and trails. 

OHV use would be limited to designated roads and trails. 

The area would be closed to OHV use. 

Same as Alternative 2 Same 

The ause. 

Leasable Fluid Minerals: No similar action No similar action The area would be closed to 

fluid minerals leasing. 

Same as Alternative 2 Same 

The aminer54). 

Leasable Solid Minerals: No similar action No similar action The area would be closed to 

leasable solid minerals exploration. 

Same as Alternative 2 No sim

Salable Minerals: No similar action No similar action The area would be closed to 

mineral material sales. 

Same as Alternative 2 Same 

The amater

Locatable Minerals: No similar action No similar action Withdrawals from mineral 

location would be pursued. 

No similar action Same 

Withdwould 

VRM: The area would be managed as a VRM Class III area. 

The area would be managed as a VRM Class IV area. 

The area would be managed as a VRM Class I area. 

Same as Alternative 2 The a

VRM 

Pinnacles Geographic Area 

The Pinnacles Geographic Area would continue to be managed as part of the Red Desert Watershed Management Area, as provided in the Green River RMP. 

Same as No Action Alternative 

No similar action No similar action Same 

The Pwould part oManaGreen 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Chapter 2 

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

Rights-of-Way:No similar action No similar action The area would be managed 

as a ROW exclusion area. 

Same as Alternative 2 No sim

OHV Use: No similar action No similar action The area would be closed to 

OHV use. 

Same as Alternative 2 No sim

Leasable Fluid Minerals: No similar action No similar action The area would be closed to 

fluid minerals leasing. 

Same as Alternative 2 Same 

The amineralong identigas le17) wwith a

Leasable Solid Minerals: No similar action No similar action The area would be closed to 

leasable solid minerals exploration and leasing. 

The area would be closed to leasable solid minerals exploration. 

No sim

Salable Minerals: No similar action No similar action The area would be closed to 

mineral material sales. 

Same as Alternative 2 No sim

Locatable Minerals: No similar action No similar action Withdrawals from mineral 

location would be pursued. 

No similar action No sim

VRM: No similar action No similar action The area would be managed 

as a VRM Class I. 

Same as Alternative 2 No sim

2-206 Jack Morrow 
Final EIS 

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

Steamboat Mountain Management Area 

No similar action No similar action No similar action No similar action The S

Manageogrthe StSteamexpancontaAmerwaterhabitaoverla

Rights-of-Way:No similar action No similar action No similar action No similar action The S

Manamana

OHV Use: No similar action No similar action No similar action No similar action OHV 

desig

Leasable Fluid Minerals: No similar action No similar action No similar action No similar action Appro

close54). be opminerprotec

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Chapter 2 

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

As leaarea othey wsubsecase-stipularesouAs lea(Area open would lease basis operageoloimpacarea iminerconsiofferinperimclose(Figurbe coNSO The rcloseleasin

2-208 Jack Morrow 
Final EIS 

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

Leasable Solid Minerals: No similar action No similar action No similar action No similar action The S

Manacoal rcloseexploThe SManasolid mininactivit

Salable Minerals: No similar action No similar action No similar action No similar action The S

Manaminer

VRM: No similar action No similar action No similar action No similar action The S

Manamana

Red Desert Watershed Management Area 

OHV Use: OHV use would be limited to designated roads and trails. 

No similar action No similar action Same as No Action 

Alternative 

Same OHV desig

Leasable Fluid Minerals: No similar action No similar action The area would be closed to 

fluid minerals leasing. 

No similar action Appro

closed 54). Tbe opminerprotec

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Chapter 2 

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 

As leaarea othey wsubsecase-stipularesouportiothe arconsiconsiofferinbased operageoloimpacarea iminerconsiofferinperimclose(Figurbe coNSO 

VRM: The area would be managed as a VRM Class III area. 

No similar action The area would be managed 

as a VRM Class I area. 

The area would be managed as a VRM Class II area. 

Same The aVRM 

2-210 Jack Morrow 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

Table 2-2. Areas of Fluid Mineral Lease Conditional Requirements

by Hydrocarbon Potential (Approximate Acres)1 

Area Hydrocarbon Potential Total High Moderate Low 

GENERAL PLANNING AREA 

NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE: 

NO LEASE2 

Core area 82,700 0 0 82,700 

Total Affected Area (in acres) 82,700 0 0 82,700 

NO SURFACE OCCUPANCY4 

Boars Tusk 30 0 0 30 

White Mountain Petroglyphs vista 0 510 0 510 

Greater Sand Dunes ACEC (developed recreation sites and 

OHV parking lot 50 0 0 50 

Tri-Territory Marker 10 0 0 10 

Indian Gap + 100-foot buffer 750 0 0 750 

Crookston Ranch + 100-foot buffer 60 0 0 60 

South Pass Historic Landscape ACEC (visible portion) 270 5,610 16,060 21,940 

Raptor nest sites (active) 140 240 10 390 

Special status plants5 2,760 0 110 2,870 

Total Affected Area (in acres)6 2,830 5,610 16,140 24,580 

CONTROLLED SURFACE USE4 

Wetlands, riparian areas, and 100-year floodplains + 500-foot 

buffer 49,670 27,230 8,550 85,450 

National Historic Trails + 1⁄4-mile buffer 130 2,130 7,370 9,630 

Expansion Era Roads + 1⁄4-mile buffer 4,000 1,550 1,360 6,910 

Slopes > 25 percent 15,390 2,850 1,590 19,830 

South Pass Historic Landscape ACEC (portion not visible) 2,860 6,970 16,490 26,320 

VRM Class II lands 49,310 44,230 70,360 163,900 

Special status plants potential habitat8 0 0 1,150 1,150 

Greater sage-grouse leks + 1⁄4-mile buffer7 820 2,080 720 3,620 

Total Affected Area (in acres)6 56,970 62,490 54,220 173,680 

SEASONAL LIMITATIONS4 

Elk crucial habitat 117,810 7,660 0 125,470 

Deer crucial habitat 39,280 0 0 39,280 

Antelope crucial habitat 12,950 41,030 0 53,980 

Elk birthing areas 71,370 8,440 4,690 84,500 

Deer birthing areas 24,590 320 3,930 28,840 

Raptor nest sites + 1⁄2- to 1-mile buffer 9,780 15,590 1,290 26,660 

Greater sage-grouse leks + 1⁄4-mile buffer7 820 2,080 720 3,620 

Greater sage-grouse nesting area + 2-mile buffer7 38,600 62,870 26,260 127,730 

Greater sage-grouse winter concentration areas7 410 0 0 410 

Total Affected Area (in acres)6 170,640 90,410 32,490 293,540 

ALTERNATIVE 1: 

NO LEASE2 

Total Affected Area (in acres) 0 0 0 0 

NO SURFACE OCCUPANCY4 

Indian Gap + 100-foot buffer 750 0 0 750 

Boars Tusk 30 0 0 30 

Tri-Territory Marker 10 0 0 10 

Crookston Ranch + 100-foot buffer 60 0 0 60 

Total Affected Area (in acres) 820 0 0 820 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 2-211 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

Table 2-2. Areas of Fluid Mineral Lease Conditional Requirements

by Hydrocarbon Potential (Approximate Acres)1

 (Continued) 

Area Hydrocarbon Potential Total High Moderate Low 

CONTROLLED SURFACE USE4 

Wetlands, riparian areas, and 100-year floodplains + 250-foot 

buffer 25,550 14,050 4,310 43,910 

Expansion Era Roads + 1⁄4-mile buffer 4,000 1,550 1,360 6,910 

Slopes > 25 percent 15,390 2,850 1,590 19,830 

South Pass Historic Landscape viewshed (1-mile buffer) 450 7,010 21,000 28,460 

Greater sage-grouse leks + 1⁄4-mile buffer7 820 2,080 720 3,620 

Special status plants5 2,760 0 110 2,870 

Special status plants potential habitat8 0 0 1,150 1,150 

Total Affected Area (in acres)6 46,330 25,790 26,260 98,380 

SEASONAL LIMITATIONS4 

Greater sage-grouse potential nesting habitat7,9 8,170 14,720 6,330 29,220 

Raptor nest sites + 1⁄4-mile buffer 1,490 1,990 130 3,610 

Mountain plover aggregation areas7 120 0 0 120 

Total Affected Area (in acres)6 9,610 16,640 6,460 32,710 

ALTERNATIVE 2: 

NO LEASE2 

Pinnacles Geographic Area 8,950 0 0 8,950 

ACECs + expansions 113,880 31,290 33,750 178,920 

Red Desert Watershed Management Area 71,040 24,940 8,530 104,510 

Wetlands, riparian areas, and 100-year floodplains + 500-foot 

buffer 49,670 27,230 8,550 85,450 

National Historic Trails + 1⁄4-mile buffer 130 2,130 7,370 9,630 

Expansion Era Roads + 1⁄4-mile buffer 4,000 1,550 1,360 6,910 

Tri-Territory Marker 10 0 0 10 

Slopes > 20 percent 36,920 9,370 8,680 54,970 

Greater sage-grouse concentration areas7 50,110 65,420 31,220 146,750 

Greater sage-grouse winter range7,10 57,740 9,460 0 67,200 

Raptor nest sites + 1⁄2- to 1-mile buffer 9,780 15,590 1,290 26,660 

Mountain plover aggregation areas7 120 0 0 120 

Elk crucial habitat 117,810 7,660 0 125,470 

Deer crucial habitat 39,280 0 0 39,280 

Antelope crucial habitat 12,950 41,030 0 53,980 

Elk birthing areas 71,370 8,440 4,690 84,500 

Deer birthing areas 24,590 320 3,930 28,840 

Connectivity area 161,040 47,350 21,960 230,350 

Total Affected Area (in acres)6 239,380 127,710 53,390 420,480 

NO SURFACE OCCUPANCY3,4 

White Mountain Petroglyphs vista 0 510 0 510 

South Pass Historic Landscape (visible portion) 230 8,040 27,770 36,040 

Boars Tusk 30 0 0 30 

Indian Gap + 100-foot buffer 750 0 0 750 

Tri-Territory Marker 10 0 0 10 

Crookston Ranch + 300-foot buffer 90 0 0 90 

Total Affected Area (in acres)6 1,700 370 2,580 4,650 

2-212 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

Table 2-2. Areas of Fluid Mineral Lease Conditional Requirements

by Hydrocarbon Potential (Approximate Acres)1 (Continued) 

Area Hydrocarbon Potential Total High Moderate Low 

CONTROLLED SURFACE USE3,4 

Wetlands, riparian areas, and 100-year floodplains + 1⁄4-mile 

buffer 121,890 66,700 23,130 211,720 

Total Affected Area (in acres)6 3,400 3,240 1,700 8,340 

SEASONAL LIMITATIONS3,4 

Elk crucial habitat 117,810 7,660 0 125,470 

Deer crucial habitat 39,280 0 0 39,280 

Antelope crucial habitat 12,950 41,030 0 53,980 

Mountain plover aggregation areas + 1⁄4-mile buffer7 1,340 0 0 1,340 

Total Affected Area (in acres) 141,980 48,160 0 190,140 

ALTERNATIVE 3: 

NO LEASE2 

Pinnacles Geographic Area 8,950 0 0 8,950 

Total Affected Area (in acres) 8,950 0 0 8,950 

NO SURFACE OCCUPANCY3,4 

Boars Tusk 30 0 0 30 

White Mountain Petroglyphs vista 0 510 0 510 

Crookston Ranch + 100-foot buffer 60 0 0 60 

Indian Gap + 100-foot buffer 750 0 0 750 

Tri-Territory Marker 10 0 0 10 

Special Status Plants ACEC5 2,760 0 110 2,870 

Raptor nest sites (active) 140 240 10 390 

Greater sage-grouse leks + 1⁄2-mile buffer7 2,970 7,230 2,480 12,680 

Total Affected Area (in acres)6 6,550 7,740 2,590 16,880 

CONTROLLED SURFACE USE3,4 

Wetlands, riparian areas, and 100-year floodplains + 1⁄4-mile 

buffer 121,900 66,670 23,150 211,720 

Special status plants potential habitat8 0 0 1,150 1,150 

Slopes > 20 percent 36,920 9,370 8,680 54,970 

Remaining ACECs + expansions 67,710 30,060 32,560 130,330 

National Historic Trails + 1⁄4-mile buffer 130 2,130 7,370 9,630 

Expansion Era Roads + 1⁄4-mile buffer 4,000 1,550 1,360 6,910 

Total Affected Area (in acres)6 156,600 71,470 44,820 272,890 

SEASONAL LIMITATIONS3,4 

Elk crucial habitat 117,810 7,660 0 125,470 

Deer crucial habitat 39,280 0 0 39,280 

Antelope crucial habitat 12,950 41,030 0 53,980 

Elk birthing areas 71,370 8,440 4,690 84,500 

Deer birthing areas 24,590 320 3,930 28,840 

Raptor nest sites + 1⁄2- to 1-mile buffer 9,780 15,590 1,290 26,660 

Mountain plover aggregation areas + 1⁄4-mile buffer7 1,340 0 0 1,340 

Greater sage-grouse leks + 1⁄4-mile buffer 820 2,080 720 3,620 

Greater sage-grouse potential nesting habitat7,9 29,040 40,470 20,240 89,750 

Greater sage-grouse winter range7,10 57,740 9,460 0 67,200 

Total Affected Area (in acres)6 163,850 121,810 28,300 313,960 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 2-213 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

Table 2-2. Areas of Fluid Mineral Lease Conditional Requirements

by Hydrocarbon Potential (Approximate Acres)1 (Continued) 

Area Hydrocarbon Potential Total High Moderate Low 

PROPOSED JMH CAP: 

NO LEASE2 

Area 3 minus the NSO areas (Appendix 17) 125,270 34,500 18,490 178,260 

Sensitive resources 14,200 7,350 7,020 28,570 

Total Affected Area (in acres)6 125,280 36,020 18,500 179,800 

NO SURFACE OCCUPANCY3,4 

Indian Gap + 100-foot buffer 750 0 0 750 

Greater Sand Dunes ACEC (developed recreation sites and 

OHV parking lot) 50 0 0 50 

Crookston Ranch + 100-foot buffer 60 0 0 60 

South Pass Historic Landscape ACEC (visible portion) 270 5,610 16,060 21,940 

Special status plants5 2,760 0 110 2,870 

Raptor nest sites (active) 140 240 10 390 

Sensitive resources 23,510 5,620 2,660 31,790 

Area 3 NSO areas (Appendix 17) 17,000 14,530 4,520 36,050 

Total Affected Area (in acres)6 20,390 19,910 18,470 58,770 

CONTROLLED SURFACE USE3,4 

Wetlands, riparian areas, and 100-year floodplains + 500-foot 

buffer 49,670 27,230 8,550 85,450 

National Historic Trails + 1⁄4-mile buffer 130 2,130 7,370 9,630 

Slopes > 20 percent 36,920 9,370 8,680 54,970 

ACECs + expansions 66,380 12,640 32,560 111,580 

Steamboat Mountain Management Area 88,300 0 0 88,300 

Areas adjacent to WSAs 23,750 32,370 16,040 72,160 

Portion of White Mountain 0 2,740 0 2,740 

West Sand Dunes Archaeological District 0 18,710 0 18,710 

Special status plants potential habitat8 0 0 1,150 1,150 

Greater sage-grouse potential nesting habitat7,9 92,900 100,360 40,870 234,130 

Greater sage-grouse winter range7,10 57,740 9,460 0 67,200 

Sensitive resources 12,220 8,900 40 21,160 

Total Affected Area (in acres)6 108,080 83,580 23,970 215,630 

SEASONAL LIMITATIONS3,4 

Elk crucial habitat 117,810 7,660 0 125,470 

Deer crucial habitat 39,280 0 0 39,280 

Antelope crucial habitat 12,950 41,030 0 53,980 

Elk birthing areas 71,370 8,440 4,690 84,500 

Deer birthing areas 24,590 320 3,930 28,840 

Raptor nest sites + 1⁄2- to 1-mile buffer 9,780 15,590 1,290 26,660 

Greater sage-grouse leks + 1⁄4-mile buffer 820 2,080 720 3,620 

Greater sage-grouse potential nesting habitat7,9 92,840 100,090 40,870 233,800 

Greater sage-grouse winter range7,10 57,740 9,460 0 67,200 

Mountain plover aggregation areas + 1⁄4-mile buffer7 1,340 0 0 1,340 

Total Affected Area (in acres)6 215,360 115,070 41,970 372,400 

2-214 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

Table 2-2. Areas of Fluid Mineral Lease Conditional Requirements

by Hydrocarbon Potential (Approximate Acres)1 (Continued) 

Area Hydrocarbon Potential Total High Moderate Low 

CORE AREA 

NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE: 

NO LEASE2 

Core area 82,700 0 0 82,700 

Total Affected Area (in acres) 82,700 0 0 82,700 

NO SURFACE OCCUPANCY4 

Total Affected Area (in acres)6 0 0 0 0 

CONTROLLED SURFACE USE4 

Total Affected Area (in acres)6 0 0 0 0 

SEASONAL LIMITATIONS4 

Elk crucial habitat 69,580 0 0 69,580 

Deer crucial habitat 21,630 0 0 21,630 

Elk birthing areas 48,920 0 0 48,920 

Deer birthing areas 24,570 0 0 24,570 

Raptor nest sites + 1⁄2- to 1-mile buffer 2,330 0 0 2,330 

Greater sage-grouse leks + 1⁄4-mile buffer7 20 0 0 20 

Greater sage-grouse nesting area + 2-mile buffer7 3,870 0 0 3,870 

Greater sage-grouse winter concentrations areas7 30 0 0 30 

Total Affected Area (in acres)6 72,250 0 0 72,250 

ALTERNATIVE 1: 

NO LEASE2 

Total Affected Area (in acres) 0 0 0 0 

NO SURFACE OCCUPANCY4 

Indian Gap + 100-foot buffer 750 0 0 750 

Tri-Territory Marker 10 0 0 10 

Total Affected Area (in acres) 760 0 0 760 

CONTROLLED SURFACE USE4 

Wetlands, riparian areas, and 100-year floodplains + 250-foot 

buffer 8,170 0 0 8,170 

Greater sage-grouse leks + 1⁄4-mile buffer7 20 0 0 20 

Slopes > 25 percent 9,760 0 0 9,760 

Total Affected Area (in acres)6 17,760 0 0 17,760 

SEASONAL LIMITATIONS4 

Greater sage-grouse potential nesting habitat7,9 240 0 0 240 

Raptor nest sites + 1⁄4-mile buffer 640 0 0 640 

Mountain plover aggregation areas7 20 0 0 20 

Total Affected Area (in acres)6 900 0 0 900 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 2-215 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

Table 2-2. Areas of Fluid Mineral Lease Conditional Requirements

by Hydrocarbon Potential (Approximate Acres)1 (Continued) 

Area Hydrocarbon Potential Total High Moderate Low 

ALTERNATIVE 2: 

NO LEASE2 

ACECs + expansions 78,400 0 0 78,400 

Red Desert Watershed Management Area 3,240 0 0 3,240 

Wetlands, riparian areas, and 100-year floodplains + 500-foot 

buffer 15,530 0 0 15,530 

Tri-Territory Marker 10 0 0 10 

Greater sage-grouse concentration areas7 5,400 0 0 5,400 

Greater sage-grouse winter range7,10 2,980 0 0 2,980 

Raptor nest sites + 1⁄2- to 1-mile buffer 2,330 0 0 2,330 

Mountain plover aggregation areas7 20 0 0 20 

Elk crucial habitat 69,580 0 0 69,580 

Deer crucial habitat 21,630 0 0 21,630 

Elk birthing areas 48,920 0 0 48,920 

Deer birthing areas 24,570 0 0 24,570 

Connectivity area 82,670 0 0 82,670 

Slopes > 20 percent 22,100 0 0 22,100 

Total Affected Area (in acres)6 82,700 0 0 82,700 

NO SURFACE OCCUPANCY3,4 

Total Affected Area (in acres)6 0 0 0 0 

CONTROLLED SURFACE USE3,4 

Total Affected Area (in acres)6 0 0 0 0 

SEASONAL LIMITATIONS3,4 

Elk crucial habitat 69,580 0 0 69,580 

Deer crucial habitat 21,630 0 0 21,630 

Mountain plover aggregation areas + 1⁄4-mile buffer7 250 0 0 250 

Total Affected Area (in acres)6 72,150 0 0 72,150 

ALTERNATIVE 3: 

NO LEASE2 

Total Affected Area (in acres) 0 0 0 0 

NO SURFACE OCCUPANCY3,4 

Crookston Ranch + 100 ft. 60 0 0 60 

Indian Gap + 100 ft. 750 0 0 750 

Tri-Territory Marker + 100 ft. 10 0 0 10 

Greater sage-grouse leks + 1⁄2-mile buffer7 160 0 0 160 

Raptor nest sites (active) 60 0 0 60 

Total Affected Area (in acres)6 1,030 0 0 1,030 

CONTROLLED SURFACE USE3,4 

Wetlands, riparian areas, and 100-yr floodplains + 1⁄4-mile buffer 38,430 0 0 38,430 

Slopes > 20% 22,100 0 0 22,100 

ACECs + expansions 60,580 0 0 60,580 

Total Affected Area (in acres)6 70,110 0 0 70,110 

2-216 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 2 

Table 2-2. Areas of Fluid Mineral Lease Conditional Requirements

by Hydrocarbon Potential (Approximate Acres)1 (Continued) 

Area Hydrocarbon Potential Total High Moderate Low 

SEASONAL LIMITATIONS3,4 

Elk crucial habitat 69,580 0 0 69,580 

Deer crucial habitat 21,630 0 0 21,630 

Elk birthing areas 48,920 0 0 48,920 

Deer birthing areas 24,570 0 0 24,570 

Raptor nest sites + 1⁄2- to 1-mile buffer 2,330 0 0 2,330 

Greater sage-grouse leks + 1⁄4-mile buffer7 20 0 0 20 

Greater sage-grouse potential nesting habitat7,9 940 0 0 940 

Greater sage-grouse winter range7,10 2,980 0 0 2,980 

Mountain plover aggregation areas + 1⁄4-mile buffer7 250 0 0 250 

Total Affected Area (in acres)6 72,420 0 0 72,420 

PROPOSED JMH CAP: 

NO LEASE2 

Area 3 minus NSO areas (Appendix 17) 58,370 0 0 58,370 

Sensitive resources 12,900 0 0 12,900 

Total Affected Area (in acres) 58,370 0 0 58,370 

NO SURFACE OCCUPANCY3,4 

Crookston Ranch + 100-foot buffer 60 0 0 60 

Indian Gap + 100-foot buffer 750 0 0 750 

Greater Sand Dunes ACEC (developed recreation sites and 

OHV parking lot) 50 0 0 50 

Raptor nest sites (active) 60 0 0 60 

Sensitive resources 13,320 0 0 13,320 

Area 3 NSO areas (Appendix 17) 4,150 0 0 4,150 

Total Affected Area (in acres)6 5,940 0 0 5,940 

CONTROLLED SURFACE USE3,4 

Wetlands, riparian areas, and 100-year floodplains + 500-foot 

buffer 15,530 0 0 15,530 

Slopes > 20 percent 22,100 0 0 22,100 

ACECs + expansions 63,060 0 0 63,060 

Areas adjacent to WSAs 5,540 0 0 5,540 

Steamboat Mountain Management Area 63,780 0 0 63,780 

Greater sage-grouse potential nesting habitat7,9 1,510 0 0 1,510 

Greater sage-grouse winter range7,10 2,980 0 0 2,980 

Sensitive resources 4,730 0 0 4,730 

Total Affected Area (in acres)6 18,500 0 0 18,500 

SEASONAL LIMITATIONS3,4 

Elk crucial habitat 69,580 0 0 69,580 

Deer crucial habitat 21,630 0 0 21,630 

Elk birthing areas 48,920 0 0 48,920 

Deer birthing areas 24,570 0 0 24,570 

Raptor nest sites + 1⁄2- to 1-mile buffer 2,330 0 0 2,330 

Greater sage-grouse leks + 1⁄4-mile buffer7 20 0 0 20 

Greater sage-grouse potential nesting habitat7,9 1,510 0 0 1,510 

Greater sage-grouse winter range7,10 2,980 0 0 2,980 

Mountain plover aggregation areas + 1⁄4-mile buffer7 250 0 0 250 

Total Affected Area (in acres)6 72,420 0 0 72,420 

1

Lease parcels are designed on aliquot parts. The actual acreage for the lease may vary. 

2

Although closed to leasing and related oil and gas activity, any other surface disturbing or disrupting use would follow the 

surface disturbance prescriptions (see Table 4-8). 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 2-217 
Chapter 2 Final EIS 

3

All activities would be subject to intensive mitigation based on site-specific analysis. These could include offsite placement of 

facilities; remote control monitoring; restricted or prohibited surface use, including road construction; multiple wells from a 

single pad; central tank batteries/facilities; pipelines and power lines concentrated in specific areas; etc. 

4

Refer to Appendix 5. These requirements apply to all surface disturbing activities. 

5

As new populations are identified, their locations will be added to this total. 

6

Acres may not add because of overlapping land resources and land use restrictions. Acres only reflect proposed fluid mineral 

lease stipulations. 

7

A lease stipulation is applied to all leases for protection of special status species and their habitats. 

8

Acres will change as floristic inventories identify actual areas with potential. 

9 Only 50 percent of area is expected to be suitable nesting habitat. 

10Only sagebrush vegetation is expected to be suitable habitat. 

2-218 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS 

Table 2-3. Wildlife Limitations by Alternative 

Species/Habitat with

Applicable Buffer 

Limitation Time 

(month/day) 

No Action 

Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 

SEASONAL LIMITATIONS 

Greater sage-grouse leks (with 1⁄4-mile buffer) 

2/1–6/30 X 

Greater sage-grouse leks (with 1⁄4-mile buffer) 

3/1–5/15 X 

Greater sage-grouse leks (with 1⁄4-mile buffer) 

Case-by-case basis X 

Greater sage-grouse nesting area (with 2-mile buffer) 

2/1–7/31 X 

Greater sage-grouse potential nesting habitat (up to 1 mile) 

3/15–7/15 X 

Greater sage-grouse potential nesting habitat (up to 2 miles) 

3/15–7/15 X 

Greater sage-grouse potential nesting habitat 

3/15–7/15 

Greater sage-grouse winter concentration areas 

11/15–4/30 X 

Greater sage-grouse winter range 11/15–3/15 X Mountain plover aggregation areas 4/10–7/10 X Mountain plover aggregation areas (with 1⁄4-mile buffer) 

4/10–7/10 X X 

Big game crucial habitat (winter range) 11/15–4/30 X X X Big game birthing areas 5/1–6/30 X X Raptor nesting sites (with 1⁄2- to 1-mile buffer) 

2/1–7/31 X X 

Raptor nesting sites (with 1⁄4-mile buffer) 

2/1–7/31 X 

Game and special status fish species Spawning (species 

dependent) X X X 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Chapter 2 

Table 2-3. Wildlife Limitations by Alternative (Continued) 

CONTROLLED SURFACE USE 

Greater sage-grouse leks (with 1⁄4-mile buffer) 

N/A X X 

Greater sage-grouse potential nesting habitat 

N/A 

Raptor nesting sites (with 1⁄2- to 1-mile buffer) 

N/A X X X 

NO SURFACE OCCUPANCY 

Greater sage-grouse nesting areas (with 1⁄2-mile buffer) 

N/A X 

Greater sage-grouse concentration areas 

N/A X 

Greater sage-grouse winter range N/A X Big game birthing areas N/A X Raptor nest sites (active) N/A X X X 

2-220 Jack Morrow 
Final EIS 

Table 2-4. Summary of Impacts

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS TO LAND AND WATER RESOURCES

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 P

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS TO FIRE MANAGEMENT 

Fire ManagementBeneficial impacts from actions aimed at reducing fire frequency, size, and intensity. 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative, except beneficial impacts would be slightly reduced because of actions requiring limited fire suppression activities (rather than full suppression). 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Beneficial imreducing fire intensity. 

Watershed Resources ManagementNo net impact Same as No Action 

Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No impact 

Wild Horse ManagementBeneficial and/or adverse impacts from the reduction (via browsing) of fine fuels. 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Potential impacts within the planning area would be eliminated because of the exclusion of the planning area from the HMA. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except impacts could be greater because of the greater herd distribution resulting from expansion of the HMA. 

Same as No Beneficial anthe reduction 

Livestock Grazing Management Beneficial and/or adverse impacts from the reduction (via grazing) of fine fuels. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except impacts would be greater because of anticipated increases in livestock grazing. 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Beneficial anthe reduction 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Chapter 2 

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 P

Vegetation Management Beneficial impacts from maintaining diverse vegetation communities. Potential adverse impacts from prescribed burn stipulations, fire suppression restrictions, and allowance of the natural accumulation of fuels. 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Beneficial imdiverse vegeadverse impstipulations, and allowancof fuels. 

Wildlife Habitat Management Beneficial impacts from maintaining diverse vegetation communities. Potential adverse impacts from fire suppression restrictions and allowance of the natural accumulation of fuels. 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Beneficial imdiverse vegeadverse imprestrictions aaccumulatio

Heritage Resources Management Adverse impacts from restrictions on fire suppression activities on or near heritage sites and from additional protection measures required for heritage resources during prescribed burns. 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Adverse impsuppression sites and fromeasures reduring presc

Recreation Management Adverse impacts from increased fire frequency caused by escaped campfires and OHV-ignited fires. 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative, except impacts would be least intensive under this alternative because of camping restrictions and OHV use limitations. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except impacts would be reduced because of camping restrictions and OHV use limitations 

Same as No Adverse impfrequency caand OHV-ign

2-222 Jack Morrow 
Final EIS 

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 P

Mineral Resources Management Adverse impacts from increased fire frequency caused by an increased number of ignition sources. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except impacts would be greatest under this alternative because of increased potential for mineral development. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except impacts would be least intensive under this alternative because of decreased potential for mineral development. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except impacts would be slightly less because of an anticipated decrease in well development. 

Adverse impfrequency canumber of igwould be simin the short tresult of impmineral leas

Special Management Area and OtherManagement Area Management Adverse impacts because of fire suppression restrictions within these areas. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except impacts would be reduced because of the elimination of management actions associated with removing special management area designations. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except impacts would be greatest under this alternative as a result of implementation of management actions associated with expansion and addition of special management areas. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except impacts would be slightly greater as result of implementation of management actions associated with expansion and addition of special management areas. 

Adverse impsuppression areas. Impathan the No of implemenassociated wspecial manamanagemen

Fire Management Short-term, adverse impacts from vegetation removal associated with prescribed burns and suppression activities. Long-term beneficial impacts from enhancing vegetative conditions. 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative, except impacts would be lessened because of reduced suppression efforts (limited suppression versus full suppression for basin big sagebrush/lemon scurfpea vegetation associations) and elimination of prescribed burning. 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Short-term, avegetation represcribed bactivities. Lofrom enhanc

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Chapter 2 

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 P

Watershed Management Beneficial impacts from restoration and enhancement efforts, placement of buffer zones around riparian areas and floodplains, and restrictions on surface disturbing activities. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except beneficial impacts would be reduced because of fewer restrictions on surface disturbing activities and smaller buffer zones around riparian areas and floodplains. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except beneficial impacts would be greatest under this alternative because of increased restrictions on surface disturbing activities and larger buffer zones around riparian areas and floodplains. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except beneficial impacts would be greater because of increased restrictions on surface disturbing activities and larger buffer zones around riparian areas and floodplains. 

Same as No Beneficial imenhancemenzones arounfloodplains, adisturbing ac

Wild Horse Management Minimal adverse impacts from trampling of riparian vegetation and subsequent erosion. Maintaining the appropriate management level would help minimize impacts. 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Potential impacts within the planning area would be eliminated as a result of the exclusion of the planning area from the HMA. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except impacts would be reduced on the current HMA because of the greater distribution of the herd; impacts could be greater on the expanded portion of the HMA. 

Same as No Minimal adveriparian vegeerosion. Mamanagemenimpacts. 

Livestock Grazing Management Adverse impacts from vegetation removal, soil compaction, and stream bank instability. Implementing Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands would prevent impacts from becoming significant. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except impacts would be greatest under this alternative because of reduced restrictions on grazing management and anticipated increases in livestock grazing. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except impacts would be least intensive under this alternative because of greater restrictions on grazing management. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except impacts would be slightly reduced because of greater restrictions on grazing management. 

Same as No Adverse impsoil compactinstability. ImStandards foprevent impasignificant. 

2-224 Jack Morrow 
Final EIS 

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 P

Vegetation Management Overall beneficial impacts from enhancement and protection of vegetation resources. Short-term, adverse impacts from vegetation treatments. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except beneficial impacts would be slightly reduced because of fewer protections afforded to special status plant species. 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Overall beneenhancemenresources. Sfrom vegetat

Wildlife Habitat Management Beneficial impacts from enhancement of wildlife habitat, which promotes healthy plant communities. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except beneficial impacts would be reduced because of less restrictive actions to improve wildlife habitat. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except beneficial impacts would be greater because of more restrictive actions to improve wildlife habitat. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except beneficial impacts would be slightly greater because of more restrictive actions to improve wildlife habitat. 

Beneficial imwildlife habitplant commuwould be greAlternative bprotection mgrouse habit

Heritage Resources Management Adverse impacts from surface disturbing excavations. Beneficial impacts because of limitations on surface disturbance near heritage sites. 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative, except beneficial impacts would be greater because of increased limitations on surface disturbance near heritage sites. 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Adverse impexcavations. of limitations heritage site

Recreation Management Adverse impacts (erosion, soil compaction, sedimentation) from OHV use and camping activities within riparian corridors. 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative, except impacts would be reduced because of camping restrictions and increased OHV use limitations. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except impacts would be slightly reduced because of camping restrictions and increased OHV use limitations. 

Same as No Adverse impcompaction, use and camcorridors. 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Chapter 2 

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 P

Mineral Resources Management Adverse impacts (erosion, sedimentation, stream bank instability) from related construction activities (e.g., well pads, access roads). Following management prescriptions could help to reduce adverse impacts. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except impacts would be greatest under this alternative because of increased potential for mineral development. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except impacts would be least extensive under this alternative because of decreased potential for mineral development. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except impacts would be greater under this alternative because of increased potential for mineral development. 

Adverse impstream bank construction access roadprescriptions impacts. Impotentially gAlternative 3 of the fluid m(Appendix 17

Special Management Area and OtherManagement Area Management Beneficial impacts from limitations placed on surface disturbing activities within special management areas and other management areas. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except beneficial impacts would be reduced because of the elimination of management actions associated with removing special management area designations. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except beneficial impacts would be greatest under this alternative as a result of implementation of management actions associated with expansion and addition of special management areas. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except beneficial impacts would be slightly greater as a result of implementation of management actions associated with expansion and addition of special management areas. 

Beneficial imon surface dspecial manaimpacts wouNo Action Alimplementatassociated wspecial manamanagemen

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS TO WILD HORSES 

Fire ManagementShort-term, adverse impacts from forage removal. Long-term beneficial impacts from enhanced forage conditions. 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Potential impacts within the planning area would be eliminated as a result of the exclusion of the planning area from the HMA. 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Short-term, aremoval. Lofrom enhanc

2-226 Jack Morrow 
Final EIS 

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 P

Watershed Management Beneficial impacts from actions aimed at maintaining and enhancing vegetative conditions. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except beneficial impacts could be reduced because of less restrictive watershed management actions (e.g., smaller buffer zones around riparian areas and floodplains). 

Potential impacts within the planning area would be eliminated as a result of the exclusion of the planning area from the HMA. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except beneficial impacts could be greater because of more restrictive watershed management actions (e.g., larger buffer zones around riparian areas and floodplains). 

Same as No Beneficial immaintaining conditions. 

Wild Horse ManagementBeneficial impacts from enhanced forage conditions as a result of maintenance of the appropriate management level and promoting herd distribution. 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Potential impacts within the planning area would be eliminated as a result of the exclusion of the planning area from the HMA. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except beneficial impacts could be greater because of improved herd distribution. 

Same as No Beneficial imconditions as the appropriapromoting he

Livestock Grazing ManagementBeneficial impacts from compliance with healthy rangeland standards, thereby improving forage conditions. Potential adverse impacts from competition for forage resources. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except adverse impacts would be greater because of anticipated increases in livestock grazing. 

Potential impacts within the planning area would be eliminated as a result of the exclusion of the planning area from the HMA. 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Beneficial imhealthy rangimproving foadverse impforage resou

Vegetation Management Beneficial impacts from enhancement and protection of vegetation resources. Short-term, adverse impacts from vegetation treatments. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except beneficial impacts would be slightly reduced because of fewer protections afforded to special status plant species. 

Potential impacts within the planning area would be eliminated as a result of the exclusion of the planning area from the HMA. 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Beneficial improtection of term, adverstreatments. 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Chapter 2 

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 P

Wildlife Habitat Management Beneficial impacts from enhancement of wildlife habitat, which promotes healthy plant communities. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except beneficial impacts would be reduced because of less restrictive actions to improve wildlife habitat. 

Potential impacts within the planning area would be eliminated as a result of the exclusion of the planning area from the HMA. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except beneficial impacts would be slightly greater because of more restrictive actions to improve wildlife habitat. 

Beneficial imwildlife habitplant commuwould be greAlternative bprotection mgrouse habit

Heritage Resources ManagementMinimal adverse impacts from surface disturbing excavations and limitations on range improvements near heritage sites. Potential beneficial impacts from limitations on surface disturbance near heritage sites. 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Potential impacts within the planning area would be eliminated as a result of the exclusion of the planning area from the HMA. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except beneficial impacts would be slightly greater because of increased limitations on surface disturbance near heritage sites. 

Same as No Minimal advedisturbing exlimitations on heritage siteimpacts from disturbance 

Recreation Management Minimal adverse impacts from forage removal associated with dispersed recreation. Potentially greater adverse impacts from OHV use. 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Potential impacts within the planning area would be eliminated because of the exclusion of the planning area from the HMA. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except impacts would be slightly reduced because of increased OHV use limitations. 

Same as No Minimal adveremoval assrecreation. Pimpacts from 

Mineral Resources Management Adverse impacts from vegetation removal associated with construction of well pads and connector roads. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except impacts would be greatest under this alternative because of the increased potential for mineral development. 

Potential impacts within the planning area would be eliminated because of the exclusion of the planning area from the HMA. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except impacts would be greater under this alternative because of the increased potential for mineral development. 

Adverse impassociated wand connectsimilar to, bushort term, thof implemenleasing strat

2-228 Jack Morrow 
Final EIS 

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 P

Special Management Area and OtherManagement Area ManagementBeneficial impacts because of limitations placed on surface disturbing activities within special management areas and other management areas. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except beneficial impacts would be reduced because of the elimination of management actions associated with removing special management area designations. 

Potential impacts within the planning area would be eliminated because of the exclusion of the planning area from the HMA. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except beneficial impacts would be slightly greater as a result of implementation of management actions associated with expansion and addition of special management areas. 

Beneficial implaced on suwithin speciaBeneficial imthe No Actioimplementatassociated wspecial manamanagemen

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS TO LIVESTOCK GRAZING 

Fire Management Short-term, adverse impacts from forage removal. Long-term beneficial impacts from enhanced forage conditions. 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Short-term, aremoval. Lofrom enhanc

Watershed Management Beneficial impacts from actions aimed at maintaining and enhancing vegetative conditions. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except beneficial impacts could be reduced because of less restrictive watershed management actions (e.g., smaller buffer zones around riparian areas and floodplains). 

Same as No Action Alternative, except beneficial impacts could be greater because of more restrictive watershed management actions (e.g., larger buffer zones around riparian areas and floodplains). 

Same as No Action Alternative, except beneficial impacts could be greater because of more restrictive watershed management actions (e.g., larger buffer zones around riparian areas and floodplains). 

Same as No Beneficial immaintaining conditions. 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Chapter 2 

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 P

Wild Horse Management Adverse impacts from competition for forage resources. Maintaining the appropriate management level would help minimize impacts. 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Beneficial impacts from elimination of wild horses from the planning area. Adverse impacts from limiting livestock use within allotments affected by wild horse fence construction. Certain allotments would be subdivided by construction of a fence designed to limit wild horse movement to the reestablished HMA boundary. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except impacts could be reduced as a result of better distribution of wild horses. Adverse impacts could also be greater as a result of wild horse grazing within the expanded portion of the HMA. 

Same as No Adverse impforage resouappropriate minimize imp

Livestock Grazing Management Short-term, adverse impacts from adjusting grazing plans to comply with healthy rangelands standards and grazing restrictions. Potential longterm, beneficial impacts from increased forage production and subsequent livestock growth rates. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except adverse impacts would be reduced because of increased flexibility in managing livestock resources. Beneficial impacts could also potentially be reduced as a result of increases in grazing pressures on forage resources. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except adverse impacts would be greater because of increased restrictions on grazing activities. Beneficial impacts could be greater as a result of enhanced forage conditions. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except adverse impacts would be slightly greater because of increased restrictions on grazing activities. Beneficial impacts could be slightly greater as a result of enhanced forage conditions. 

Same as No Short-term, aadjusting grahealthy rangrestrictions. beneficial improduction agrowth rates

Vegetation ManagementBeneficial impacts from enhancement and protection of vegetation resources. Short-term, adverse impacts from vegetation treatments. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except beneficial impacts would be slightly reduced because of fewer protections afforded to special status plant species. 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Beneficial improtection of term, adverstreatments. 

2-230 Jack Morrow 
Final EIS 

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 P

Wildlife Habitat Management Beneficial impacts from enhancement of wildlife habitat, which promotes healthy plant communities. Potential adverse impacts from competition for forage resources. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except beneficial impacts would be reduced because of less restrictive actions to improve wildlife habitat. The potential for adverse impacts would be greater because of increased competition for forage resources. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except beneficial impacts would be greater because of more restrictive actions to improve wildlife habitat. The potential for adverse impacts would be slightly greater because of increased competition for forage resources. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except beneficial impacts would be slightly greater because of more restrictive actions to improve wildlife habitat. The potential for adverse impacts would be slightly greater because of increased competition for forage resources. 

Beneficial imwildlife habitplant commuimpacts from resources. Timpacts wouNo Action Alincreased coresources. Blikely be greaAlternative bprotection mgrouse. 

Heritage Resources Management Minimal adverse impacts from surface disturbing excavations and limitations on range improvements near heritage sites. Potential beneficial impacts from limitations on surface disturbance near heritage sites. 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative, except beneficial impacts would be greater because of increased limitations on surface disturbance near heritage sites. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except beneficial impacts would be slightly greater because of increased limitations on surface disturbance near heritage sites. 

Same as No Minimal advedisturbing exrange improvPotential benlimitations on heritage site

Recreation Management Minimal adverse impacts from forage removal associated with dispersed recreation. Potentially greater adverse impacts from OHV use. 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative, except impacts would be reduced because of increased OHV use limitations. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except impacts would be slightly reduced because of increased OHV use limitations. 

Same as No Minimal adveremoval assrecreation. Pimpacts from 

Mineral Resources Management Adverse impacts from vegetation removal associated with construction of well pads and connector roads. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except impacts would be greatest under this alternative because of the increased potential for mineral development. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except impacts would be least extensive under this alternative because of the decreased potential for mineral development. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except impacts would be greater under this alternative because of the increased potential for mineral development. 

Adverse impassociated wand connectsimilar to, bushort term, thof implemenleasing strat

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Chapter 2 

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 P

Special Management Area and OtherManagement Area ManagementBeneficial impacts from limitations placed on surface disturbing activities within special management areas and other management areas. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except beneficial impacts would be reduced because of the elimination of management actions associated with removing special management area designations. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except beneficial impacts would be greatest under this alternative as a result of implementation of management actions associated with expansion and addition of special management areas. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except beneficial impacts would be slightly greater as a result of implementation of management actions associated with expansion and addition of special management areas. 

Beneficial imon surface dspecial manaimpacts wouNo Action Alimplementatassociated wspecial manamanagemen

Fire Management Short-term adverse impacts from vegetation removal. Long-term beneficial impacts from enhancement of vegetation conditions and protection of special status and rare plant communities. 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Possible adverse impacts from reduction in vegetation treatments and not allowing full fire management in susceptible vegetation communities. 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Short-term avegetation reimpacts from conditions aand rare pla

Watershed Management Beneficial impacts from restoration and enhancement efforts, placement of buffer zones around riparian areas and floodplains, and restrictions on surface disturbing activities. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except beneficial impacts would be reduced because of fewer restrictions on surface disturbing activities and smaller buffer zones around riparian areas and floodplains. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except beneficial impacts would be greatest under this alternative because of increased restrictions on surface disturbing activities and larger buffer zones around riparian areas and floodplains. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except beneficial impacts would be greater because of increased restrictions on surface disturbing activities and larger buffer zones around riparian areas and floodplains. 

Same as No Beneficial imenhancemenzones arounfloodplains, adisturbing ac

2-232 Jack Morrow 
Final EIS 

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 P

Wild Horse Management Minimal, localized adverse impacts from grazing and competition for forage resources with wildlife and livestock. Maintaining the appropriate management level would help minimize impacts. 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Potential impacts within the planning area would be eliminated because of the exclusion of the planning area from the HMA. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except impacts would be reduced because of the greater herd distribution achieved by expanding the Divide Basin Wild Horse Herd Management Area to cover the entire planning area. 

Same as No Minimal, locagrazing and resources wMaintaining level would h

Livestock Grazing Management Adverse impacts from vegetation removal, soil compaction, season-long grazing, and localized forage competition and overuse. Implementing healthy rangeland standards and guidelines for livestock grazing would prevent impacts from becoming significant. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except adverse impacts would be greatest under this alternative because of increased grazing activity and less restrictive measures for range improvements and water developments. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except adverse impacts would be less because of increased restrictions on livestock grazing activities. 

Same as No Action Alternative. 

Same as No Adverse impsoil compactlocalized foraImplementinstandards angrazing woubecoming sig

Heritage Resources Management Beneficial impacts through indirect preservation of rare and sensitive plant communities as well as general vegetative characteristics. 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Beneficial impreservation communities characteristi

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Chapter 2 

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 P

Travel, Access, and RealtyManagementAdverse impacts from damage and loss of vegetation and noxious weed invasion as a result of unauthorized use of OHVs. Beneficial impacts to special status plants from ROW limitations. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except adverse impacts would be greater because of decreased restrictions on use and increased development. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except adverse effects would be less because of increased restrictions on use, decreased development, and the development of a transportation plan specific to the planning area. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except adverse effects would be slightly less because of increased restrictions on use, decreased development, and the development of a transportation plan specific to the planning area. 

Adverse impvegetation aa result of unBeneficial imfrom ROW liimpacts wouAlternative brestrictions oof a transporplanning are

Recreation Management Adverse impacts from damage and loss of vegetation and noxious weed invasion as a result of concentrated recreational activity such as camping and recreational mining. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except impacts would be greater because of fewer restrictions on use and increased development. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except adverse effects would be less because of increased restrictions on use. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except adverse effects would be slightly less because of increased restrictions on use and limiting recreational mining to a 5-acre site. 

Same as No Adverse impvegetation aa result of coactivity such mining. 

Mineral Resources ManagementAdverse, short-term or long-term impacts from vegetation loss and noxious weed invasion as a result of related surface disturbing activities. Term of impacts is dependent on the success of reclamation efforts in disturbed areas. May affect, but will not adversely affect threatened and endangered species. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except adverse impacts would be greater because of decreased restrictions on use and increased development. Potential significant impacts to BLM sensitive species because of the lack of protection from fluid mineral and geophysical activities and coal and sodium exploration. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except adverse impacts would be greatly reduced because of increased restrictions on use and closure of planning area to the majority of mineral development activities, thereby allowing vegetation to recover. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except adverse impacts would be reduced because of increased restrictions on use and opportunity to implement an adaptive management strategy to control timing of development. 

Adverse, shofrom vegetatinvasion as a disturbing acdependent oefforts in disimpacts woulease” prescportion of the to apply Conleases that dspecial statubut will not aand endange

2-234 Jack Morrow 
Final EIS 

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 P

Special Management Area and OtherManagement Area ManagementLong-term beneficial impacts from conservation of sensitive vegetation communities and limitations on surface disturbing activities. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except beneficial impacts would be reduced by removal of ACEC designation from Steamboat Mountain and decreasing the viewshed associated with the South Pass Historic Landscape. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except beneficial impacts would be much greater from expansion of the Steamboat Mountain, Greater Sand Dunes, and Special Status Plants ACECs, and the addition of the Cushion Plant Community ACEC and the Pinnacles Geologic Feature ACEC. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except beneficial impacts would be much greater from expansion of the Steamboat Mountain, Greater Sand Dunes, and Special Status Plants ACECs, and the addition of the Cushion Plant Community ACEC. 

Long-term bconservation communities disturbing acwould be greAlternative bthe Steamboaddition of thArchaeologicMountain Maprotection of Feature. 

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS TO WILDLIFE HABITAT 

General Land and Water Resources Management Beneficial impacts or no net impact because of restrictions and protections associated with managing land and water resources. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except beneficial impacts would be least extensive under this alternative because of reduced restrictions associated with uses of land and water resources. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except beneficial impacts would be greatest under this alternative because of increased restrictions associated with uses of land and water resources. 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Beneficial imbecause of rassociated wresources. 

Fire Management Adverse impacts from loss of cover from vegetation removal. Beneficial impacts from enhancing vegetation conditions. 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative, except impacts would be less because prescribed fire is not considered under this alternative. 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Adverse impvegetation refrom enhanc

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Chapter 2 

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 P

Watershed Management Beneficial impacts from restoration and enhancement efforts, restrictions on surface disturbing activities, and placement of buffer zones around riparian areas and floodplains. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except beneficial impacts would be reduced because of fewer restrictions on surface disturbing activities and smaller buffer zones around riparian areas and floodplains. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except beneficial impacts would be greatest under this alternative because of increased restrictions on surface disturbing activities and larger buffer zones around riparian areas and floodplains. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except beneficial impacts would be greater because of increased restrictions on surface disturbing activities and larger buffer zones around riparian areas and floodplains. 

Same as No Beneficial imenhancemensurface distuplacement oareas and flo

Wild Horse Management Minimal, adverse impacts from localized forage competition. Maintaining the appropriate management level would help minimize impacts. 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Potential impacts within the planning area would be eliminated as a result of the exclusion of the planning area from the HMA. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except impacts would be reduced because of the greater herd distribution achieved by expanding the Divide Basin Wild Horse Herd Management Area to cover the entire planning area. 

Same as No Minimal, advforage compappropriate minimize imp

Livestock Grazing Management Adverse impacts from vegetation removal, soil compaction, season-long grazing, and localized forage competition and overuse. Implementing healthy rangeland standards and guidelines for livestock grazing would prevent impacts from becoming significant. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except impacts would be greatest under this alternative because of increased grazing activity and less restrictive measures for range improvements and water developments. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except adverse impacts would be least extensive under this alternative because of increased restrictions on livestock grazing activities. 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Adverse impsoil compactlocalized foraImplementinstandards angrazing woubecoming sig

2-236 Jack Morrow 
Final EIS 

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 P

Vegetation Management Beneficial impacts to sensitive species associated with special status plants. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except beneficial impacts would be reduced because of fewer restrictions associated with special status plants. 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Beneficial imassociated w

Heritage Resources Management Beneficial impacts through indirect preservation of habitat as well as general habitat characteristics. 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Beneficial impreservation habitat chara

Travel, Access, and RealtyManagement Adverse impacts from damage and loss of vegetation and noxious weed invasion as a result of unauthorized use of OHVs. Adverse impacts from increased access, human disturbance, and surface disturbing activities. Possible significant impacts if communication sites and related access routes were placed in or near sensitive habitats. Protections for sensitive habitats would reduce adverse impacts. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except adverse impacts would be greater because of decreased restrictions on use and increased development. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except adverse effects would be less because of increased restrictions on use, decreased development, and the development of a transportation plan specific to the planning area. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except adverse effects would be slightly less because of increased restrictions on use, decreased development, and the development of a transportation plan specific to the planning area. 

Adverse impvegetation aa result of unAdverse imphuman distudisturbing acimpacts if coaccess routesensitive habbe less becatransportatioarea. Protecwould also re

Recreation Management Temporary, adverse impacts because of increased human disturbance. 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative, except adverse effects would be less because of increased restrictions on use.

 Same as No Action Alternative, except adverse effects would be less because of increased restrictions on use. 

Same as No Temporary, increased hu

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Chapter 2 

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 P

Mineral Resources Management Adverse impacts from associated surface disturbing and disruptive activity. Protections placed on sensitive habitats would reduce adverse impacts. Significance of adverse impacts is undetermined based on unknown location and timing of development activities. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except adverse impacts would be significant under this alternative because of decreased restrictions on use and increased development. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except adverse impacts would be least extensive under this alternative because of increased restrictions on use and closure of the planning area to the majority of mineral development activities. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except adverse impacts would be reduced because of increased restrictions on use and opportunity to implement an adaptive management strategy to control timing of development. 

Potentially sdepending oduration of asurface distuon existing lewould be redthe planning and the abiliApproval to eoffer protect

Special Management Area and OtherManagement Area Management Long-term beneficial impacts from conservation and enhancement of sensitive habitat and limitations on surface disturbing activities. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except beneficial impacts would be reduced by removal of the ACEC designation from Steamboat Mountain. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except beneficial impacts would be much greater from expansion of the Steamboat Mountain, Greater Sand Dunes, and Special Status Plants ACECs, and the addition of the Cushion Plant Community ACEC and the Pinnacles Geologic Feature ACEC. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except beneficial impacts would be much greater from expansion of the Steamboat Mountain, Greater Sand Dunes, and Special Status Plants ACECs, and the addition of the Cushion Plant Community ACEC. 

Long-term bconservation communities disturbing acwould increaexpansion oprotection of Feature, and Sand Dunes Steamboat M

2-238 Jack Morrow 
Final EIS 

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 P

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS TO HERITAGE RESOURCES 

Land and Water Resources Management Beneficial impacts because of restrictions on surface disturbing and disruptive activities to protect water, vegetation, and wildlife resources. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except beneficial impacts would be least extensive under this alternative because of fewer restrictions on surface disturbing and disruptive activities. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except beneficial impacts would be greatest under this alternative because of increased restrictions on surface disturbing and disruptive activities. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except beneficial impacts would be slightly greater because of increased restrictions on surface disturbing and disruptive activities. 

Beneficial imon surface dactivities to pwildlife resouwould be sligNo Action Alincreased redisturbing an

Travel, Access, and RealtyManagement Adverse impacts from increased access, human disturbance, surface disturbing activities, and unauthorized OHV use. Absence of a transportation plan could maintain impacts. 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative, except adverse effects would be less because of increased restrictions on use, decreased development, and the development of a transportation plan specific to the planning area. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except adverse effects would be slightly less because of increased restrictions on use, decreased development, and the development of a transportation plan specific to the planning area. 

Adverse imphuman distuactivities, anImpacts couthe implemeplan specific 

Recreation Management Indirect, adverse impacts from human disturbance. Beneficial impacts as a result of implementation of public education and interpretive programs that encourage protection of heritage resources. Expansion of the Greater Sand Dunes Recreation Area parking lot and camping facilities could increase adverse impacts. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except adverse impacts could be slightly reduced as a result of not expanding the Greater Sand Dunes Recreation Area parking lot and camping facilities. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except adverse impacts could be reduced because of increased restrictions on use and as a result of not expanding the Greater Sand Dunes Recreation Area parking lot and camping facilities. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except adverse impacts could be slightly reduced because of increased restrictions on use and as a result of not expanding the Greater Sand Dunes Recreation Area parking area and camping facilities. 

Same as No Indirect, advdisturbance. result of impeducation anencourage presources. ESand Dunes and camping adverse imp

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Chapter 2 

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 P

Mineral Resources Management Adverse impacts from potential surface disturbance over approximately 1,800 acres. Pre-authorization inventory and avoidance would help to minimize impacts. 

Adverse impacts from potential surface disturbance over approximately 2,100 acres. Preauthorization inventory and avoidance would help to minimize impacts. 

Adverse impacts from potential surface disturbance over approximately 1,300 acres. Preauthorization inventory and avoidance would help to minimize impacts. 

Adverse impacts from potential surface disturbance over approximately 1,600 acres. Preauthorization inventory and avoidance would help to minimize impacts. 

Same as AltAdverse impdisturbance acres. Pre-aavoidance wimpacts. 

Visual Resources Management Beneficial impacts by prohibiting surface disturbing and construction activities in certain areas that might contain heritage resources. Viewsheds and historic resources located within higher VRM classifications could be adversely affected. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except beneficial impacts would be reduced as a result of issuance of less restrictive VRM classifications over larger areas. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except beneficial impacts would be greatest under this alternative as a result of issuance of more restrictive VRM classifications over larger areas. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except beneficial impacts could be slightly greater as a result of issuance of more restrictive VRM classifications over larger areas. 

Beneficial imdisturbing ancertain areas resources. Vresources loclassificationaffected. Beslightly greatAlternative arestrictive VRareas. 

Special Management Area and OtherManagement Area Management Beneficial impacts from the protections and management prescriptions applied to special management areas and other management areas. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except beneficial impacts would be least extensive under this alternative because of the elimination of management actions associated with removing special management area designation from Steamboat Mountain ACEC. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except beneficial impacts would be greatest under this alternative as a result of implementation of management actions associated with expansion and designation of special management areas. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except beneficial impacts would be slightly greater as a result of implementation of management actions associated with expansion and designation of special management areas. 

Beneficial imand managespecial manawould be sligNo Action Alimplementatassociated wSteamboat Maddition of thArchaeologicMountain Maprotection of Feature. 

2-240 Jack Morrow 
Final EIS 

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 P

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS TO TRAVEL, ACCESS, AND REALTY 

Land and Water Resources Management Adverse impacts from restrictions on surface disturbing and disruptive activities to protect water, vegetation, and wildlife resources. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except impacts would be least extensive under this alternative because of fewer restrictions on surface disturbing and disruptive activities. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except impacts would be greatest under this alternative because of increased restrictions on surface disturbing and disruptive activities. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except impacts would be slightly greater because of increased restrictions on surface disturbing and disruptive activities. 

Adverse impsurface distuto protect waresources. Igreater than Alternative brestrictions odisruptive ac

Travel, Access, and RealtyManagement Transportation Planning: Beneficial impacts by providing for appropriate ingress, egress, and access routes. 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Beneficial and/or adverse impacts as a result of the development of a transportation plan that could facilitate and/or restrict travel, access, and realty actions. Adverse impacts would be greatest under this alternative because the plan would provide maximum protection for crucial habitats and sensitive resources. 

Same as Alternative 2, except adverse impacts would be reduced because of less restrictive measures to protect crucial habitats and sensitive resources. 

Beneficial anresult of the transportatioand/or restricactions. Advslightly reduc3 because oprotect cruciresources. 

Geophysical: Placing restrictions on geophysical activities could adversely impact users. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except impacts would be reduced because of fewer restrictions on geophysical activities. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except impacts would be greatest under this alternative because of increased restrictions on geophysical activities. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except impacts would be greater because of increased restrictions on geophysical activities. 

Placing restractivities couImpacts couNo Action Alincreased reactivities. 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Chapter 2 

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 P

Rights-of-way: Placing restrictions (i.e., exclusion and avoidance areas) on rights-of-way activities could adversely impact users. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except impacts would be reduced because of fewer restrictions on rights-of-way activities. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except impacts would be greatest under this alternative because of increased restrictions on rights-of-way activities. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except impacts would be greater because of increased restrictions on rights-of-way activities. 

Placing restravoidance aactivities couImpacts couNo Action Alincreased reactivities. 

Off-Highway Vehicle Use: Minimal adverse impacts because of implementation of OHV use designations that would control and limit travel within the planning area. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except impacts would be least extensive under this alternative because of less restrictive OHV use designations. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except impacts would be greatest under this alternative because of more restrictive OHV use designations. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except impacts would be slightly greater because of more restrictive OHV use designations. 

Same as No Minimal adveimplementatthat would cothe planning 

Mineral Resources Management Beneficial impacts by increasing access and expanding transportation routes associated with mineral development. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except beneficial impacts would be greatest under this alternative because more of the planning area would be open to mineral development. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except beneficial impacts would be least extensive under this alternative because most of the planning area would be closed to mineral development. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except beneficial impacts would be reduced because of increased restrictions on mineral development. 

Beneficial imand expandiassociated wBeneficial imcompared wbecause of imineral deve

Visual Resources Management Adverse impacts because of restrictions imposed by VRM classifications. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except impacts would be reduced as a result of issuance of less restrictive VRM classifications over larger areas. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except impacts would be greatest under this alternative as a result of issuance of more restrictive VRM classifications over larger areas. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except impacts could be slightly greater under this alternative as a result of issuance of more restrictive VRM classifications over larger areas. 

Adverse impimposed by would be sligAction Alternof more restover larger a

2-242 Jack Morrow 
Final EIS 

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 P

Fire Management No net impact Same as No Action 

Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No No net impa

Watershed ManagementBeneficial impacts from maintaining healthy watersheds, which enhance the recreational experience. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except beneficial impacts would be reduced because of fewer restrictions on surface disturbing activities and smaller buffer zones around riparian areas and floodplains. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except beneficial impacts would be greatest under this alternative because of increased restrictions on surface disturbing activities and larger buffer zones around riparian areas and floodplains. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except beneficial impacts would be greater because of increased restrictions on surface disturbing activities and larger buffer zones around riparian areas and floodplains. 

Same as No Beneficial imhealthy waterecreational 

Wild Horse Management No net impact Same as No Action 

Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No No net impa

Livestock Grazing Management Minimal, adverse impacts from degradation of rangeland resources, especially within riparian areas. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except impacts could be more extensive because of fewer restrictions on livestock management. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except impacts could be less extensive because of increased restrictions on livestock management. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except impacts could be less extensive because of increased restrictions on livestock management. 

Same as No Minimal, advdegradation especially w

Vegetation Management Beneficial impacts from maintaining diverse vegetation communities, which enhance the recreational experience. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except beneficial impacts would be reduced because of fewer protections afforded to special status plant species. 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Beneficial imdiverse vegeenhance the 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Chapter 2 

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 P

Wildlife Habitat Management Beneficial impacts to users (including hunters) from protection of wildlife habitat. Temporary, adverse impacts because of limitations on seasonal use to protect sensitive plants and wildlife habitat. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except beneficial impacts would be reduced with decreased habitat protection. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except beneficial impacts would be greater with increased habitat protection. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except beneficial impacts would be greater with increased habitat protection. 

Beneficial imhunters) from Temporary, limitations on sensitive plaBeneficial imthe No Actioincreased haproposed imevaluation p

Heritage Resources ManagementBeneficial impacts by providing users with interpretive materials on historical and cultural sites of interest. 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Beneficial iminterpretive mcultural sites 

Travel, Access and RealtyManagement Existing roads and trails provide adequate vehicle access in the planning area for recreational purposes. The OHV designations and adherence to them would minimize adverse impacts on recreation resources by limiting disturbance to vegetation, watersheds, and wildlife. 

Fewer restrictions on OHV use would benefit those recreationists that participate in OHV activities but could have adverse effects on users that prefer nonmotorized forms of recreation. 

Increased restrictions on OHV use could adversely affect OHV users but could have a beneficial effect on those recreationists that prefer non-motorized forms of recreation. 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Existing roadvehicle accerecreational designations would minimrecreation redisturbance and wildlife. 

Recreation Management Beneficial impacts as a result of management actions aimed at maintaining and improving recreation resources. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except beneficial impacts would be reduced because of decreased recreational planning. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except impacts would be greater because of increased recreational planning. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except impacts would be greater because of increased recreational planning. 

Beneficial immanagemenand improvinBeneficial imthe No Actioincreased re

2-244 Jack Morrow 
Final EIS 

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 P

Mineral Resources Management Adverse impacts from degrading the overall recreational experience as a result of visual and auditory intrusions. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except impacts would be greatest under this alternative because of the increased potential for mineral development. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except impacts would be least extensive under this alternative because of the decreased potential for mineral development. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except impacts would be reduced because of the decreased potential for mineral development. 

Adverse impoverall recreof visual and would be redAction Alterndecreased pdevelopmen

Visual Resources Management VRM classifications would have beneficial effects on the recreation resources and users by ensuring that surface disturbing activities would be compatible with the existing character of the landscape and that visual intrusions would not adversely affect the recreational experience. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except beneficial impacts would be reduced as a result of issuance of less restrictive VRM classifications over larger areas. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except beneficial impacts would be greatest under this alternative as a result of issuance of more restrictive VRM classifications over larger areas. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except beneficial impacts could be slightly greater under this alternative as a result of issuance of more restrictive VRM classifications over larger areas. 

Classificationeffects on thusers by ensactivities woexisting charthat visual inaffect the recImpacts wouNo Action Alissuance of classification

Special Management Area and OtherManagement Area ManagementBeneficial impacts on recreational users by minimizing incompatible uses in special management areas and providing areas for solitude and primitive recreational opportunities. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except impacts would be reduced because of the elimination of management actions associated with removing the special management area designation from Steamboat Mountain ACEC. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except impacts would be greatest under this alternative as a result of implementation of management actions associated with expansion and additional of special management areas. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except impacts would be slightly greater as a result of implementation of management actions associated with expansion and additional of special management areas. 

Beneficial imby minimizinmanagemenfor solitude aopportunitiesgreater than a result of imactions assothe Steamboaddition of thArchaeologicMountain Maprotection of Feature. 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Chapter 2 

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 P

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS TO MINERAL AND ALTERNATIVE ENERGY RESOURCES 

Summary of Impacts to Fluid Minerals 

All Resource Categories withMineral-Related Provisions or Restrictions Adverse impacts from the absence of the planning criteria needed for development of stipulations of oil and gas leases in the core area. Potential adverse impacts because of the lack of resource protection requirements for site-specific analyses for APDs needed for lease development. 

Adverse impacts would be minimized as a result of management actions that would provide for the maximum amount of leasing and development allowable under existing laws and regulations. 

Adverse impacts from discontinuation of leasing and development in all portions of the planning area with sensitive resources. Loss of potential, additional development on existing leases that were purchased from current leaseholders. 

Adverse impacts as a result of stipulations on leasing and development activities where indicators of sensitive resources show that rates of development need to be controlled to prevent adverse impacts. Adverse impacts might also occur where surface use restrictions make development not economically viable. 

Adverse impon leasing awhere indicashow that rabe controlled Leases placedeveloped ubased on moresources to Adverse impsurface use developmen

2-246 Jack Morrow 
Final EIS 

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 P

Summary of Impacts to Leasable Solid Minerals 

All Resource Categories withMineral-Related Provisions or Restrictions Adverse impacts would occur from closing areas to leasing, including the WSAs and the western part of the Greater Sand Dunes ACEC. Surface use restrictions might make some coal resources not economically viable. 

Adverse impacts would be minimized as a result of management actions that provided for increased leasing and development. Some impacts would occur because of mining restrictions within certain sensitive resource areas and because of requirements related to current laws and regulations. 

Adverse impacts would include closing of federal coal lands within the Coal and Sodium Occurrence and Development Potential Area to future leasing and development 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Adverse impareas to leasthe western Dunes ACECmight make economically 

Summary of Impacts to Locatable Minerals 

All Resource Categories withMineral-Related Provisions or Restrictions Adverse impacts as a result of withdrawals from locatable minerals specified in the Green River RMP. Adverse impacts would also occur for proposed mining claims where a required plan of operations caused mining to not be economically viable. 

Minimal adverse impacts as a result of withdrawals from locatable minerals specified in the Green River RMP. 

Adverse impacts as a result of withdrawing the planning area from filing of mineral claims, exploration, and development of locatable minerals, including recreational use mining activity. Impacts would include loss of current claims found not to be valid, and no new claims could be located in the planning area. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except impacts would be slightly greater as a result of additional withdrawals. The northern elk calving areas and the potential diamond-bearing area of Steamboat Mountain ACEC would be withdrawn. Withdrawals would also be proposed for areas where general land use is classified as no surface occupancy. 

Adverse impwithdrawals specified in tAdverse impproposed miplan of operaeconomically slightly greatAlternative dThe northern potential diaSteamboat Mwithdrawn. 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Chapter 2 

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 P

Summary of Impacts to Salable Minerals 

All Resource Categories withMineral-Related Provisions or Restrictions Adverse impacts would include loss of salable mineral resources where such activity would cause unacceptable impacts. Requiring mining and reclamation plans and that management be in conformance with other resource objectives could make use of mineral materials not economically viable. 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Adverse impacts would include loss of the use of salable minerals due to closure of the planning area to mineral material sales. Such sales would only be allowed to meet other planning objectives. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except impacts would be slightly greater as a result of additional closures. The lava rock portion of Steamboat Mountain would be closed to mineral material sales, which is the most desirable mineral material resource identified in the planning area. The area within 1⁄2 mile of greater sage-grouse leks would also be closed. 

Adverse impsalable mineactivity woulimpacts. Rereclamation be in conformobjectives comaterials noImpacts wouNo Action Aladditional cloof Steamboato mineral mmost desirabidentified in tPinnacles Gclosed. 

2-248 Jack Morrow 
Final EIS 

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 P

Summary of Impacts to Alternative Energy Resources 

All Resource Categories withMineral-Related Provisions or Restrictions No net impact. Alternative energy development is not discussed or analyzed under the No Action Alternative (no related action in the Green River RMP). 

Beneficial impacts by allowing for the maximum level of alternative energy resource development within the planning area. 

Adverse impacts as a result of closure of the planning area to all alternative energy development proposals. 

Beneficial impacts by allowing for alternative energy resource development within the planning area, except where such activity would cause unacceptable impacts to sensitive resources. Where favorable development conditions coexist with sensitive resources, the alternative would have a negative impact on alternative energy resources. 

Same as AltBeneficial imalternative ewithin the plasuch activity impacts to sefavorable dewith sensitivwould have a alternative e

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS TO VISUAL RESOURCES 

Land and Water Resources Management Beneficial impacts from management actions that serve to maintain or enhance land and water resources. Possible adverse impacts from developments designed to facilitate management of land and water resources. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except beneficial impacts would be least extensive and adverse impacts would be most extensive under this alternative because of less restrictive management actions and requirements for developments. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except beneficial impacts would be most extensive and adverse impacts would be least extensive under this alternative because of more restrictive management actions and requirements for developments. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except beneficial impacts would be increased and adverse impacts would be reduced because of more restrictive management actions and requirements for developments. 

Beneficial imactions that land and waadverse impdesigned to and water recould be sligimpacts couthe No Actiorestrictive mrequirements 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Chapter 2 

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 P

Heritage Resources Management Beneficial impacts by enhancing the visual character of the planning area. 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Beneficial imclassification 

Travel, Access, and RealtyManagement Adverse impacts from ROW construction activity, increased access, and vehicular travel. Impacts would be minimized by identifying and controlling highly traveled routes and providing for orderly development that would be compatible with VRM objectives. OHV use designations would reduce impacts related to this activity. 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative, except impacts would be least extensive under this alternative as a result of the implementation of a transportation plan and increased restrictions on ROWs and OHV use. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except impacts would be least extensive under this alternative as a result of the implementation of a transportation plan and increased restrictions on ROWs and OHV use. 

Adverse impactivity, incretravel. Impaidentifying aroutes and pdevelopmenwith VRM obdesignations related to thireduced comAlternative aof a transporrestrictions o

Recreation Management No net impact on the visual character of the landscape. Increased recreational activity could potentially affect the scenic quality of localized areas that experience increased use. However, such impacts would likely be insignificant because these small areas would be closed if resource damage were to occur. 

No net impact on the visual character of the landscape. The user could likely be affected by visual intrusions on the landscape that could occur in a majority of the planning area. 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No No net impathe landscapactivity could quality of locincreased uswould likely small areas damage wer

2-250 Jack Morrow 
Final EIS 

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 P

Mineral Resources Management Adverse impacts from surface disturbing activities that alter the visual characteristics of the landscape. Mitigation requirements and mineral withdrawals would help reduce impacts. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except impacts would be slightly reduced because there would be less Class II land area with the change in VRM Class of the Steamboat Mountain area. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except impacts would be reduced because of decreased potential for mineral development. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except the significance of this impact would depend on the amount of development projected to occur on existing leases within Class I and Class II areas and the extent of mitigation (siting, painting, screening) applied to the proposed activity to protect scenic quality. 

Adverse impactivities thacharacteristiMitigation rewithdrawals The significadepend on thprojected to within Class extent of mitscreening) ato protect sc

Special Management Area and OtherManagement Area Management Beneficial impacts on the visual character and scenic quality of the landscape as a result of VRM classifications assigned to special management areas and other management areas. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except beneficial impacts would be slightly reduced because of a reduction in Class II designations. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except beneficial impacts would be greatest because of increases in Class I and Class II designations. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except beneficial impacts would be greater because of increases in Class I and Class II designations. 

Beneficial imand scenic qresult of VRM 

special manamanagemenwould be greAlternative bClass II desi

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS TO SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREAS AND OTHER MANAGEMENT AREAS 

Land and Water Resources Management Beneficial impacts from limitations on surface disturbing activities, vegetation removal, and season of use, and modifications of action if necessary to be consistent with management prescriptions for special management areas and other management areas. 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Beneficial imsurface disturemoval, and modifications consistent wfor special mmanagemen

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Chapter 2 

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 P

Heritage Resources Management Beneficial impacts through preservation of resources and indirect preservation of vegetation and wildlife habitat. 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Beneficial imresources anvegetation a

Travel, Access, and RealtyManagement Beneficial impacts from identifying and controlling highly traveled routes, adhering to OHV designations, and providing orderly development. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except beneficial impacts would be reduced because of decreased restrictions on use and increased development. 

Same as No Action, except beneficial impacts would be increased because of increased restrictions on use, decreased development, and the development of a transportation plan specific to the planning area. 

Same as No Action, except beneficial impacts would be increased because of increased restrictions on use, decreased development, and the development of a transportation plan specific to the planning area. 

Beneficial imcontrolling hto OHV desiorderly devewould be greAlternative brestrictions oand the deveplan specific 

Recreation ManagementBeneficial impacts from preparation of recreation site plans and recreation project plans. 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Beneficial imrecreation siproject plans

Mineral Resources Management Adverse impacts from associated surface disturbing and disruptive activities. Implementing management prescriptions and interim management guidelines would prevent impacts from becoming significant. 

Significant adverse impacts from associated surface disturbing activities. Implementing management prescriptions and interim management guidelines would reduce adverse impacts. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except adverse impacts would be much less because of increased restrictions on use, expansion of special management areas, and closure of planning area to the majority of mineral development activities. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except adverse impacts would be much less because of increased restrictions on use, expansion of special management areas, and closure of planning area to the majority of mineral development activities. 

Adverse impdisturbing anAdverse impNo Action Alincreased rethe PinnacleImplementinand interim mprevent impasignificant. 

2-252 Jack Morrow 
Final EIS 

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 P

Visual Resources Management Beneficial impacts through Class I and Class II designations on the majority of special management areas within the planning area. 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Beneficial impacts through Class I designations on all special management areas. 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Beneficial imClass II desispecial manaplanning are

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS TO AIR RESOURCES 

All Resource CategoriesImpacts to air quality would include emissions from oil and gas development on existing leases in the planning area, development of new leases outside the core area, and operation of existing wells and compressors throughout the planning area. Vehicular and fire activity would also produce emissions that would degrade air quality and visibility. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except impacts would be greater because of anticipated increases in mineral development and vehicular activity. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except impacts would be substantially reduced because of increased restrictions on mineral development, prohibition of development of new leases within sensitive resource areas, and discontinuance of operation of certain wells and compressors through lease buybacks. 

Same as No Action Alternative, except impacts would be slightly reduced because of increased restrictions on mineral development and adaptive management measures that might impose timing requirements and cause certain leases to be suspended. 

Impacts to aemissions froon existing ledevelopmenof existing wthroughout twould be redAction Alternrestrictions oclosure of a new leasing. 

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS TO SOCIOECONOMICS 

Fire Management No measurable impact Same as No Action 

Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No No measura

Watershed ManagementNo measurable impact Same as No Action 

Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No No measura

Wild Horse ManagementNo measurable impact Same as No Action 

Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No No measura

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Chapter 2 

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 P

Livestock Grazing Management Increased economic benefits with the support, on average, of eight jobs per year and increased total earnings of $1.4 million over the 20-year study period. 

Average annual jobs supported would increase to 16, and total earnings would increase to $2.7 million over the 20-year study period. 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Increased ecsupport, on aand increasemillion over t

Vegetation ManagementNo measurable impact Same as No Action 

Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No No measura

Wildlife Habitat ManagementImpacts analyzed under Recreation Management. 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Impacts anaManagemen

Heritage Resources Management Impacts analyzed under Recreation Management. 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Impacts anaManagemen

Recreation Management Increased economic benefits with the support, on average, of 23 jobs per year and increased total earnings of $3.4 million over the 20-year study period. 

Slight decrease in average employment (22) and earnings ($3.3 million) from the No Action Alternative 

Slight decrease in average employment (22) and total earnings ($3.3 million) from the No Action Alternative. 

Slight decrease in average employment (20) and total earnings ($3.0 million) from the No Action Alternative. 

Slight increaearnings from 

Mineral Resources Management Increased economic benefits with the support, on average, of 128 jobs per year; increased total earnings by $53 million; and increased mineral tax revenues to $101 million. 

Increase in potential average annual employment (148), total earnings ($59 million), and mineral tax revenues ($114 million) from the No Action Alternative. 

Decrease in potential average annual employment (100), total earnings ($43 million), and mineral tax revenues ($85 million) from the No Action Alternative. 

Decrease in potential average annual employment (121), total earnings ($51 million), and mineral tax revenues ($97 million) from the No Action Alternative. 

Same as AltDecrease in employment million), and million) from 

2-254 Jack Morrow 
Final EIS 

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 P

Special Management Area and OtherManagement Area ManagementImpacts analyzed under Recreation Management. 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Action Alternative 

Same as No Impacts anaManagemen

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 3 

CHAPTER 3—AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

The affected environment is the baseline (see Table 3-1 at the end of Chapter 3) against which potential 

impacts caused by the planning alternatives are assessed. This chapter focuses on the natural and physical 

human environment that has the potential of being affected by implementing land management decisions. 

The approach to defining the baseline was first to identify potential issues and concerns resulting from the 

proposed land management decisions. The region of influence potentially affected by these decisions is 

primarily the three-county area in which Jack Morrow Hills (JMH) lies (Map 1). From this information, 

relevant environmental and economic conditions were identified and described using geographic 

information systems data, existing databases and literature, previous reports and studies, field 

investigations, and personal and professional knowledge of the planning area. 

BLM recognizes that a gap in information on public land resources exists within the JMH Coordinated 

Activity Plan (CAP) planning area. The environmental impact statement (EIS) interdisciplinary team 

examined the data and relationships used to estimate the effects of the alternatives. There is a substantial 

amount of credible information about the topics of this EIS; the central relationships and basic data are 

well established. The best available information was used to evaluate the effects of the alternatives, and 

studies such as the on-going elk study and vegetation inventories are included in the EIS. However, as 

noted in the affected environment and impact analyses of this final EIS, there is much that remains 

unknown about many of the plant and animal species and specific locations of cultural resources. 

Connectivity and habitat needs, range, migratory corridors, and other specific information for many 

species are unknown or uncertain. Likewise, because of the amount of public land within the JMH CAP 

planning area, the extent and specific locations of all cultural resources within the area are also unknown. 

Conducting surveys and studies to obtain all unavailable information for inclusion in this EIS would 

require additional time frames and incur exorbitant costs. 

When encountering this gap in information, the question implicit in the Council on Environmental 

Quality (CEQ) regulations (40 CFR 1502.22(a)) on incomplete or unavailable information was posed: Is 

this information “essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives?” While additional information would 

often add precision to estimates, the basic data and central relationships in the JMH CAP planning area 

are sufficiently well established that any new information would not likely reverse or nullify 

relationships. Though new information would be welcome, no missing information is essential to a 

reasoned choice among the JMH CAP alternatives. Reasonably foreseeable actions have been analyzed, 

and are described in this EIS along with reasonably foreseeable effects. 

3.1 LAND AND WATER RESOURCES 

Land and water resources include the physical and biological features of the planning area and the land 

use programs that affect those features. 

3.1.1 Fire 

The Fire Management Implementation Plan for Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administered public 

lands in the State of Wyoming (USDI 1998b) guides the use and suppression of fire as a management tool 

in the JMH CAP planning area. The planning area lies in two geographic fire management areas: (1) the 

Big Sandy and Steamboat Mountain area, and (2) the Red Desert area. 

Fire management planning objectives for the Big Sandy and Steamboat Mountain area are as follows: to 

reduce conifer and sagebrush encroachment into aspen and mountain shrub communities, improve habitat 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 3-1 
Chapter 3 Final EIS 

for big game and the greater sage-grouse, improve forage for livestock and wild horses, and protect public 

and private property by reducing hazardous fuels near BLM-administered recreation sites and range 

improvements. Both wildland and prescribed fires could be used to meet resource management 

objectives throughout the entire fire management area. Steamboat Mountain contains unique vegetative 

communities and high-value wildlife habitat. Wildland fire is not desired in this area, and thus 

suppression techniques would be implemented here. 

The Red Desert fire management area includes the portion of the Red Desert Watershed Management 

Area located within the planning area. Fire management planning objectives for this area are as follows: 

to improve wildlife habitat, improve forage for livestock and wild horses, and reduce conifer 

encroachment into aspen and mountain shrub communities. Prescribed fire would be used to achieve 

resource management objectives throughout the entire fire management area. 

The use of heavy equipment for fire management purposes would be restricted, and other minimal impact 

suppression techniques would be followed in areas of critical environmental concern (ACEC), in 

wilderness study areas (WSA), and along historic trails. Chemical and dye retardants for fire suppression 

would be restricted in the vicinity of petroglyphs within the Big Sandy and Steamboat Mountain fire 

management areas. 

Wildland fires in the fire management areas have been infrequent. Over the past decade, less than 900 

acres have burned in 29 recorded fires, with the majority occurring in the Big Sandy and Steamboat 

Mountain area. 

3.1.2 Water Resources 

Water resources include surface and groundwater sources and water quality. 

3.1.2.1 Watersheds and Surface Waters 

The JMH CAP planning area lies within the Great Divide Basin, Colorado-Green River, and PlatteSweetwater River watersheds. These watersheds have been further delineated into sub-basins by the State 

of Wyoming, as shown on Map 61. The upper reaches of the Colorado-Green River Basin drains the 

western portion of the planning area and occupies the majority of the area. It contains the Pacific Creek, 

Jack Morrow Creek, and Killpecker Creek subwatersheds. A small portion of the Platte-Sweetwater 

River Basin occupies the northeast corner of the planning area. The Great Divide Basin, which occupies 

the southwestern corner of the planning area, is a closed basin with no hydrological connection to any 

major river system. 

Most surface water features in the planning area are ephemeral or intermittent streams, except for a few 

perennial streams and wetlands. Peak flows occur in the spring and summer during storm events. Flow 

in ephemeral streams is directly dependent on precipitation, because the channel is above the water table 

at all times, whereas intermittent streams carry seasonal flow generated by water from springs or from 

some other surface source. Perennial streams flow continuously and are generally associated with a water 

table in the localities through which they flow. 

Riparian areas are those areas that show vegetative and morphologic influences as a result of their 

proximity to water features. They are important to fish and wildlife species as well as to livestock. 

Riparian and wetland areas can affect the health of entire watersheds by dissipating water energy; filtering 

sediments; reducing stream bank erosion; increasing groundwater supplies; maintaining habitat and 

forage for wildlife and livestock; and providing locations for recreationists to fish, camp, and picnic. 

3-2 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 3 

Ecologically important wetland resources include the melt-water-fed ephemeral ponds (flockets) located 

in the sand dunes region of the planning area. These standing waters and their aquatic communities create 

an important early season resource base for the production of food organisms (invertebrates) and for 

nesting sites for waterfowl and other birds common to the aquatic environment. 

3.1.2.2 Proper Functioning Condition 

Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) is the minimum acceptable level of the ecological condition for 

flowing (lotic) and still (lentic) surface waters. It is a qualitative method for assessing the physical 

functioning of riparian and wetland areas and is a term that defines on-the-ground condition. The PFC 

assessment considers hydrology, vegetation, soil, and landform attributes to reduce erosion and improve 

water quality during high flows. PFC is a state of resiliency that would allow a riparian-wetland system 

to remain stable during a 25- to 30-year flow event, sustaining that system’s ability to produce values 

related to both physical and biological attributes such as fish and wildlife habitat, forage, and erosion 

control. 

Riparian areas that are not in PFC are either classified as functioning at risk or nonfunctional. A riparian 

area functioning at risk may perform some degree of riparian function but still has a high probability of 

degradation associated with high-flow events. Apparent trend is also determined for riparian areas 

functioning at risk. An upward trend indicates that although the area has limited stability, it is showing 

signs of becoming more stable. A downward trend indicates that the resource is showing signs of 

becoming increasingly unstable. In some cases the trend is not apparent. Nonfunctional riparian areas 

clearly lack the attributes and processes necessary to maintain stability. 

BLM conducted PFC assessments in the planning area on approximately 520 acres of wetlands and 80.5 

miles of riparian areas. As shown in Table 3-2, approximately 21 percent of riparian areas and 13 percent 

of wetland areas surveyed are in PFC, with the remaining areas functioning at risk. Approximately half 

of the riparian areas functioning at risk exhibit an upward trend, while the other half of riparian areas and 

the remaining wetland areas exhibit a downward trend and show signs of becoming increasing unstable 

(Tables 3-3 and 3-4). 

Table 3-2. PFC Assessment 

Rating 

Riparian Areas Wetland Areas 

Miles Percent of 

Total Miles Acres 

Percent of 

Total Acres 

Proper Functioning Condition 16.5 21 66 13 

Functioning at Risk 64.0 79 454 87 

Nonfunctional 0.0 0 0 0 

Total 80.5 100 520 100 

Table 3-3. JMH Stream PFC Summary for Lotic Systems 

Year 

Surveyed Stream Reach 

Rating Reach 

Length

(in

miles) 

PFC 

Functioning at Risk (FAR) 

NF Up N/A Down 

1995 Jack Morrow 

Creek All X (90%) X (10%) 20.00 

1995 Rock Cabin 

Creek All X (80%) X (20%) 16.00 

1995 Pacific 

Creek Segment 1 X 1.50 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 3-3 
Chapter 3 Final EIS 

Year 

Surveyed Stream Reach 

Rating Reach 

Length

(in

miles) 

PFC 

Functioning at Risk (FAR) 

NF Up N/A Down 

1995 Pacific 

Creek Segment 2 X 1.20 

1995 Pacific 

Creek Segment 3 X 2.00 

1995 Parnell 

Creek 

Segment 

1– upper 

X 2.00 

1995 Parnell 

Creek 

Segment 

2– lower 

X 8.00 

1995 Pacific 

Creek Segment 4 X 11.00 

1997 Sand Creek All X 1.25 

1997 

Dickie 

Springs 

Creek 

All X 0.50 

1997 

Oregon 

Slough 

Creek 

All X 1.00 

1999 Robin Creek 

(BLM name) All X 1.50 

1999 

Oregon 

Buttes Creek 

(BLM name) 

All X 2.50 

1999 Pacific 

Creek 

Project 

area 

X 4.00 

1999 Bear Creek All X 7.50 

2000 Nitche Creek X 0.50 

Total 80.45 

Table 3-4. JMH Stream PFC Summary for Lentic Systems 

Date of 

Survey 

Lentic Area 

Legal

Description 

Rating Size of 

Area 

(acres) PFC Functioning at Risk (FAR) NF Up N/A Down 

1997 Oregon Slough X 60 

1977 Long Slough X 35 

6/17/99 Dunder Pond 

(BLM name) X 6 

7/26/99 15-mile Spring X 10 

7/26/99 Ox Yoke 

Spring X 2 

9/7/99 Flockets (dune 

pond area) Part 1 X 362 

9/7/99 Flockets (dune 

pond area) Part 2 X 45 

Total 520 

The waterways in PFC are primarily located in the upper reaches, where much of the stability is attributed 

to rocky substrates. Waterways in PFC include Dickie Springs Creek, Oregon Slough Creek, Robin 

Creek, Oregon Buttes Creek, Bear Creek, and portions of Pacific Creek and Parnell Creek. The 

waterways located in areas of lower elevation are more susceptible to degradation because of their 

reliance on vegetation for channel stability. Waterways that are functioning at risk include Jack Morrow 

3-4 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 3 

Creek, Sand Creek, Rock Cabin Creek, and the lower reaches of Pacific Creek and Parnell Creek. 

Channel instability results in a greater than natural loss of soil and elevated levels of sediment and salinity 

in the water. 

3.1.2.3 Groundwater 

Locally elevated areas such as Steamboat Mountain and the highly permeable Killpecker Dunes provide 

the right conditions for locally fed seeps and springs to occur. Groundwater overlain by impermeable 

rock creates confined or artesian conditions. Such confined aquifers may be accessed in different 

locations throughout the planning area, but the quality and quantity of the water is highly variable. 

Aquifers are not well defined in the planning area because of the nature of the geologic layers. Limited 

information is available from development of water wells for domestic, livestock, and agricultural use, 

and from oil and gas development. On the Green River Basin side of the Rock Springs Uplift, a number 

of water wells have been known to produce or are still producing from the Tertiary, Green River 

Formation. On the Great Divide Basin side, groundwater data indicate usable water in the Tertiary, 

Wasatch Formation, and the Green River Formation. Figure 1 shows the location of these formations. 

Water from the Cretaceous, Almond, and Ericson formations, at shallow depths on the Rock Springs 

Uplift, is usable for livestock, irrigation, and/or domestic use. Other stratigraphic units that may have 

usable groundwater within the planning area include the Tertiary, Bridger Formation, and the Lewis 

Formation where it crops out. Quaternary sand dune deposits are likely to contain usable water but more 

important, they may act as a recharge zone for underlying aquifers and may produce seeps and springs 

used by wildlife. 

3.1.2.4 Water Quality 

Surface water and groundwater quality in the planning area are influenced primarily by the amount of 

total dissolved solids (TDS) in the water. There are no known point sources of water pollution within the 

planning area, thus surface water quality is influenced by nonpoint sources such as soil erosion and 

runoff. 

Most of the planning area is subject to the Colorado River Salinity Compact. The seven basin states that 

make up the Colorado River Salinity Control Forum take a basinwide approach for controlling salinity in 

the waters that naturally drain into the Colorado River. BLM provides input to the Wyoming Department 

of Environmental Quality (DEQ) for the review of water quality standards for salinity in the Colorado 

River Basin. 

Pacific, Jack Morrow, and Killpecker Creeks are all subject to the Colorado River Salinity Compact and 

have therefore been sampled to measure levels of TDS and other constituents. Based on historic TDS 

concentrations and DEQ groundwater suitability standards, these waterways tend to be suitable for 

livestock water (<5000 ppm) and depending on flow conditions, are often within the range for agricultural 

water (<2000 ppm). Waterways of less than 500 ppm TDS are considered potentially suitable for 

domestic water. TDS is not the sole criteria for determining use suitability of a water body; however, in 

open areas with salty soils and few if any point sources of pollution, TDS tends to be an acceptable first 

approximation (Table 3-5). There are no known perennial surface flows in the Great Divide Basin. 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 3-5 
Chapter 3 Final EIS 

Table 3-5. Suggested Use For Streams Within the JMH CAP Planning Area Based on

Limited Historic TDS Concentrations

Stream Suggested Use 

Pacific Creek Agricultural 

Jack Morrow Creek Livestock 

Killpecker Creek Agricultural1 

Sweetwater River Domestic 1

The TDS average for Killpecker Creek is toward the high end of the agricultural range. Several samples 

showed TDS levels greater than 2,000 ppm. Therefore Killpecker Creek may not be an ideal agricultural 

water source. 

In general, groundwater quality decreases away from the basin margin and with increased depth. In both 

the Green River and Great Divide basins, the highest-quality groundwater would be expected in 

Quaternary deposits of alluvium along major drainages, Quaternary dune fields, Cretaceous and Tertiary 

sediments along the basin margins, and in the fine-to- medium grain sandstones of the Wasatch 

Formation away from the basin margin. 

One method of measuring groundwater quality in the area is to compare TDS levels in well-producing 

aquifers against the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality guidelines for acceptable uses. 

Groundwater containing TDS levels below 500 milligrams per liter (mg/l) is acceptable for domestic use; 

TDS levels between 500 and 2,000 mg/l are acceptable for agricultural use; and TDS levels between 

2,000 and 5,000 mg/l are acceptable for livestock use. Acceptable concentrations of constituents for each 

use category are shown in Table 3-6 at the end of Chapter 3. 

Quaternary aquifers generally contain the highest-quality water, with TDS ranging from 100 to 200 mg/l 

in the headwaters, to 700 mg/l along the Green River. Within the planning area, it is anticipated that TDS 

levels would be on the high end of the range because of local influences of the Green River Formation. 

On the Great Divide Basin side of the Rock Springs Uplift, the shallow Tertiary aquifers (depths from 

less than 500 to 1,500 feet) have TDS levels ranging from 400 to 1,800 mg/l. The Wasatch Formation 

varies from 100 to 6,600 mg/l TDS, depending on the distance from the basin margin. 

3.1.3 Wild Horses 

The first wild horses in the area were most likely with the Native Americans who traveled through or 

inhabited southwest Wyoming. As white settlers arrived in the mid-1800s, horses often escaped or were 

turned loose on the open range. Many local ranchers managed these herds for their own use, introducing 

studs to improve the stock. Thus several different breeds can be found in the planning area, including 

large draft horses, quarter horse mixtures, and some American saddle horses. 

With the passage of the Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act in 1971, BLM was given the 

responsibility to protect, manage, and control wild horses and burros. The primary objectives of the act 

are as follows: to manage wild horses and burros as an integral part of the natural system of public lands 

under the principal of multiple use; to protect wild horses and burros from unauthorized capture, 

branding, harassment, or death; and to provide humane care and treatment of wild horses and burros. 

3.1.3.1 Herd Management Area 

BLM establishes herd management areas (HMA) for the maintenance of wild horse herds. HMAs are 

based on the appropriate management level for the herd, the habitat requirements of the animals, the 

relationships with other uses of the public and adjacent private lands, and constraints to management. 

3-6 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 3 

The Great Divide Basin Wild Horse HMA is located 40 miles east of Rock Springs and north of Interstate 

80. It encompasses an area from the boundary of the Rawlins and Rock Springs Field Offices west to the 

Continental Divide. The area consists of 772,915 acres, of which 73 percent is public land, 2 percent is 

state land, and 25 percent is private land. 

Approximately 222,000 acres of the Great Divide Basin Wild Horse HMA cover the eastern one-third of 

the JMH CAP planning area, which is predominantly public land (Map 62). The western branch of the 

Continental Divide forms the western boundary of the HMA. This boundary is unfenced, and the 

topographic feature does not provide an effective barrier to the movement of wild horses. Wild horses are 

often found outside the HMA yet within the JMH CAP planning area, primarily in the Steamboat 

Mountain ACEC and the Rock Cabin Creek/Oregon Buttes area. These horses are by definition “excess” 

and are subject to annual removal. 

3.1.3.2 Appropriate Management Level 

BLM develops herd management plans that identify management objectives and the tasks required to 

meet those objectives. Objectives may include maintaining certain herd characteristics, numbers, and 

genetic stock. Management tasks primarily focus on monitoring both the land and the herds, removing 

excess animals, preparing animals for adoption, adopting animals to the general public, ensuring 

compliance, and performing titling. By law BLM must limit its activities to those necessary to get the job 

done. 

In 1979 an agreement with the Rock Springs Grazing Association, the International Society for the 

Protection of Mustangs and Burros, and Wild Horses Yes established a total population of 1,600 wild 

horses for the Rock Springs District. In 1982 BLM accepted this management level, and numbers for 

each wild horse HMA were designated. The appropriate management level (AML) established for wild 

horses in the Great Divide Basin Wild Horse HMA was set at 500 horses. 

Because wild horse gatherings are expensive and the law requires the minimum level of management 

possible, BLM allows the horse populations to fluctuate so that the number of gatherings for any one herd 

is minimized. BLM allows the AML for the Great Divide Basin Wild Horse HMA to fluctuate between 

415 to 600 wild horses at any given time. The 2001 projected population in the Great Divide Basin Wild 

Horse HMA was approximately 900 horses. 

BLM analyzes inventory and monitoring information to determine whether the herds are healthy and if 

the animals are damaging rangelands within the HMA. When monitoring data and environmental 

analyses indicate that the population is in excess of the AML, BLM prepares gather plans detailing the 

methods and timing for gather and removal. After removing the animals, BLM’s main goal is to place the 

animals through its adoption program. 

3.1.4 Livestock Grazing 

Congress enacted the Taylor Grazing Act in 1934 to provide for the orderly use, improvement, and 

development of public rangelands. The act allows the establishment of grazing districts and the issuance 

of permits to graze livestock. The Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978 further provides for the 

improvement of range conditions for watershed protection, livestock grazing, wildlife habitat, and other 

rangeland values. 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 3-7 
Chapter 3 Final EIS 

3.1.4.1 Grazing Allotments 

Livestock grazing is authorized within the JMH CAP planning area in 15 allotments of various sizes, as 

shown on Map 63. Nine of these allotments are entirely within the JMH CAP planning area, whereas the 

boundaries of the other six allotments extend outside the planning area. Approximately 92 percent of the 

land in the allotments within JMH is public, 5 percent is state, and the remaining 3 percent is under 

private ownership. 

Most allotments contain some lands unsuitable for livestock grazing and areas suitable only for certain 

classes of livestock. The unsuitable areas contained within the JMH CAP planning area are small, 

isolated parcels (such as steep slopes, badlands, and sand dunes) that are insignificant in size as compared 

to the entire planning area. Livestock grazing is authorized and occurs within WSAs in the JMH CAP 

planning area. The interim management guidelines for WSAs outline minimum data requirements and 

maximum acceptable impacts for range developments and livestock grazing increases. 

An animal unit is a unit of measure for rangeland livestock equivalent to one mature cow or five sheep, all 

over 6 months of age. An animal unit month (AUM) is the standard measure of forage utilization. An 

AUM is the amount of dry forage or feed required to feed a mature beef cow, or its equivalent, for 1 

month. The equivalent of a cow for forage purposes is approximately one horse or five sheep. 

The total AUMs for the JMH CAP planning area are estimated based on the active permitted use by each 

permittee and the percent of the allotment that falls within the planning area. For discussion purposes, if 

half the allotment is within the JMH CAP planning area, half the AUMs are included in the total for JMH. 

The active permitted use within the JMH CAP planning area is approximately 26,830 AUMs, of which 

approximately 12 percent is sheep (3,203 AUMs) and 88 percent is cattle (23,627 AUMs). Livestock 

grazing within these allotments has varied over time because of available forage, environmental 

conditions, business decisions made by permittees, and livestock prices. Thus the historic use over the 

past 5 years has averaged approximately half the active permitted use totals, as shown in Table 3-7 at the 

end of Chapter 3. 

Congress enacted a grazing fee for public lands to be established each year. The fee is based on the value 

of livestock, the base economic value of grazing on public rangeland established by the 1966 Western 

Livestock Grazing Survey, livestock production costs, and the average costs of grazing on private lands. 

The grazing fee for the 2002 grazing season was set at $1.43 per AUM. Surcharge rates are charged for 

nonpermittee grazing on public lands. Permittees may lease to other livestock operators that do not have 

a permit with BLM for a particular allotment. The surcharge cost for these operators for the 2002 season 

was set at $4.01 per AUM plus the grazing fee of $1.43 for a total of $5.44 per AUM. 

BLM develops individual allotment management plans (AMP) in cooperation with the permittees. The 

AMPs deal with specific units of rangeland and are based on multiple use resource management 

objectives. The plans include terms and conditions to achieve specific resource condition objectives. The 

AMPs consider livestock grazing in relation to other uses of rangelands in addition to watershed, 

vegetation, and wildlife. An AMP establishes the seasons of use, number and class of livestock, and 

rangeland improvements and provides for a monitoring program to evaluate the effectiveness of 

management actions in achieving resource condition objectives. 

3.1.4.2 Rangeland Monitoring and Improvements 

The rangeland program in the planning area is based on the Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands 

and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management developed for BLM-administered land (Appendix 

10). The program emphasizes multiple use management of forage for livestock and wild horses and 

3-8 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 3 

incorporates needs for wildlife habitat and protection of riparian and watershed values. The specific goals 

and objectives of the program have been and continue to be accomplished through careful planning at the 

activity level, with attention given to proper placement of rangeland improvements, distribution of 

livestock, kind and class of livestock, season of use, suitable grazing systems, plant and animal 

requirements, and vegetative land treatments. 

Rangeland monitoring information has been analyzed for the allotments in the planning area. Monitoring 

data include actual use, utilization, rangeland trend, and field observations. Such monitoring has shown 

that some allotments are not meeting all the standards. Furthermore, no information is available to date 

supporting the state water quality standard for any of the allotments. Measures have been implemented 

on allotments currently not meeting the standards, and progress is being made with these measures to 

achieve the standards. Table 3-8 shows which standards are not met or are unknown. 

TABLE 3-8. RANGELAND STANDARDS NOT MET (N) OR UNKNOWN (U) 

Allotment Rangeland Standards Not Met or Unknown 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

Bar-X U 

Bush Rim U 

Continental Peak U 

4th of July U 

Pacific Creek N N U 

Red Desert U 

Sands U 

Steamboat Mountain N U 

Houghton Place U 

Crookston Ranch N U 

Chilton Place U 

Johnson Place U 

Hay Meadow N U 

Middle Hay Place U 

Rock Springs N U 

A number of range improvement projects have been constructed both for the enhancement and protection 

of watershed and wildlife values and for the management of domestic livestock grazing. These projects 

include water developments, vegetation treatments, windmills, and fences (Map 63). Range improvement 

projects are authorized under cooperative agreements or permits, depending on overall benefits and 

objectives and private investment levels. 

In some areas fences are constructed to form an “exclosure,” which serves to prevent livestock access and 

improve the ecological condition of such areas. Exclosures are generally constructed around fragile, 

degraded or historically important areas (e.g., springs, streams, historical sites). The name, purpose, and 

size of the 13 exclosures that currently exist within the planning area are provided in Table 3-9. 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 3-9 
Chapter 3 Final EIS 

Table 3-9. Jack Morrow Hills Exclosures 

Name Purpose Size (in acres) 

Boar’s Tusk Range/Upland vegetation study 5 

Crookston Riparian enhancement, recovery, and study 6 

Dunal Ponds Riparian enhancement, recovery, and study 17 

Chicken Springs Spring source protection 8 

Bush Rim Spring source protection 8 

Tri Territory Historical site 0.1 

Steamboat Spring Spring source protection 0.2 

South Pass Historical site 12 

Jack Morrow Creek Riparian recovery, mitigation for livestock conversion (Sandy EIS) 22 

Rock Cabin Riparian recovery, mitigation for livestock conversion (Sandy EIS) 25 

Pacific Creek Riparian recovery, mitigation for livestock conversion (Sandy EIS) 275 

(4 exclosures) 

Lower Pacific Creek Riparian recovery, mitigation for livestock conversion (Sandy EIS) 29 

Oregon Slough Riparian recovery, mitigation for livestock conversion (Sandy EIS) 17 

3.1.5 Vegetation 

The ecosystem of JMH has been assigned the highest biodiversity significance rating by the Wyoming 

Natural Diversity Database. This is because of the presence of the largest known occurrence of the basin 

big sagebrush/lemon scurfpea association in the State of Wyoming, the occurrences of several vascular 

plant species endemic to the intermountain Semi-Desert Province of Wyoming, and the importance of the 

vegetation communities as habitat for the pygmy rabbit and desert elk. 

The high-elevation, cold-desert vegetation of the planning area is composed predominantly of Wyoming 

big sagebrush/grass and Gardner saltbush vegetation communities. Also found within the planning area 

are patches of mountain big sagebrush on slopes and escarpments; basin big sagebrush on sand dunes; 

cushion plant communities on rims above mountain shrub communities; Utah junipers on the steeper, 

mainly south-facing slopes; sparse patches of true mountain mahogany on sandstone outcrops; and aspen 

and limber pine mainly on north- and east-facing slopes of buttes and mesas. Table 3-10 provides 

information on the vegetation communities within the planning area. 

3-10 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 3 

Table 3-10. Vegetation Communities and Associated Species 

Community Association Location Prominent Features 

Wyoming Big 

Sagebrush 

Western Wheatgrass 

Bluebunch Wheatgrass 

Lower parts of easterly 

slopes, benches, and 

valley bottoms. 

Exposed sites on 

southerly or westerly 

slopes, upper parts of 

easterly slopes. 

Dominant vegetation 

community in 

planning area. 

Gardner’s 

Saltbush–Winterfat 

None Alkaline soils of benches, 

flats, and gentle slopes. 

Second most 

abundant in planning 

area; large-fruited 

bladderpod (BLM 

sensitive species) 

occupies habitat 

within this community. 

Mountain Shrub Communities 

Basin Big 

Sagebrush 

Basin Wildrye 

Lemon Scurfpea 

Western Wheatgrass 

Southeast-facing 

escarpments and valley 

bottoms on terraces above 

floodplains. 

Southwest of Steamboat 

Rim and south of Essex 

Mountain. 

Mesa east of Alkali Draw 

on northwest-facing slope 

and near Essex Mountain. 

Basin big 

sagebrush/lemon 

scurfpea is a unique 

association rarely 

found anywhere else 

in the Western United 

States. Important for 

cover and crucial 

habitat for elk. 

Mountain Big 

Sagebrush 

Utah Snowberry/Basin 

Wildrye 

Bluebunch Wheatgrass 

Slopes steeper than 10 

percent on northerly and 

south-southeasterly 

aspects. 

Northeast face of Pacific 

Butte. 

Aspen seedlings, 

which provide cover 

and crucial habitat for 

elk, grow around the 

edges of this shrub 

stand. 

True Mountain 

Mahogany/ 

Bluebunch 

Wheatgrass 

None Steep slopes on or near 

sandstone outcrops. 

Sparse, small stands 

throughout the 

planning area, which 

are browsed by elk 

and deer. 

Utah 

Juniper/Bluebunch 

Wheatgrass 

None East- and south-facing 

slopes and outcrops. 

Sparse, small stands 

throughout the 

planning area, which 

contain an understory 

with rich species 

diversity, but sparse 

vegetation. 

3.1.5.1 Rare Plant Communities and Associations 

There are two rare plant communities (cushion plant and woodlands) and one rare plant association (basin 

big sagebrush/lemon scurfpea) within the planning area (Map 15). 

3.1.5.1.1 Cushion Plant Community 

Cushion plant communities are areas with low-growing, matlike tufts of vegetation with bare soil and 

gravel between the individual plants. These areas occur on ridgetops that experience extreme weather 

conditions. Cold winters, little rainfall, and strong winds contribute to the development of these 

specialized communities. The communities are very vulnerable to surface disturbance and have a slow 

recovery time. Usually 50 years or more are needed to restore the communities to their original native 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 3-11 
Chapter 3 Final EIS 

state after disturbance. The cushion plant community contains uncommon and regional endemic plant 

species. Typical associates found in these areas include different species of phlox, twinpods, 

bladderpods, and many legume species. The communities are prime habitat for the mountain plover, a 

BLM sensitive species, which uses the low-growing vegetation areas for nesting. 

3.1.5.1.2 Woodlands Community 

Tree species are a very minor component of the vegetation in the planning area. In addition to the Utah 

juniper community, small isolated stands of limber pine and aspen occur at the higher elevations of 

Oregon Buttes and Steamboat Mountain. The presence of these stands is attributable to snow 

accumulation and to the location of springs and seeps on the slopes of the buttes. In addition, sparse 

patches of Douglas fir and lodgepole pine occur on Oregon Buttes. 

The woodlands community provides cover and calving habitat for big game species in the planning area. 

3.1.5.1.3 Basin Big Sagebrush/Lemon Scurfpea Association 

The basin big sagebrush/lemon scurfpea community is a unique assemblage found on stabilized sand 

dunes. This is the largest of the few known occurrences of this association. Most locations are within the 

JMH CAP planning area, and the association is not known elsewhere in Wyoming. The association is 

only rarely found in small patches elsewhere in the Western United States. 

This vegetation type provides crucial calving habitat and cover for the desert elk herd, and important 

habitat for the pygmy rabbit, a BLM Wyoming sensitive species. The Wyoming Natural Diversity 

Database (WYNDD) considers this area to be a unique habitat deserving protection from unnecessary 

disturbances. WYNDD also recommends that the boundary of the Steamboat Mountain ACEC be 

adjusted to include the unprotected part of the occurrence. 

3.1.5.2 Special Status Plant Species 

Special status plants are those species that are federally listed as threatened or endangered (T&E), 

proposed for listing, or candidates for listing under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). They also include 

species designated by each BLM State Director as sensitive and those listed or proposed for listing by a 

state in a category implying potential endangerment or extinction. BLM is mandated to protect and 

manage threatened, endangered, candidate, proposed, and sensitive plant species and their habitat. BLM 

is also required to protect and manage sensitive species jointly identified with the appropriate state 

agency. The State of Wyoming does not have an official list of sensitive, threatened, or endangered plant 

species. 

A significant amount of information on the vegetation and plant associations of the JMH CAP planning 

area has been accumulated by BLM to date. General floristic inventories were conducted in the 

Continental Divide region, and a specific survey of plant communities and species of special concern was 

performed in the planning area in 1994 and 1995. 

3.1.5.2.1 Federal Threatened and Endangered Species 

Two plant species federally listed under the ESA have the potential to occur within the planning area. 

The blowout penstemon (Penstemon haydenii) is listed as endangered, and the Ute ladies’-tresses 

(Spiranthes diluvialis) is listed as threatened. These species are described further in the Biological 

Assessment (Appendix 3). No proposed or candidate plant species have the potential to occur in the 

planning area. 

3-12 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 3 

The blowout penstemon occurs in the Sand Hills of central Nebraska and a recently discovered location in 

south-central Wyoming in the Ferris Mountains. Potential high-elevation sand dune habitat in the 

Killpecker Dunes in the planning area was surveyed in 2000, but no new population of the blowout 

penstemon was documented. 

The Ute ladies’-tresses is known to occur near the base of the eastern slope of the Rocky Mountains in 

southeastern and central Wyoming. Although BLM-authorized searches for the species have been 

performed at several locations along the Green River and its tributaries (including Pacific Creek), the 

species has not been found in southwest Wyoming. Potential suitable habitat in the planning area may be 

found on Jack Morrow Creek and its tributaries, Pacific Creek, the meadows at Crookston Ranch (located 

on Nitchie Creek), Sweetwater River and its tributaries, sand dune ponds (flockets), and the perennial and 

intermittent streams in the Red Desert area. 

3.1.5.2.2 Wyoming BLM Sensitive Plant Species 

Instruction Memorandum (IM) No. WY-2001-040 lists the Wyoming BLM sensitive species and 

management policy. The policy emphasizes planning, management, and monitoring of sensitive species 

and directs management of these species to avoid or minimize adverse impacts. It is not the intent of the 

policy to create severe restrictions on activities such that other multiple use activities cannot occur. The 

policy goals of this instruction memorandum are to— 

• Maintain vulnerable species and habitat components in functional BLM ecosystems 

• Ensure sensitive species are considered in land management decisions 

• Prevent the need for species listing under the ESA 

• Prioritize needed conservation work with an emphasis on habitat. 

Table 3-11 lists the Wyoming BLM sensitive species that grow in the planning area (Map 15). The 

Nature Conservancy ranks the meadow pussytoes (Antennaria arcuata), Nelson’s milkvetch (Astragalus 

nelsonianus), and large-fruited bladderpod (Lesquerella macrocarpa) as very vulnerable to extirpation 

both globally and statewide. 

Table 3-11. Wyoming BLM Sensitive Plant Species 

Common Name Scientific Name Habitat 

Meadow pussytoes Antennaria arcuata Moist, hummocky meadows, seeps, or springs 

surrounded by sage/grasslands 

Nelson’s milkvetch Astragalus nelsonianus Alkaline clay flats, shale bluffs and gullies, 

pebbly slopes, and volcanic cinders in 

sparsely vegetated sagebrush, juniper, and 

cushion plant communities 

Large-fruited 

bladderpod 

Lesquerella macrocarpa Gypsum-clay hills and benches, clay flats, and 

barren hills 

Source: BLM (Wyoming) Sensitive Species Policy and List, IM No. WY-2001-040, April 9, 2001. 

Meadow pussytoes has been found in 20 sites in Fremont County, with two populations consisting of 

approximately 5 acres located within the planning area. One of the 20 populations is known to extend 

into the Rock Springs Field Office management area at Long Slough, near South Pass City. Trend data 

for the State of Wyoming show the population to be stable to slightly declining since 1982. However, a 

status survey of meadow pussytoes conducted for BLM in 1995 discovered a single new population in the 

Oregon Gulch drainage, approximately 4 miles west of Continental Peak (Fertig 1996a). Surveys in other 

areas of potential habitat along Dickie Springs, Alkali Creek, and West Pacific Creek did not locate any 

plant populations. 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 3-13 
Chapter 3 Final EIS 

Nelson’s milkvetch is regionally endemic to southwest and central Wyoming. Its distribution includes the 

Wind River, Green River, Washakie, southern Powder River, Great Divide Basins, Owl Creek Mountains, 

and the Rock Springs Uplift in Fremont, Natrona, and Sweetwater Counties. The population size of 

Nelson’s milkvetch is not known and trend data are not available; however, it is presumed that 

populations are stable at present (Fertig and Beauvais 1999). 

The large-fruited bladderpod was thought to be endemic to the northern Great Divide Basin in 

Sweetwater and Fremont Counties; however, it was located in Lincoln County during a vegetation survey 

in 1992 (Culwell 1992). Most of the known populations occur on public land northeast of Steamboat 

Mountain on Bush Rim, near Continental Peak, and in the Oregon Buttes area. Large-fruited bladderpod 

population sizes fluctuate from year to year, apparently in response to moisture availability. The species 

is much more vulnerable to impacts during dry years when populations are small. 

3.1.5.3 Species of Concern 

The Wyoming Natural Diversity Database lists other species of concern that occur within the planning 

area (Appendix 11). These species lack formal federal or state status or protection but are potentially 

threatened within the ecosystem. They include annuals and biennials that have fluctuating population 

sizes in response to favorably moist years. Several rare species of the JMH have small global ranges but 

are often locally abundant within areas of suitable habitat. Such species require little or no formal 

protection as long as areas of representative habitat are maintained in good condition. 

3.1.5.4 Noxious and Invasive Weeds 

Federal agencies are directed by Executive Order (E.O.) 13112, Invasive Species, to expand and 

coordinate efforts to prevent the introduction and spread of invasive plant species (noxious weeds) and to 

minimize the economic, ecological, and human health impacts that invasive species cause. Weed 

management is an integral part of maintaining ecosystem health. 

Fremont, Sublette, and Sweetwater Counties have official lists of noxious and invasive weeds that occur 

within county limits. Those species that are known to occur within the planning area are listed in Table 3­

12. Most of the weeds are found along County Road 21 (Tri-Territory Road) and County Road 74 

(Oregon Buttes Road). 

3-14 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 3 

Table 3-12. Noxious and Invasive Weeds 

Common Name Scientific Name Location Other Characteristics 

Halogeton Halogeton 

glomeratus 

Roadsides, borrow ditches, 

disturbed areas 

Decreases if native grasses and 

shrubs are allowed to recolonize; 

moderately toxic to livestock. 

Kochia Kochia scoparia Roadsides, borrow ditches, 

disturbed areas 

Decreases if native grasses and 

shrubs are allowed to recolonize; 

moderately toxic to livestock. 

Russian Thistle Salsola kali Roadsides, borrow ditches, 

disturbed areas 

Decreases if native grasses and 

shrubs are allowed to recolonize; 

moderately toxic to livestock 

Perennial 

Pepperweed 

Lepidium 

latifolium 

Stream banks on lower 

portions of Jack Morrow 

Creek/Pacific Creek 

Causes loss of native grass 

communities in riparian areas. 

Black Henbane Hyoscyamus 

niger 

Tri-territory road, north and 

south Table Mountain, 

sand dunes, Bar X Ranch 

road, disturbed locations of 

Pacific Creek and Rock 

Cabin Creek 

Causes occasional livestock 

poisoning and is poisonous to 

humans 

Whitetop Cardaria spp. Disturbed alkaline soils of 

sagebrush-grass or riparian 

communities 

Highly competitive with native 

species once established 

Musk Thistle Carduus nutans Rock Cabin Creek, Chicken 

Springs, Dickie Springs, 

seep areas on east side of 

Steamboat Mountain 

Aggressive invader which forms 

dense stands to crowd out 

desirable species 

Canada Thistle Cirsium arvense Rock Cabin Creek, Chicken 

Springs, Dickie Springs, 

seep areas on east side of 

Steamboat Mountain 

Aggressive invader which forms 

dense stands to crowd out 

desirable species 

Leafy Spurge Euphorbia esula West of Pinnacles Aggressively out competes 

native rangeland species 

Weed populations are generally found along main dirt roads and two-tracks (especially those that cross 

meadows and drainage bottoms), in areas of livestock concentration (stock reservoirs, riparian areas, and 

sheep camps), and in areas of intense recreational use (frequently used dispersed camping areas). 

Motorized vehicles transporting seeds in tire treads are a significant source of new infestations of weed 

species. Other ways weed species are spread include untimely road blading (spreading mature weed 

seeds along road banks), transportation of nonlocal livestock into the area, use of contaminated hay for 

stock animals, and overuse and damage of native plant communities. 

3.1.6 Wildlife 

There are a variety of wildlife habitats supporting more than 350 different species within the planning 

area, from sand dunes and dunal ponds in the western portion of the planning area to small woodlands in 

the higher elevations of Oregon Buttes and Steamboat Mountain. The term “wildlife” refers collectively 

to mammals, birds, fish, amphibians, and reptiles. 

BLM manages wildlife habitat on public lands, while the Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD) 

manages the wildlife populations. BLM and WGFD have officially coordinated their management 

activities since 1976. An “umbrella” Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) adopted in March 1990 

(replacing a previous MOU from August 1976) is the basis for all cooperative efforts between BLM and 

WGFD. The MOU directs each agency to conduct a coordinated program of wildlife resource 

administration, participate in each other’s planning efforts, advocate a wildlife management strategy that 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 3-15 
Chapter 3 Final EIS 

focuses on total ecosystem management, maintain a cooperative-based wildlife information gathering and 

exchange system, provide consideration for management or mitigation of wildlife resources in other BLM 

programs, and promote improved public understanding of wildlife management on public lands (BLM 

and WGFD 1990). 

3.1.6.1 Mammals 

The WGFD manages big game populations in herd units. Herd unit boundaries generally do not match 

BLM field office boundaries, making analysis and correlation of resource data and big game population 

data difficult. The WGFD revises its population objectives for each big game species based on new 

habitat information, population trends, recreation demand, and public input. 

Table 3-13 details the big game species within the planning area, habitat use by big game, acreage of 

crucial habitat and birthing areas within the planning area, WGFD herd units and size, and population 

levels set by WGFD for each herd unit. 

Table 3-13. Big Game Habitat Use and Size 

Common and 

Scientific 

Name 

Habitat Use in 

Planning Area

(acres) 

WGFD Herd Unit 

and Size 

(million acres) 

WGFD Herd Unit in 

Planning Area

(acres) 

WGFD Population

Objective1 

Mule Deer 

(Odocoileus 

hemionus) 

Crucial winter 

range = 132,900 

Parturition = 36,300 

Steamboat = 2.6 

South Wind River 

Deer = 1.4 

Steamboat = 563,256 

South Wind River 

Deer = 59,074 

Steamboat = 4,000 

South Wind River 

Deer = 13,000 

Rocky 

Mountain Elk 

(Cervus 

elaphus) 

Crucial winter 

range = 194,900 

Parturition= 91,500 

Steamboat = 2.6 Steamboat = 622,330 Steamboat2 = 

1,200 

Pronghorn 

Antelope 

(Antilocapra 

Americana) 

Crucial winter 

range = 81,500 

Red Desert = 2.2 

Sublette = 6.7 

Red Desert = 79,700 

Sublette = 542,630 

Sublette = 48,000 

Red Desert = 

15,000 

Moose 

(Alces alces) 

Migrant Lander = 2.7 Lander = 55,100 Lander = 450 

1

Population objectives are for entire herd unit area. 2

Herd objective was reevaluated and changed from 500 in 2002.

Crucial habitat (winter range) for mule deer, elk, and antelope covers approximately 40 percent of the 

JMH CAP planning area. Crucial habitat is generally the component of a species habitat that has been 

documented as the determining factor in a population’s ability to maintain itself at a certain level over the 

long term. The elk and mule deer winter range overlaps primarily in the south-central part of the planning 

area, whereas the antelope winter range is in the western portion. Birthing areas for mule deer and elk are 

also located in the planning area, with most of the birthing areas overlapping with the winter range (Map 

51). 

An area of big game habitat, the connectivity area, was established for the original JMH CAP draft EIS 

effort in 2000 to maintain habitat connectivity between important habitats within the planning area. The 

connectivity area (Map 51) is a key wildlife habitat area that connects and includes important big game 

habitats. The area includes topographic relief for escape cover, important year-round forage, crucial 

winter range, and birthing areas for a majority of the deer and elk populations. The area also allows for 

free movement of animals among the various habitat components and provides an important migratory 

corridor throughout the year. Maintaining the integrity of the area is considered paramount to sustaining 

viable big game herds and other wildlife populations. Elk populations are currently above objective 

3-16 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 3 

because of the current lack of development within the planning area and the lack of vehicular access to 

sensitive habitats during essential times of the year. 

Water is a large factor in influencing big game distribution. Most mule deer activity within the planning 

area is dependent on its availability. Studies have shown that in arid regions during the driest months, 

mule deer seldom move more than 1 to 1.5 miles from water. Lack of surface water in some areas also 

influences migration of pronghorn antelope and their season of use on particular ranges. 

3.1.6.1.1 Mule Deer 

Mule deer population levels are currently below objective for both herd units within the planning area. 

Herds declined dramatically in the early 1990s following a series of drought years and a harsher than 

normal winter in 1992. Since 1993 populations have been gradually increasing. The 2002 WGFD 

population estimate for the Steamboat mule deer herd was 3,100. Fawn production has been lower than 

normal and mortality normal to slightly higher than normal because of the drought over the past 3 years 

and the colder than normal winters of 2000–2001 and 2001–2002. The 2001 WGFD population estimate 

for the South Wind River herd was 9,600 (WGFD 2003). 

Winter range is a limiting factor for deer populations over much of their habitat, because shrubs, which 

make up approximately 75 percent of the winter diet, are covered by snow in many areas. Drought 

conditions and competition with elk for preferred birthing areas may also be affecting the overall 

population and mule deer fawning success. 

3.1.6.1.2 Pronghorn Antelope 

Pronghorn antelope populations of the herd units in the planning area are currently below objective. 

During the early 1990s, harvests of does and fawns were increased to regulate the increasing population, 

but the severe winter of 1992–93 and associated mortalities led to a significant reduction of doe and fawn 

harvest from 1994 to the present (USDI 199b). 

WGFD estimates the 2002 population for the Sublette herd is at about 44,700, which is 7 percent below 

the objective of 48,000. For the past 3 years, drought conditions have led to lower reproduction and 

somewhat higher winter mortality. Fawn production in the Red Desert herd has been low for at least 10 

years. WGFD herd models indicate the herd was still below objective size in 2002, even with reduced 

sales of doe/fawn licenses, but should be near objective in 2003 with average fawn production (WGFD 

2003b). 

Weather and availability of crucial winter range can be an important factor affecting population levels. 

Severe winters with deep, crusted snow and below-zero temperatures cause high antelope mortalities, and 

fences affect antelope movement with direct and indirect effects to mortality. Antelope habitat is 

generally represented by water and low-growth (2 to 3 feet) sagebrush in combination with rabbitbrush 

and bitterbrush. 

3.1.6.1.3 Rocky Mountain Elk 

The Steamboat elk herd is a unique component of the wildlife resources in the southwestern part of 

Wyoming. This elk herd exists in the sagebrush desert ecosystem, which contains very little conifer or 

aspen cover. 

Historically, elk migrated to the planning area from Jackson, Wyoming, and Yellowstone National Park, 

with the last major migration occurring in 1913. Records indicate that this movement was so large that 

portions of the area were proposed as a winter elk refuge. Historical information shows a remnant 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 3-17 
Chapter 3 Final EIS 

population of elk lived within the planning area until around 1940. Transplants to reestablish elk began in 

1944 and continued until around 1967. These transplant efforts failed to restore the migration but did 

establish a resident elk herd. 

Elk population estimates for the Steamboat herd unit area have varied over time. A population objective 

of 500 was first established in the early 1970s, then increased to 700 in 1977, then lowered to 500 in 

1984. Current estimated population counts show that the herd is approximately at 1,600 elk (WGFD 

2003). The WGFD reevaluated the herd objective for the Steamboat herd unit area in 2002 and increased 

it from 500 to 1,200 to better fit the increased herd unit area. 

Most research on elk habitat utilization has been conducted in forested habitat because of limited elk 

populations in sagebrush-steppe habitats. It is known that elk habitat selection patterns are strongly 

influenced by security and thermal needs (Irwin and Peek 1979; Thomas et al. 1979), and therefore that 

disturbance may be a larger issue in an open environment than in a forested environment. In forested 

habitats, cover is provided by timber stands with vegetation types such as aspen (Populus tremuloides) 

and conifer species. This type of vegetation is severely limited within the JMH CAP planning area; 

therefore, the elk use scattered stands of tall sagebrush (Artemsia tridentata), aspen, and limber pine 

(Pinus flexilus), in addition to topography, for cover. This limited amount of cover seems sufficient for 

the elk as long as the level of human disturbance is low. 

Approximately 175,000 acres within the planning area are classified as crucial habitat (winter range), and 

91,500 acres are classified as elk birthing (calving) areas. Most of the birthing areas overlap with the 

winter range. Approximately 67 percent of the winter range and 86 percent of the birthing areas for the 

Steamboat elk herd unit are in the JMH CAP planning area. 

An elk study within the JMH CAP planning area (Powell 2003), initiated in 1999, was conducted through 

the Wyoming Cooperative Research Unit, with funding from BLM, the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, 

and the WGFD. The objectives of the study were to document habitat use patterns of elk within the JMH 

CAP planning area and determine how the elk responded to human activities (Powell 2003). The study 

was a 3-year effort whose results include the following: 

• Elk selected habitats offering security cover (tall sage and mountain shrub) during calving and 

summer seasons, and generally avoided habitats offering little security cover (dune, badlands, 

sage/grass). 

• During winter and spring, elk used dune habitats less than expected and all others in proportion to 

their availability. 

• During the fall, elk selected against sage/grass habitats and used all others in proportion to their 

availability. 

• Elk in proportion to their availability throughout the year used aspen, mountain mahogany, 

riparian, and short grass habitat types. 

• During summer, elk avoided areas within 2 kilometers (km) of active gas/oil wells, showed no 

preference for areas within 2 to 3 km of active gas/oil wells, and selected areas between 3 and 5 

km from active gas/oil wells 

• Elk avoided areas within 2 km of major roads and used areas 4 to 5 km from major roads more 

than expected. 

• During the summer, areas within 2 km of wells and major roads received 73 percent less use than 

was expected. 

3-18 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 3 

• Vegetation composition of habitats did not differ among 500-meter bands adjacent to roads or 

wells. 

• Forty-three percent of all locations within roadless areas occurred during the 2-month fall hunting 

season. 

• Annually, 26.5 percent of all elk locations were in nonvisible areas. During the summer and 

winter, 31.1 percent and 21.5 percent respectively of elk locations were located in nonvisible 

areas. 

• Daily movements of treatment elk (1 day after disturbance) were significantly greater than those 

of control elk and treatment elk for all days before and after being disturbed. 

• Significantly fewer pellet groups were counted in disturbed calving areas than areas not disturbed 

(i.e., control areas). 

Overall, the study concluded that elk typically avoided habitats offering little security cover; topography 

and screening cover by vegetation are important during daylight hours for providing security cover; 

habitat use patterns within the planning area are strongly influenced by roads making the habitat loss 

more than that of the actual road “footprint”; human disturbance led to increased daily movements of 

disturbed elk and reduced elk use in traditional calving areas; and although disturbed elk moved greater 

distances, they apparently did not move to areas that were poorer in terms of security or habitat quality. 

To further understand elk behavior, BLM has initiated a new elk study. Twenty-nine female elk have 

been equipped with global positioning system collars, enabling monitoring of a representative sample of 

the Steamboat elk herd. The goal of the study is to determine how the elk are affected by development 

and various types of human disturbance, and at what threshold they abandon an area. This study is 

contracted out through the University of Wyoming Fish and Wildlife Cooperative Studies Unit and is in 

partnership with WGFD. The information derived from the study will be used to facilitate the 

implementation, monitoring, and evaluation management strategy (Appendix 17) recommended in the 

JMH CAP. 

3.1.6.1.4 Other Mammals 

Mountain lions have been observed in the Steamboat Mountain and Oregon Buttes areas; however, 

indications show that their distribution and abundance in the planning area is very limited. Although 

black bear and gray wolves have been observed in the planning area, such sightings are rare and likely 

involve migrating or displaced animals. Other mammals that may be present in the planning area include 

moose (Alces alces), coyote (Canis latrans), white-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus townsendi), mountain 

cottontail rabbit (Sylvilagus nuttalli), pygmy rabbit (Brachylagus idahoensi), porcupine (Erethizon 

dorsatum), raccoon (Procyon lotor), red fox (Vulpes fulva), swift fox (Vulpes velox), beaver (Castor 

canadensis), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), white-tailed prairie dog (Cynomys leucurus), various 

rodents, bats, and weasel (Mustela spp.). 

3.1.6.2 Birds 

Avian species in the JMH CAP planning area include waterfowl, upland game birds, raptors, shorebirds, 

and neotropical migrants. 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 3-19 
Chapter 3 Final EIS 

3.1.6.2.1 Waterfowl 

Most of the planning area lies within the Pacific Flyway, with a very small portion occurring within the 

Central Flyway. Most waterfowl located in the planning area are migratory, short-term occupants 

because of the lack of available open water and riparian cover. Nesting in the Pacific Flyway occurs 

below 8,500 feet and is dependent on cover in riparian areas. Nesting occurs within the planning area on 

the dunal ponds and in Pacific Creek and Oregon Slough areas. 

Waterfowl use every form of available open water in the planning area, from flowing wells and stock 

ponds to playa lakes and potholes. Northern shoveler (Anas clypeata), gadwalls (Anas strepera), mallards 

(Anas platyrhynchos), pintails (Anas acuta) and teal (Anas spp.) are the most common summer resident 

species. Some species only migrate through the area on their way to breeding or nesting grounds farther 

north or to winter areas farther south. Other species, such as the Barrow’s goldeneye (Bucephala 

islandica), are resident for only part of the year, wintering in western Wyoming. 

3.1.6.2.2 Greater Sage-Grouse 

Greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) are found throughout the planning area wherever 

suitable habitat exists. Greater sage-grouse were historically found in all 23 Wyoming counties, and it 

was commonly agreed that Wyoming sagebrush habitats supported more greater sage-grouse than any 

other state, particularly within the upper Green River Basin (Patterson 1952). However, since the early 

1950s when R. L. Patterson conducted the first comprehensive greater sage-grouse research project in 

Wyoming within the Eden Valley and Dry Sandy-Pacific Creek areas, greater sage-grouse populations 

have been declining. Data collected in 2003 by the WGFD compared to data collected by Patterson 

(1952) from sage-grouse leks surveys in the planning area have shown a 70 percent decline in the 

numbers of males attending leks since 1952. If information from the adjacent private lands is included, 

the decline reaches 90 percent. Although no single or combination of causes have been proven, the 

decline in greater sage-grouse populations is thought to be attributed to a multitude of factors which 

include, but are not limited to: drought; oil and gas wells and their associated infrastructure; powerlines; 

mammalian and avian predators; and a decline in the quantity and quality of sagebrush habitat resulting 

from livestock grazing, range management treatments, and development activities (Connelly et al. 2000). 

With current levels of greater sage-grouse population declines, six petitions to list the greater sage-grouse 

under the ESA have been submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Across the West, 

various state and federal agencies have stepped up monitoring and research efforts in an attempt to 

prevent the listing of the species. The Director of the BLM has issued a draft national BLM Sage-Grouse 

Habitat Conservation Strategy to address concerns over population declines. The primary purpose of the 

BLM strategy is to focus attention, resources, and actions on reducing potential threats to greater sagegrouse on BLM-administered public land. The BLM strategy will identify key actions to be taken at a 

national level to minimize or eliminate threats to greater sage-grouse, set time frames and identify the 

appropriate BLM offices responsible for implementation of the strategy, and task BLM State Directors to 

development and implement state-level greater sage-grouse habitat conservation strategies tiered to the 

national-level strategy. The final national BLM Sage-Grouse Habitat Conservation Strategy is scheduled 

to be out in 2004. 

In June 2003 the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission approved the Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse 

Conservation Plan. This plan was drafted by an inter-disciplinary team of 18 Wyoming residents. The 

plan provides an overview of issues affecting the greater sage-grouse in Wyoming and provides 

management recommendations to address those issues. 

3-20 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 3 

The State of Wyoming has also taken steps to address potential effects of hunting on greater sage-grouse 

populations. In an effort to reduce hunting pressure on productive hens and reduce overall harvest, the 

WGFD has shifted the opening day of greater sage-grouse season multiple times over the past 9 years. In 

2000, the WGFD closed the Snake River drainage in western Wyoming and portions of southeast 

Wyoming in Platte, Goshen, Laramie, and southern Albany County to protect remnant greater sagegrouse populations on the periphery of the natural range. In 2002 and 2003, the WGFD reduced the 

length of the season from 16 days to 9 days, reduced the daily bag limit from three to two, and reduced 

the possession limit from six to four birds (WGFD 2003a). 

The southwestern portion of Wyoming is considered well suited for greater sage-grouse because of the 

nature of the physical environment. The physiography of the Green River Basin has influenced the 

development and the daily and seasonal activity patterns of greater sage-grouse. In general, greater sagegrouse move to the foothills, riparian areas, or irrigated hay fields during the spring and summer and to 

dryer upland sites during the fall and winter. These seasonal movements have developed primarily as a 

result of the wide variation in the nature, amount, and distribution of water, and the availability of 

sagebrush for nutritional and shelter requirements. The physical characteristics of sagebrush vary, 

providing the essential elements of greater sage-grouse habitat. Sagebrush ranges from a low, prostrate 

shrub a few inches in height found on dry, rocky sites to a bushy tree-like plant found on moist, sandy 

soils along watercourses. 

The reproductive characteristics and habits of greater sage-grouse significantly limit their adaptability to 

human disturbance and habitat alteration. Birds can return to historic “strutting grounds” or breeding 

complexes as early as February. Strutting grounds, referred to as “leks,” may be located at a point 

intermediate between the winter range and summer range or, in some cases, the summer and winter range 

may be the same area (Map 17). Leks are usually small open areas from 0.1 acre to 10 acres in size, but 

they may be as large as 100 acres or more. Snow conditions play a part in the suitability of an area for 

strutting, as does the amount of vegetation. The lek is generally in an area supported by low, sparse 

vegetation or in open areas surrounded by sagebrush, which provides escape, feeding, and cover 

(Connelly et al., 2000). The sparse vegetation around lek locations allows the opportunity for males to be 

seen by hens from further distances. Peak breeding season is early to mid-April. Birds are active in 

courtship displays during early morning darkness until sunrise. On overcast or foggy days, strutting 

grounds may remain active until midmorning. Strutting can take place all night during full moon periods. 

Recent radiotelemetry data gathered by Rocky Mountain Energy biologists show that some grouse move 

up to 11 miles to nest, while most range 1 to 4 miles. Studies conducted by the University of Wyoming 

Cooperative Research Unit have consistently shown that the most successful nests are located beyond 2 

miles (Anderson 1999). Nesting site selection is critical for successful reproduction. The availability of 

tall, dense grass cover combined with tall shrubs at nest sites decreases the likelihood of nest depredation 

(Heath et al. 1997). Results from Lyon 2000 demonstrated that hens have strong fidelity to nesting areas. 

Although none of the hens observed nested under the same sagebrush bush, the average distance between 

consecutive years’ nests was 683 meters (2,240 feet). It is believed that fidelity to nesting areas may 

serve to increase fitness by reducing the risks associated with the uncertainty of unfamiliar nesting habitat 

(Heath et al. 1997). 

Lek, nesting, and early brood-rearing habitat within the planning area for greater sage-grouse was 

delineated by BLM, in coordination with the WGFD, using the best available habitat data for the planning 

area including new locations, historical locations of leks, and vegetation characteristics derived from 

enhanced satellite images and professional knowledge of the area. This effort constituted an initial 

evaluation of potential habitat. Additional habitat evaluations will occur as part of the implementation, 

monitoring, and evaluation management strategy (Appendix 17) using suitable habitat characteristics as 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 3-21 
Chapter 3 Final EIS 

defined in Table 3-14. Delineation of this habitat was also part of a greater effort by the WGFD to 

delineate sage-grouse habitats throughout the state. BLM is also evaluating new information received 

from WGFD and will incorporate it into the implementation, monitoring, and evaluation management 

strategy. 

Table 3-14. Characteristics of Sagebrush Rangeland Needed for Productive High Quality

Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat in Wyoming 

Greater SageGrouse Habitat 

(Period of Use) 

Sagebrusha Perennial 

Grass/Forb 

Residual Grass 

Cover 

Areaf 

Height

(in.) 

Canopy

Cover 

(%)

b 

Height

(in.) 

Canopy

Cover 

(%) 

Height

(in.) 

Canopy

Cover 

(%) 

Leks/Breeding 

(March–May) 

Typically an open area surrounded by potential nesting habitat. A common 

feature is less shrub and herbaceous cover than surround habitats. 

Nesting/Early BroodRearing Habitat 

(March–July) 

12–32 15–25 >7c >13d 4–5 >3e >80% 

Late Brood-Rearing 

Habitat (July– 

October) 

12–32 10–25 Variable 

(4” min.) >13 N/A N/A >40% 

Winter Habitat 

(November–March) 10–14 10–30 N/A N/A N/A N/A >80% 

a

Live plants

b

Canopy coverage for sagebrush is defined as the percentage of ground covered by a vertical projection of the outermost

perimeter of the natural spread of foliage of the plant. Small openings in the canopy are included. c

Measured as “droop height” of leaves; the highest naturally growing portion of the plant. d

Cover should be composed of approximately 60% perennial grasses and 40% for forbs; percentage of canopy cover should be

substantially higher if most sagebrush has growth that provides little lateral cover (Schroeder 1995). Mesic sagebrush site

herbaceous cover should exceed 15% for perennial grasses and 10% for forbs.

e

Residual perennial grass canopy cover should equal or exceed 3% of the total vegetative cover. f

Percent of seasonal habitat for greater sage-grouse population needed with indicated conditions.

Sources: Connelly et al. 2000; Holloran 1999; Lyon 2000; Heath et al. 1997.

While greater sage-grouse generally return to traditional wintering areas before heavy snowfall, suitable 

winter habitats require sagebrush 10–14 inches above snow level with canopy covers that range from 10 

to 30 percent. Winter foraging areas tend to be gentle southwest facing slopes and windswept ridges, and 

roosting takes place in open, low sagebrush sites on clear, calm nights, and in taller shrubs with greater 

canopy cover during windy periods or during snowstorms. Greater sage-grouse will fly considerable 

distances (>5 miles) and elevations (>1,000 feet) between winter feeding sites and suitable snow roosting 

sites and burrow in deep powdery snow to conserve energy. During severe winters, the amount of 

suitable available winter habitat is greatly reduced. Severe winter habitat may or may not be considered 

crucial habitat. Some severe winter habitat may be essential and used to a great extent during severe 

winters, while others may only be used occasionally (WGFD 2003). Wintering grounds are potentially 

the most limiting seasonal habitat for greater sage-grouse (Lyon 2000). 

In February 2002, the Rock Springs BLM conducted aerial surveys (by helicopter) north of Rock Springs 

to obtain needed information on greater sage-grouse wintering areas. The survey area was chosen based 

on professional knowledge of BLM and WGFD biologists and information from previous studies such as 

Patterson (1952). Approximately 3,000 square miles were flown at low altitudes in a grid pattern to 

determine areas of winter use by greater sage-grouse. Approximately 2,758 birds were located. 

As a result of these surveys BLM, in coordination with the WGFD, delineated winter range for greater 

sage-grouse (Map 17). Winter range designation was based on new aerial locations, historical locations 

3-22 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 3 

of wintering greater sage-grouse, and vegetation characteristics derived from enhanced satellite images 

and professional knowledge of the area. For winter habitat characteristics, see Table 3-14. 

3.1.6.2.3 Raptors 

There are 20 different species of hawks, eagles, and owls that are nesting, assumed to be nesting, or that 

have the potential of nesting in the planning area (Map 17). Other species are wintering populations, 

migrants, or possible migrants. Approximately 70 percent of the planning area has been surveyed for 

nesting raptors. In 1979, about 40 percent of the planning area was surveyed for “special habitat 

features,” with most potential cliff-nesting habitat identified. A raptor inventory was conducted from 

1980 to 1981 by BLM biologists and survey crews to satisfy coal leasing suitability criteria. Raptor 

surveys are currently driven by specific development projects, and data are collected to determine raptor 

management conflicts. Raptor species commonly seen in the planning area and their respective habitats 

are shown in Table 3-15. 

Table 3-15. Raptor Species 

Common Name Scientific Name Habitat 

Prairie falcon Falco mexicanus Low rock outcroppings to tall vertical 

cliffs (Rock Springs Uplift, Steamboat 

Mountain) 

American kestrel Falco sparverius Dead snags, clay streambanks, rimrock 

Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis Low cliffs, buttes, tresses, on the 

ground, artificial nesting platforms, 

sheepherder monuments 

Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis Riparian zones and timbered areas 

Swainson’s hawk Buteo swainsoni Dry plains, open foothills, open forest, 

sparse trees, river bottoms 

Northern harrier Circus cyaneus Wetlands and open fields 

Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia Grasslands and mountain parks near 

prairie dog towns and steppes, deserts, 

and prairies 

Raven Corvus corax Mountains and deserts 

Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos Cliffs, ledges, pinnacles 

Great-horned owl Bubo virginianus Cliff holes, rock crevices, trees 

3.1.6.3 Aquatic Species 

Aquatic wildlife in the planning area is found primarily in the waterways that cross through the area. 

Coldwater game fish exist in some portions of the waterways except Jack Morrow Creek, which contains 

only nongame species. Amphibian species such as the Great Basin spadefoot toad (Spea intermontana), 

spotted frog (Rana pretiosa), and tiger salamander (Ambystoma tigrinum) are located within ponds, spring 

seeps, and permanent and temporary waters within the planning area. Ponds or lentic habitats, locally 

referred to as the dunal ponds or flockets, are found in the sand dunes region of the planning area. Table 

3-16 lists the waterways with fish life within the planning area. 

Table 3-16. Waterways and Fish Species 

Fish Species Sweetwater 

River

1 Harris 

Slough2 OregonSlough2 Pacific Creek2 

Jack 

Morrow 

Creek3 

Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) X 

Brown trout (Salmo trutta) X X 

Brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) X X X X 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 3-23 
Chapter 3 Final EIS 

Fish Species Sweetwater 

River

1 Harris 

Slough2 OregonSlough2 Pacific Creek2 

Jack 

Morrow 

Creek3 

Yellowstone cutthroat 

(Oncorhynchus clarki bouvieri) 

X 

Snake River cutthroat (Oncorhynchus 

clarki subspecies) 

X 

White sucker (Catostomus commersoni) X X X X 

Longnose sucker (Catostomus 

catostomus) 

X X 

Mountain sucker (Catostomus 

platyrhynchus) 

X X X 

Flannelmouth sucker (Catostomus 

latipinnis) 

X 

Creek chub (Semotilus atromaculatus) X X 

Lake chub (Couesius plumbeus) X X X X 

Longnose dace (Rhinichthys cataractae) X 

Fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas) X X X 

Redside shiner (Richarsonius balteatus) X X 

Speckled dace (Rhinichthys osculus) X X 

Utah chub (Gila atraria) X 1

WGFD Classification 3: Important trout water; fisheries of regional importance. 2

WGFD Classification 4: Low production trout waters; fisheries frequently of local importance but generally incapable of sustaining

substantial fishing pressure. 3

WGFD Classification 5: Very low production waters.

The Sweetwater River represents the highest-value coldwater fishery in the planning area, with water 

quality generally suitable for most other aquatic organisms. Overall quality tends to decline as 

conductivity, temperature, and turbidity levels progressively increase across the desert plains. Lack of 

full bank development and an adequate riparian shade canopy also result in a progressive deterioration of 

fish habitat downstream. 

The portion of Pacific Creek above state lands has brook trout and fair pool habitat. Spawning potential 

is limited, but bank protection and cover are better than in lower reaches of the creek, where bank 

instability, poor habitat, and high summer temperatures limit salmonid spawning. Sixty to 100 percent of 

the bottom is silted, making the lower reach most suited to cyprinids, which populate the lower half of the 

creek. 

Spring sources on Steamboat Mountain feed Jack Morrow Creek, which flows northwest to its confluence 

with Pacific Creek. Jack Morrow Creek is not suitable for salmonids because of low flows that only 

maintain pool habitat in the lower 10 miles, but it provides suitable habitat for nongame fish, mostly 

minnow species. 

Water flowing into the Green River Drainage is considered a direct contributor to the habitat for four 

endangered fish species in the upper Colorado River. Water flowing into the Platte River Drainage 

(including the Sweetwater River) is also considered a direct contributor to T&E species using the Platte 

River in Nebraska. Although no T&E aquatic species have been identified within drainages of the 

planning area, all water withdrawals from these tributaries are considered to adversely affect these species 

and require ESA Section 7 consultation with the USFWS. Water depletions and their effect on protected 

species are discussed in the Biological Assessment (Appendix 3). 

3-24 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 3 

3.1.6.4 Reptiles 

Reptile species within the planning area are primarily located among rocky outcrops, cliffs, and boulders. 

Species include the short-horned lizard (Phrynosoma douglassii) and sagebrush lizard (Sceloporus 

graciosus). 

3.1.6.5 Special Status Wildlife Species 

Special status wildlife species include species federally listed as T&E, proposed for listing, or candidates 

for listing under the ESA. They also include species designated by each BLM State Director as sensitive 

and those listed or proposed for listing by a state in a category implying potential endangerment or 

extinction. BLM is mandated to protect and manage threatened, endangered, candidate, proposed, and 

sensitive wildlife species and their habitat. BLM is also required to protect and manage sensitive species 

jointly identified with the appropriate state agency. The State of Wyoming does not have an official list 

of sensitive, threatened, or endangered wildlife species. 

3.1.6.5.1 Federal Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species 

Two wildlife species protected by the ESA have the potential to occur within the planning area. These 

species are listed in Table 3-17 and described further in the Biological Assessment (Appendix 3). 

Table 3-17. Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Wildlife Species that May Occur in

the Planning Area 

Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status Occurrence in Planning Area 

Bald eagle Haliaeetus 

leucocephaulus 

Threatened Casual migrant 

Black-footed ferret Mustela nigripes Endangered Historical sightings and 

potential habitat exists 

Western population 

yellow-billed 

cuckoo 

Coccyzus americanus Candidate Unknown 

Gray wolf Canis lupus Nonessential 

Experimental 

Population 

Historical occupancy and two 

recent confirmed sightings 

(Moody, WGFD 2003) 

Grizzly bear Ursus arctos horribilis Threatened Historical occurrence 

Source: USFWS, Jack Morrow Hills Updated Species List, January 2, 2002 

Bald eagles are found primarily along rivers and inland lakes, where their nests are usually located in 

large coniferous or deciduous trees. Streams and rivers with trees, especially conifers, are uncommon to 

nonexistent in the planning area. The bald eagle is classified as a casual migrant in the planning area and 

has been observed feeding on carrion near Pacific Butte and Jack Morrow Creek. Currently the only 

known active bald eagle nesting site near the planning area is on the Green River on Seedskadee National 

Wildlife Refuge. Bald eagles are known to occupy winter roosts in the cottonwood trees in the 

communities of Farson and Eden on private lands. 

Historical documentation indicates the presence of black-footed ferrets in the Farson/Eden area adjacent 

to the planning area as late as 1984. Other areas where ferrets are presumed to have occurred are Sublette 

Flats, Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge, and the Red Desert. Potential areas of ferret habitat can be 

delineated because of their association with prairie dogs and prairie dog colonies. Few formal surveys 

and inventories of prairie dogs have been conducted in the planning area. 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 3-25 
Chapter 3 Final EIS 

Whooping cranes from the Gray’s Lake flock were observed in the Rock Springs Field Office area in the 

late 1980s and early 1990s. In 1986, a lone whooping crane was observed on several occasions near 

Farson. The USFWS captured the bird to be used for mating with the Gray’s Lake flock. During the 

summers of 1987 and 1988, a pair of whooping cranes were observed near Farson in crop fields and 

wetlands. Two observations of whooping cranes were made along Pacific Creek wetlands in 1991 and 

1992. There have been no observations of whooping cranes in western Wyoming since 1992 and the last 

bird of the Gray’s lake flock is believed to have died. The bird is now considered extirpated from western 

Wyoming (FWS 2003). 

The western population of yellow-billed cuckoo inhabits open, streamside deciduous woodland with low 

scrubby vegetation and generally prefers cottonwood stands for foraging and willow thickets for nesting. 

This type of habitat does not exist within the planning area, which has no cottonwoods and only small 

thickets of coyote willow near the Sweetwater River. Formal surveys have not been conducted, and no 

reported sightings of cuckoos have occurred within the planning area. 

The gray wolf historically occupied nearly all habitat types in North America including the planning area. 

Under current federal management by the USFWS, any wolves occurring in the planning area would be 

removed if they cause conflicts with other land management activities. 

The grizzly bear historically inhabited the planning area around the Sweetwater River and Pacific Creek 

as reported in historical journals (Dorn). Under current federal (USFWS) and state (WGFD) management, 

any grizzly bears found in the planning area would be removed if they cause conflicts with other land 

management activities. 

3.1.6.5.2 Wyoming BLM Sensitive Wildlife Species

 Similar to the discussion of BLM sensitive plant species, the IM also lists Wyoming BLM sensitive 

wildlife species and management policy. The policy emphasizes preventing the need to list species under 

the ESA, avoiding or minimizing adverse impacts, and addressing these species through planning and 

management activities. Table 3-18 lists the Wyoming BLM sensitive wildlife species that may inhabit 

the planning area. 

3-26 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 3 

Table 3-18. Wyoming BLM Sensitive Wildlife Species 

Common Name Scientific Name Habitat 

Mammals 

Long-eared myotis Myotis evotis Coniferous forests; roosts in caves, 

buildings, or mines near a body of water 

Fringed myotis Myotis thysanodes Elevations less than 7,500 feet in 

forests and shrublands 

Spotted bat Euderma maculatum Desert and coniferous habitats 

Townsend’s big-eared 

bat 

Corynorhinus townsendii Coniferous forest; desert shrubland 

Pygmy rabbit Brachylagus idahoensis Big, dense sagebrush 

White-tailed prairie dog Cynomys leucurus Plains 

Wyoming pocket gopher Thomomys clusius Dry ridgetops; gravelly, loose soil; 

greasewood 

Idaho pocket gopher Thomomys idahoensis Stony, shallow soil 

Swift fox Vulpes velox Shortgrass prairie 

Avian 

Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis Basin-prairie shrub, grassland, rock 

outcrops 

Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus Tall cliffs 

Greater sage-grouse Centrocercus urophasianus Basin-prairie shrub, mountain-foothill 

shrub 

Long-billed curlew Numenius americanus Grasslands, plains, foothills, wet 

meadows 

Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia Grasslands, basin-prairie shrub 

Sage thrasher Oreoscoptes montanus Basin-prairie shrub, mountain-foothill 

shrub 

Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus Basin-prairie shrub, mountain-foothill 

shrub 

Dwarf shrew Sorex nanus Mt foothills, shrub/grasslands, and 

greasewood flats 

Mountain plover Chadrius montanus Areas of low vegetation 

White-faced Ibis Plegadis chihi Marshes and wet meadows 

Brewer’s sparrow Spizella breweri Basin-prairie shrub 

Sage sparrow Amphispiza billineata Basin-prairie shrub, mountain-foothill 

shrub 

Fish 

Roundtail chub Gila robusta Colorado River drainage; mostly large 

rivers, streams, and lakes 

Bluehead sucker Catostomus discobolus Colorado River drainage; large rivers, 

streams, and lakes 

Flannelmouth sucker Catostomus latipinnis Colorado River drainage; large rivers, 

streams, and lakes 

Amphibians 

Great Basin spadefoot 

toad 

Spea intermontana Springs; seeps; permanent and, 

temporary waters 

Spotted frog Ranus pretiosa Ponds, sloughs, small streams 

Source: Wyoming BLM Sensitive Species Policy and List, IM No. WY-2001-040, April 9, 2001. 

3.1.6.6 Species of Concern 

The Wyoming Natural Diversity Database lists other wildlife species of concern that occur within the 

planning area (Appendix 11). These species are lacking formal federal or state status or protection but are 

potentially threatened within the ecosystem. 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 3-27 
Chapter 3 Final EIS 

3.2 HERITAGE RESOURCES 

Heritage resources are archaeological, historical, paleontological, and Native American items, places, or 

events considered important to a culture, community, tradition, religion, or science. Archaeological and 

historic resources are locations where human activity measurably altered the earth or left deposits of 

physical or biological remains. Examples of prehistoric resources include arrowheads and other stone 

tools and debris from tool making, fire hearths, hunting and gathering camp locations, Native American 

trails and rock art sites, whereas examples of historic resources include livestock tending camps, pioneer 

roads and trails, and homesteads. Paleontological resources include vertebrate, invertebrate, and plant 

fossils. Places of concern to Native Americans societies include religious ceremonial areas, sacred 

places, including burial grounds and other places essential for the preservation of Native American 

traditional cultures. 

The planning area is named after Jack Morrow, who had the reputation of being a common thief, 

swindler, and gunfighter. Although only limited formal cultural resources inventory has been conducted 

in the planning area, several significant resources and some important patterns of spatial distribution of 

archaeological resources have been identified (Map 64). Important historical resources and localities 

important to Native Americans have also been identified. 

Legislative mandates require that cultural resources be considered during all undertakings on BLM land 

and that proposed land uses initiated or authorized by BLM avoid inadvertent damage to federal and 

nonfederal cultural resources. Authority to protect heritage resource sites is prescribed by numerous 

legislative mandates (Section 1.6.5), of which the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, 

the Antiquities Act of 1906, the National Trails System Act of 1968, the American Indian Religious 

Freedom Act (AIRFA) of 1978, and the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA) of 1979 are a 

few of the key statutes. 

Furthermore, Section 110 of the NHPA requires federal agencies to take a proactive role in identifying, 

evaluating, and nominating historic places for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places 

(NRHP). Although funding for Section 110 work has been quite limited, the BLM has taken a number of 

steps to ensure proactive management such as identification, marking and interpretation of historic trails, 

designation of ACEC related to historic places including the South Pass National Historic Landscape 

ACEC and the White Mountain Petroglyphs ACEC, and identification of a number of places of concern 

to Native Americans and consultation with tribal representatives regarding those resources. 

BLM has also strengthened its ongoing partnerships with the Wyoming State Historic Preservation Office 

(SHPO), and with several Native American tribes, to improve its appreciation of the contextual 

framework within which historic properties are evaluated. Historic properties are identified by several 

means including consultations, historical literature review, and on-the-ground inventory. As historic 

properties are identified, they are integrated into the SHPO data set for future reference and consideration 

in planning processes. 

3.2.1 Historic Trails 

The National Park Service administers congressionally designated National Historic Trails found in the 

planning area (Map 64). However, management of federal lands containing congressionally recognized 

trails is left to those agencies that have jurisdiction over the lands on which the trails occur (in this case 

BLM). BLM approved the Oregon/Mormon Pioneer National Historic Trails Management Plan in 1986, 

which governs management of these resources. BLM is preparing a statewide National Historic Trails 

context study to help identify and manage significant historic trail resources. BLM is also in the process 

3-28 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 3 

of consulting with the SHPO and National Park Service concerning additional guidance for management 

of these resources. 

3.2.1.1 South Pass 

Beginning in the winter of 1812–1813, the South Pass, located in the northeastern part of the planning 

area (Map 64), “became indelibly written in the annals of American history” (Devoto 1943). The gradual 

ascent of South Pass from the east along the Sweetwater River provided a relatively easy route across the 

towering Rocky Mountains. South Pass would allow hundreds of thousands of emigrants to move from 

the nation’s eastern seaboard and central prairies to the fertile farmlands of western coastal valleys and 

rich hardrock mining bonanzas throughout the west. Historically, South Pass was used first by fur traders 

for easy entry into the river basins of the central Rocky Mountain region. Eventually over one-half 

million people and probably five times that many livestock traversed South Pass in their migration to the 

west coast. In 1959, Congress designated the South Pass National Historic Landmark in recognition of 

the importance of the pass to the pioneer migrations across the American west. 

3.2.1.2 Oregon and California Trails 

The drive to settle the Pacific Northwest and California would eventually give the United States an upper 

hand in control of territory claimed by the British Empire and the newly independent nation of Mexico. 

Beginning in 1838, people moved into Oregon to claim fertile farmlands in the Willamette Valley. 

Meddling in local political affairs by American citizens living in Mexico’s territory of Alta California 

soon resulted in California’s fall under the influence and eventual political domination of the United 

States. The discovery of gold near Sutter’s Fort in northern California and the resulting swarm of settlers 

during the gold rush of 1849 for all intents and purposes cemented California’s future as an American 

possession. The Oregon Trail and California Trail, which are located in the same corridor over South 

Pass and pass through about 20 miles of the planning area, were designated by Congress as National 

Historic Trails in 1978 and 1992, respectively. 

3.2.1.3 Mormon Pioneer Trail 

In 1847, pioneers of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, better known as Mormons, traveled 

over South Pass to settle in the valley of the Great Salt Lake in present-day Utah. This was the beginning 

of the migration of more than 70,000 Mormons and the colonization of the vast area that was to be known 

as Deseret. Eventually Mormons came to dominate the economy and politics of what would eventually 

become the states of Utah and Nevada, as well as significant portions of present-day Idaho, Wyoming, 

Arizona, and even California. The pioneer route of the Mormon Trail, used by Brigham Young’s initial 

party in 1847, was designated a National Historic Trail by Congress in 1978. Within the planning area, 

the Mormon Pioneer Trail is located in the corridor over South Pass. 

3.2.1.4 Pony Express Trail 

The Pony Express route was designated a National Historic Trail in 1992 in recognition of its 

significance, but more so because of the romance of this short-lived operation that carried the United 

States mail from settlements in the East to the west coast during the Civil War. This helped to preserve 

political control over western regions by the United States Government. Within the planning area, the 

Pony Express Trail is located in the corridor over South Pass. 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 3-29 
Chapter 3 Final EIS 

3.2.2 Native American Sites 

University of Wyoming professor emeritus George Frison (1971) postulates that pottery recovered from 

the Eden-Farson site (Section 3.2.4.3) was made by Shoshone people. It is known that several Native 

American tribes, in addition to the Shoshone, were also present in the region in the late 18th and early 

19th centuries, including the Ute, Bannock, Crow, Blackfoot, and to a degree the Arapaho. Tribes from 

the Northern Plains, Great Basin, and Columbia Plateau, as well as European Americans participated in 

fur trade rendezvous held along the Green River, located within 100 miles of the planning area. It is also 

likely that other groups, including Athapaskan-speaking ancestors of the modern-day Navajo and Apache 

people of the Southwest, passed through this region only a few hundred years before Europeans arrived in 

North America. 

The White Mountain Petroglyphs site, located in the southwest corner of the planning area, contains 

historic and prehistoric images carved into rock. Images of human figures in several different styles may 

indicate some time depth to the site, although all the rock art is thought to have been drawn in the past 

500 or so years (Tanner and Vlcek 1995) during what archaeologists call the Firehole Phase. Native 

American traditional elders have expressed interest in the White Mountain site and several other rock art 

locations in the greater Killpecker Creek area. At the request of tribal elders, the exact locations of 

sensitive Native American sites and the religious practices they may represent are kept confidential to 

protect them. 

Several times during consultations, both tribal councils and elders pointed out the importance of wildlife, 

especially elk in the Jack Morrow Hills area. The time depth of Native American appreciation of the 

Steamboat elk herd seems evident at White Mountain Petroglyphs. A number of renditions of elk are 

depicted in an amplified scale compared to warriors on horseback, bison, tipis and other features. The 

fact that these drawings of elk are very detailed, and that they are roughly five times larger than people 

and other animals depicted at the site, reinforces the contention by modern Native Americans that the 

Steamboat elk herd has long been important to Native American people of the area. 

The unique setting of mountain vistas, volcanic cones, and flat top mesas against a backdrop of white 

drifting sand dunes provides a spiritual experience for Native Americans. Several areas are identified as 

having landscape characteristics that typically are associated with respected sites. Although these areas 

have been roughly delineated, no attempt has been made to identify specific sites that may be of concern 

to traditional Native American peoples. Traditional elders have expressed interest in several landforms, 

including Killpecker Sand Dunes, Steamboat Mountain, Steamboat Rim, White Mountain Rim, Essex 

Mountain, Monument Ridge, and Boars Tusk within the planning area; the North and South Table 

Mountains and the Leucite Hills immediately to the south of the planning area; and Pilot Butte west of the 

planning area. Consultation visits with traditional elders indicate that these landmarks and the landscape 

vista of which they are a part are associated with the physical remains of a number of respected places 

associated with Native American religious practices. 

The term “respected places” was first used by a Shoshone source to describe places that are of interest to 

individual tribal members and should be respected by them. These places are not high profile places but 

rather are often simply a few rocks in a pile on a ridge, or something similar. The term can also 

encompass a broad range of physical features including stone cairns, alignments such as medicine wheels, 

and rock art sites. For some Shoshone, the term “respected place” would apply to any place with any 

evidence of ancient habitation. A respected place may indicate where a single Native American, at some 

time in the distant past, may have made a prayer or an offering, or it may mark the place of a significant 

event in this individual’s life. Respected places, therefore, are not always significant to the entire tribe; 

however, upon seeing the feature, tribal members would respect the place because it was important to the 

individual who created it. Some relationship of these features to natural landscapes such as mesas is 

3-30 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 3 

recognized by Native American sources but the precise nature of this association is presently not well 

understood. Research is continuing into these connections between culture and landscape. 

Many respected places known to the BLM are not identified in the JMH CAP because they are often very 

small, inconspicuous features and are extremely vulnerable to destruction. These places are therefore 

identified by BLM specialists only on a need-to-know basis when they are near a proposed BLM action. 

In these cases, BLM consults with tribal representatives and often takes steps to protect these locations 

even though they often would not qualify for the NRHP under any of the criteria in NRHP guidelines, as 

sacred sites under the AIRFA, or under the provisions of the much less defined terms in E.O. 13007. 

Consultation with the Wyoming State Historic Preservation Officer indicates that there is not enough 

information to determine which of these respected places may be NRHP eligible Traditional Cultural 

Places (TCP) or sacred sites as defined under AIRFA and E.O. 13007. TCPs are properties associated 

with cultural practices or beliefs of a living community that are rooted in that community’s history and 

are important in maintaining the continuing cultural identity of the community (USDI, 1998c). Even 

though some of these sites may not qualify as TCPs, BLM believes they do qualify for the National 

Register under Criteria A, because their apparent antiquity and complexity indicate a level of “association 

with events, activities, or patterns” important in American history. These sites also often contain huge 

amounts of information regarding Native American cultures, and therefore BLM believes they also 

qualify for the NRHP under Criteria D. The BLM has conducted considerable research into these issues 

over the past 15 years, and this historical information has been presented in several forums including 

academic publications and conference papers. 

Sacred sites are specific, discrete, narrowly delineated locations on federal land that are identified by a 

Native American tribe, or Native American individual determined to be an appropriately authoritative 

representative of a Native American religion, as sacred by virtue of their established religious significance 

to, or ceremonial use by, a Native American religion. E.O. 13007 requires that the tribe, or the 

authoritative tribal representative, inform the federal agency of the importance of the site. This guidance 

generally requires a location to have some degree of ongoing use over time by more than a few Native 

peoples; therefore, the identification of a feature as having possibly been used by an individual or even a 

family at some time in the past probably does not qualify the place as a sacred site. Nearly all of the sites 

described in this section, and otherwise known in the planning area, were identified first by BLM 

archaeologists or consulting archaeologists who made Native Americans aware of them. The net effect 

has been that tribal authorities are now aware of specific places that associate with places known only 

vaguely from tribal traditions and oral history and most important tribes are now using these places in 

their attempts to revitalize their culture and religions and to increase the self-esteem of tribal young 

people. 

3.2.2.1 Indian Gap 

A site of concern to traditional Native American elders is the historic Native American Trail between the 

Ute Reservation in Utah and the Eastern Shoshone Reservation in the Wind River Basin. The name 

“Indian Gap Trail” was derived from the gap between Essex Mountain and Steamboat Mountain through 

which the trail passes. The precise antiquity of the trail is unknown, but historical records show the trail 

on the 1884 General Land Office plat for the area known as Indian Gap, and it is mentioned by a Native 

American historian as having been used until about 1906. Another source advised that Shoshone traveled 

the trail to haul coal from Rock Springs to their reservation at Fort Washakie in the early years of the 20th 

century. The Indian Gap Trail is a significant historic resource and may or may not also be a Traditional 

Cultural Property. To date, aerial reconnaissance has revealed a potential route of the trail; however, the 

route has not been verified on the ground, nor has it been mapped. 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 3-31 
Chapter 3 Final EIS 

3.2.2.2 Native American Consultation 

The AIRFA and the NHPA are procedural statutes requiring agency officials to take into account 

concerns of Native Americans regarding management of places of concern for religious, cultural, or 

historical reasons. These laws encourage a proactive consultation process between agency officials and 

Native American representatives. However, the legislation also recognizes that agency officials will not 

always be able to completely accommodate the wishes of Native American peoples. 

The intent of consultation efforts is to foster respectful discussion aimed at resolving potential conflicts 

by avoiding areas of concern or by developing mitigation strategies that will lessen adverse effects to the 

extent possible. Both the AIRFA and the NHPA recognize that total avoidance of areas of concern will 

not always be possible; however, the laws and their implementing regulations encourage federal agencies 

to accommodate the needs of Native American peoples, especially where religious practices are 

concerned, to the extent possible without violating existing laws, regulations, and other preexisting 

mandates. While the BLM acknowledges the requirement to consult with tribes, it is also incumbent 

upon tribal representatives to bring places of concern to the attention of BLM officials. 

Native American consultation with tribal elders is appropriate when identifying resources that may be 

important to tribal people represented by those elders. Consultation efforts have developed between the 

tribal governments of the Eastern Shoshone Nation, Uintah-Ouray bands of the Northern Ute Tribe, 

Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, and Northern Arapaho Tribe and the BLM Rock Springs Field Office. In 

some cases other tribal entities may also be involved in consultation with BLM. 

BLM specialists have done extensive historical, ethnographic, and archaeological research into the Native 

peoples who occupied the Green River Basin in the past 10,000 plus years to identify the appropriate 

tribes to consult. Naturally, knowledge of more recent (e.g., the protohistoric period) human habitation of 

the area is far more developed than the understanding of prehistoric times. 

This research indicates that three of the four tribes BLM consults with most extensively (e.g., the UteAztecan-speaking Eastern Shoshone, Shoshone-Bannock, and Ute) have the greatest time depth in this 

region. The Northern Arapaho are known to have been in the area on a less continual basis for some time 

but not to have had the high degree of affinity with the area that the Shoshonean groups had. 

Since at least the mid-nineteenth century, the Arapaho have been in the area and they are known to have 

contested to some degree with the Shoshone groups for control of the area. It is expected that Arapaho 

use of the area increased after they came to the Wind River Reservation in 1878. Before that time there 

was occasional Arapaho presence in the area often times for the purpose of raiding and warring with the 

Shoshone. The Arapaho presence in the JMH CAP planning area was likely never as strong or 

continuous as the Shoshone groups. 

The Crow similarly contested for this area to some degree over many years in the past. The Crow also 

were integral partners in a cursorily documented trade relationship with the Shoshone groups. Indeed, 

many historians and anthropologists suggest a trading network covering the entire American West. Most 

believe a central foci of this network was centered in the Green River Basin where Ute (and later 

Comanche) traders brought horses acquired in the Southwest to trade with their Shoshone cousins who in 

turn traded them with Crow intermediaries who eventually traded with Mandan, Hidatsa, and other 

Lakota groups in the Missouri River Basin to the Northeast. At no time is it believed that the Crow had an 

extensive and permanent presence in the Green River Basin. The Crow, it could be argued, did have a 

considerably greater affinity with the Wind River-Big Horn Basin regions to the north where they 

contested for control of the area with the Shoshone and perhaps other groups, including at times the 

Blackfeet. 

3-32 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 3 

Likewise, the Blackfeet were present at times in the Green River Basin, sometimes trading, but more 

often warring with Shoshone occupants of the region. The Blackfeet presence in the area is probably 

somewhat earlier than extensive Crow presence. The Blackfeet are known to have been involved in the 

fur trade early in the eighteenth century, and at times they traded, especially for horses, with Shoshone. 

At that time and well into the nineteenth century there was much raiding among tribes across the West, 

mostly in quest for horses and all the power (real and ideological) that horses brought to the Plains Indian 

and Columbia Plateau cultures, which reached their zenith in the nineteenth century. 

Between 1824 and 1840, EuroAmerican fur traders connected with the probably already long established 

trade network, and the famous fur trade rendezvous developed. Much of the fur trade during those years 

was centered in the Green River Basin attracting members of numerous tribes to the region for varying 

durations. Participants in the fur trade included individuals from almost every tribe in the American (and 

indeed Canadian) West. If anything, the tribes of the Columbia Plateau (Nez Perce, Flathead, Cayuse, et 

al.) were more strongly represented in this process than most of the Plains tribes (e.g., Cheyenne, 

Arapaho, and Lakota). The Blackfeet, while present, were probably represented somewhat less than the 

Plateau groups, the Crow, and the resident Shoshone societies. 

These many other groups’ presence in the Green River Basin was never permanent and each group always 

maintained stronger affinity with other regions of the West. Based on this knowledge, the BLM offices in 

the Green River Basin consult most extensively with the Eastern Shoshone, Shoshone-Bannock, Ute, and 

Arapaho tribes that BLM believes had substantial historic occupancy of the region. According to BLM 

guidance, tribes that had a “short-term or transitory use of the lands” (i.e., the Green River Basin) are not 

to be the primary focus of consultation efforts. Nonetheless, efforts have been made to reach out to other 

groups such as the Medicine Wheel Alliance. 

The Comanche have long been recognized as closely related to the Eastern Shoshone, but only recently 

has the continuity of their presence in the Green River Basin been identified. This recognition resulted 

from BLM-initiated investigations of a rock art site in the Rock Springs Field Office area, though some 

25 miles south of the JMH CAP planning area. When the level of Comanche presence in the area and the 

potential for Comanche sites in the area were recognized (in 2001), the BLM began to invite them to 

participate in consultation processes more often. Unfortunately, their present-day location in Oklahoma 

may somewhat limit their participation in these processes. This is partly because departmental policy 

does not allow the BLM to financially assist tribal representatives in participating in the consultation 

process. Efforts are being made, however, to have more ethnographic studies completed in the Green 

River Basin, and BLM anticipates involving the Comanche in these studies. 

3.2.3 Paleontological and Archaeological Resources 

The limited inventory of the planning area has identified approximately 1,000 cultural resources localities 

within the region, estimated to represent 2 percent of potential localities in the region. Despite this, some 

important patterns of resource distribution are apparent, particularly for archaeological sites. 

The BLM manages paleontological resources for their scientific, educational, and recreational values and 

mitigates adverse impacts to them as necessary. In general, it is permissible to collect reasonable amounts 

of common invertebrate fossils from the public lands for non-commercial purposes, and to collect limited 

amounts of petrified wood as outlined in 43 CFR 3622. The Department of the Interior has 

administratively determined that the collection of vertebrate fossils requires a permit. Paleontological 

permits are issued under the authority of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), and 

such permits are generally issued only to qualified paleontologists. The Tertiary volcanic and the preCambrian igneous rocks have no potential for paleontological resources. The sand dunes and alluvial 

deposits in the planning area are unlikely to contain fossils because of their recent age. Common 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 3-33 
Chapter 3 Final EIS 

invertebrate fossils (clams, etc.) are known to occur in the Cretaceous rocks of the Rock Springs Uplift, 

and scattered fragments of dinosaur fossils have been found in the Lance Formation on the Rock Springs 

Uplift (Breithaupt 1982). These rock formations are found at the southern edge of the JMH CAP 

planning area and have a similar fossil potential. Vertebrate fossils are known to occur in the Fort Union 

and the Wasatch formations around Bitter Creek, Wyoming. The American Museum of Natural History, 

the University of Colorado, and other institutions have collected numerous primate and other small 

mammal fossils from these formations. The Fort Union Formation has some potential for fossils but is 

largely buried under the sand dunes within the planning area. The Wasatch Formation composes much of 

the lower elevations within the planning area; it may have some potential for fossil occurrences. The 

Tipton Shale Member (Green River Formation) has a persistent layer of freshwater snails at its base 

(Goniobasis and Viviparus) and fossils may be present elsewhere in the planning area. 

3.2.3.1 Paleosol Deposition Area 

A region of soil deposition, known as the paleosol deposition area, dating back over ten thousand years to 

the end of the Pleistocene Ice Age occurs in the western portion of the planning area. Indications suggest 

that this depositional pattern may also extend across the southern edge of the planning area along the 

flanks of the Killpecker sand dune field, as well as along the Pacific Creek drainage basin in the northern 

part of the planning area. A number of extremely significant archaeological resources, including the 

Finley and Krmpotich sites, are located here. Because the soil unit occurs across broad regions of the 

planning area, similar sites of great antiquity and scientific significance should be expected where this 

stable soil regime is preserved. 

The Finley and Krmpotich archaeological sites are not typical of archaeological sites in this region. They 

hold cultural evidence from some of the earliest inhabitants of the North American continent and are 

some of the most intact manifestations of such archaeological evidence known anywhere on the continent 

(Frison 1998). Many of these sites are deeply buried and have little if any surface manifestation. An 

array of archaeological methodologies will need to be implemented if resources like Finley and 

Krmpotich are to be located before they are impacted by development. Unless scientists 

(geomorphologists and archaeologists) understand the genesis of the Killpecker dune field and the broad 

ancient soil deposit associated with it, they will never be able to fully understand its significance, much 

less that of the archaeological material it contains. Predicting the location of archaeological remains 

within these deposits is beyond the grasp of science at the present time. 

The protohistoric Eden-Farson site is another kind of archaeological manifestation observed in the 

planning area. The site sits on top of the stable soil deposit in the area where the Finley and Krmpotich 

sites are located, rather than being buried within those soils. The Eden-Farson site contains 

archaeological evidence of a large hunter-gatherer winter encampment, including remains of winter 

shelters, pottery, and a wide array of stone tools and bones from antelope that were apparently a major 

portion of the winter food supply. 

Radiocarbon dates from the Eden-Farson site indicate that the site was probably occupied immediately 

before Euro-Americans first came into direct contact with Native Americans in this region (about 200 to 

300 years ago). No Euro-American artifacts were recovered from the Eden-Farson site. It is assumed 

that direct contact between Native American and Euro-American cultures had not occurred in this region 

at the time the Eden-Farson site was occupied. However, journals (Morgan 1964) from early EuroAmerican traders, including William Ashley’s men, especially Jedediah Smith, mention the presence of 

two large Native American encampments in this region. Smith identifies one camp as Crow and the other 

as Shoshone. 

3-34 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 3 

3.2.3.2 Archaic Sites 

The planning area also has a number of archaeological sites that are younger than the PaleoIndian-aged 

Finley and Krmpotich sites. “Archaic” sites ranging from 2,000 to 7,000 years in age are known to occur 

in the region. The CK Adams site, as an example, contains a series of archaeological manifestations that 

were located both on the surface and buried in stratigraphic contexts. A limited excavation of the site was 

undertaken to salvage several hearth features that were rapidly eroding and to test the area for in-place 

buried materials. Because the effort was undertaken in an emergency situation, BLM has not fully 

studied and reported the results of the effort. The state archaeologist who conducted part of the salvage 

reported his results, which are due to be published in the near future (Miller 1998). 

Perhaps the most important information gleaned from the CK Adams site is that stratified sites dating 

from the late prehistoric period through the archaic period should be expected in the Pacific Creek 

drainage basin. This portion of the planning area contains buried soils that are being crosscut by modern 

drainage channels, including Pacific Creek, resulting in the exposure of archaeological manifestations. 

The stable soil deposit in the Pacific Creek basin seems somehow associated with the Killpecker dune 

field, but the nature of that association is not fully understood. However, although sites along Pacific 

Creek do hold archaeological deposits dating back 7,000 years, they do not appear from present evidence 

to have PaleoIndian deposits (i.e., from 7,000 to 12,000 years before present). Because stratified deposits 

are the best source of information about changes in human behavior over long periods of time, sites like 

the CK Adams site are quite significant. 

3.2.4 Other Cultural and Historical Resources 

3.2.4.1 South Pass National Historic Landmark and South Pass Historic Landscape 

The significance of South Pass in the development of the United States as a nation was cause for 

designation as a National Historic Landmark in 1959. Upon its designation, no attempt was made to 

designate precise boundaries for the landmark. 

In 1984, the National Park Service proposed a boundary encompassing approximately 5,500 acres, of 

which nearly 1,000 acres were privately owned. Local landowners, fearing the preservation mandate of 

the National Park Service, protested the proposal, which eventually was not pursued by that agency. It 

was then up to BLM to develop management prescriptions designed to protect the South Pass National 

Historic Landmark, which lies within its land management jurisdiction. 

To ensure that the intent of the Congressional National Historic Landmark designation was not 

compromised, BLM developed the South Pass Historic Landscape within the Green River Resource 

Management Plan (GRRMP) (USDI 1997). The management objective for the South Pass Historic 

Landscape is to protect the visual and historical integrity of the historic trails and surrounding viewscape. 

Management prescriptions for the South Pass Historic Landscape ACEC prohibit development that would 

be visible within 3 miles of the historic trails corridor. A Geographic Information System (GIS) analysis 

of the vista indicates that within an arbitrary 3-mile distance from the main National Historic Trail 

corridor, about 23,000 acres are visible from the trails, while about 29,000 acres are shielded from view 

by topography. 

It is anticipated that refinements in viewshed modeling technology, and additional knowledge regarding 

historic trail locations may change the configuration and acreage of the South Pass Historic Landscape 

somewhat. As these refinements are identified, the information would be included in the GRRMP 

through maintenance actions. Boundary adjustments other than refinements or minor adjustments would 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 3-35 
Chapter 3 Final EIS 

require further analysis and if necessary an amendment of the ACEC boundary and management plan (for 

example, a net change of more than 10 percent [e.g., 5,000 acres]). 

3.2.4.2 South Pass Historic Mining Region 

Immediately following the Civil War, a rather significant discovery of gold was made in the South Pass 

region. By 1869, hundreds of prospectors had converged on the area and several small communities had 

been developed. The most important of the settlements was South Pass City, which today is a State 

Historical Park. Because the transcontinental railroad had just been completed between Omaha, 

Nebraska, and Sacramento, California, commerce with the new gold fields could be linked with the larger 

national economy much more easily than for the earlier historic trails network. This certainly did not 

mean, however, that wagon roads were obsolete. A network of roads soon developed to connect railheads 

on the Union Pacific Railroad in southern Wyoming within the South Pass region. South Pass City is 

located a few miles east of the planning area, but some historic resources associated with mining activity 

and community development, such as roads, are located in the JMH CAP planning area. 

3.2.4.3 Expansion Era Roads 

By 1870, roads to the gold fields had been started from three railheads on the Union Pacific: Point of 

Rocks, Green River, and Bryan. These became known as Expansion Era roads, linking communities 

along the railroad with newly developing mining, agricultural, and military settlements in the central 

Rocky Mountains (Map 64). Remnants of the three Expansion Era roads to the South Pass region cross 

the planning area, as do roads to ranching communities (such as New Fork in the upper Green River 

Basin). Expansion Era roads also run through the planning area from Rock Springs to military posts 

established to administer the Wind River Indian Reservation. Several stage stations and freighter’s camp 

locations associated with these Expansion Era roads are known, including Freighter’s Gap, Fourteen Mile, 

and The Wells within the planning area. Although the general routes of the Expansion Era roads are 

known, and some are marked on General Land Office plats, the physical integrity and historical 

significance of these resources have generally not been evaluated. 

3.2.4.4 Ranching-Related Historic Sites 

Soon after the Expansion Era road network began to develop, cattle and sheep ranching became important 

to the region’s economy. Several early ranching-related historic sites are located within the planning 

area. The best-preserved ranching-related site on BLM-administered public lands is the Crookston 

Ranch, which includes several historic structures. The Green River RMP designates this site for special 

management for the interpretation of the region’s ranching history. Numerous other less impressive sites 

related to the history of pastoral agriculture, including small, mostly unsuccessful homesteaders sites; 

sheepherder camps and shearing corrals; horse trapping facilities; and irrigation systems to support 

production of wild grass hay, are represented in the planning area. However, the most ubiquitous 

agricultural-related site is the common sheepherder or cowboy campsite, which today consists of only a 

small scattering of historic artifacts across the landscape. 

3.2.4.5 The Tri-Territory Marker 

The Tri-Territory Marker is located on the northeast side of Steamboat Mountain within the core area of 

the JMH CAP planning area. This monument marks the site where the Oregon Territory, Mexican 

Territory, and the Louisiana Purchase had a common boundary in the nineteenth century. A modern 

structure marks the site, commemorating its important national historical geographical location within 

Wyoming. The marker was placed and is maintained by the Rock Springs Kiwanis Club in cooperation 

with BLM. BLM has received a number of requests for information about this location, and it should be 

3-36 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 3 

more strongly integrated into the Rock Springs Field Office cultural and recreation management 

programs. 

3.2.5 Unique Geological Features 

Boars Tusk, located in the southwest portion of the planning area, is the remnant of a volcanic neck. 

Boars Tusk is a predominant landmark feature providing a striking visual contrast to the surrounding 

landscape. The Boars Tusk is located within the Greater Sand Dunes ACEC. Management actions 

identified for Boars Tusk in the Green River RMP are summarized in Appendix 2. 

The Pinnacles are a well-known natural landmark of the Red Desert. Geologically, the Pinnacles are 

formations that are unique to this area because of their pyramid-like structure. The many small geologic 

microsites that are found in the area consist of small sandstone structures, volcanic intrusive dikes, 

badland, and windblown-type features. The Pinnacles themselves are nesting grounds for the ferruginous 

hawk. Antelope, elk, deer, and wild horses can also be found in the area. Recreational opportunities 

include big game hunting, rock hounding, camping, and hiking. 

3.3 TRAVEL, ACCESS, AND REALTY 

This resource management category includes the land use programs of transportation, off-highway 

vehicle (OHV) use, lands and realty management, rights-of-way (ROW), access routes and issues, and 

transport of hazardous materials. 

3.3.1 Travel Management 

Travel management includes the description of the existing roads and trails network to and through the 

JMH CAP planning area and the planning for manageable transportation routes. 

3.3.1.1 Existing Network 

The existing transportation network within the planning area is shown on Map 65. The network includes 

state, county, and BLM access roads. Historic and current uses of the roads have been primarily by 

livestock operators, recreationists, and mineral developers. Numerous trails and tracks cross the planning 

area and are referred to as census track trails. These trails are from remote sensing data files and have not 

been verified as to status. They are inaccessible to vehicular use, and they can include wildlife trails, 

access roads to wellheads, and pipeline or communication ROWs. 

The primary paved access routes to the JMH CAP planning area are U.S. Highway 191 and Wyoming 

Highway 28. Unpaved county roads off the two main highways to the planning area include Superior 

Cutoff Road, Eden area roads, Chilton Road, Freighter Gap Road, Bar X Road, Oregon Buttes Road, and 

Nine Mile Road. Tri-Territory Road, a BLM road, also provides access to the planning area. Most of 

these roads have some degree of gravel or aggregate surface and are periodically maintained, but they can 

become impassable when wet or during winter months. County roads are maintained, but generally there 

is no snow removal during winter. 

County roads provide public access across private land, whereas BLM roads or other roads that cross 

private lands may not provide such access. Although BLM roads are administered by a public agency and 

are open to use by the general public, they are not public roads, and permission is needed to cross private 

lands. 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 3-37 
Chapter 3 Final EIS 

3.3.1.2 Transportation Planning 

Transportation planning involves the reasoned and organized development of a plan that provides access 

to the planning area for multiple uses, including recreation, mineral development, and livestock 

operations. Transportation planning provides direction for future road development and a basis for future 

exploration, development, and production transportation activities. The transportation planning area 

includes U.S. Highway 191; Wyoming Highway 28; and county, BLM, and undeveloped roads and routes 

within and adjacent to the area. 

Roads are classified according to ownership, use, size, and traffic volume. These classifications, listed in 

Table 3-19, are used in the development of a transportation plan, particularly for well field development. 

Table 3-19. Road Classifications 

Arterial 

State highways or county roads 

Provides primary access 

High-traffic volume 

Collector 

BLM roads 

Connects with public road system 

Provides access to large blocks of land 

Accommodates mixed traffic and serves many uses 

High-traffic volume within BLM road system 

Local 

BLM roads or industry/operator roads on BLM-administered lands 

Connects with collector roads of public road system 

One- or two-lane roads 

Provides access to multiple well locations 

Accommodates fewer traffic types and serves fewer users 

Low-traffic volume 

Resource 

BLM roads or industry/operator roads on BLM-administered lands 

Connects with local roads or collector roads 

One-lane spur roads 

Provides access to the individual well location 

Accommodates and serves industry/operator users 

Low-traffic volume 

A draft transportation plan for the JMH CAP planning area proposes specific access and travel routes in 

areas of particular concern as a result of anticipated development and use (Appendix 12). Road and ROW 

corridors and transportation standards would be described in a technical support document for specific 

projects occurring within these areas. The criteria to be considered in transportation planning include 

existing access rights, coordination with other jurisdictions (i.e., counties and state), seasonal limitations, 

and location of sensitive resources including Native American respected places and T&E species. 

3.3.2 Off-Highway Use 

E.O.s 11644 and 11989 and the regulations contained in 43 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 8340 

provide the parameters for the management of OHV activities on public lands. The objectives of these 

regulations are to conserve soil, wildlife, water quality, native vegetation, air quality, and heritage 

resources while providing for appropriate recreational opportunities and promoting the safety of all users. 

The use of OHVs on BLM lands has increased in popularity in recent years and accounts for 

approximately 17,000 annual recreation visitor days in the JMH CAP planning area. Recreationists, 

3-38 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 3 

hunters, livestock operators, and oil and gas surveyors and inspection crews account for the majority of 

OHV users in the planning area. The Greater Sand Dunes Recreation Area, located within the eastern 

portion of the Greater Sand Dunes Special Recreation Management Area (SRMA), provides more than 

10,000 acres of open area for OHV users. 

Off-highway access is designated to protect resources and the landscape from damage, to ensure public 

safety, and to minimize conflict among users. The three main designations are “open,” “limited,” or 

“closed” to OHV use and are described in Table 3-20. Designations are made through the land use 

planning process and are updated and revised as necessary to meet resource management objectives and 

to mitigate OHV-related impacts. 

Table 3-20. OHV Use Designations 

Designation Use 

Open 

Area of intensive OHV use with no resource, user, or public safety conflicts 

Vehicle travel permitted both on and off roads 

Vehicle must be operated responsibly and must not cause significant damage to 

resources or to other authorized uses of public land 

Limited 

Restricted OHV use to meet specific resource management objectives 

Vehicle travel permitted only on existing roads and trails in existence prior to the 

designation 

Vehicle travel permitted only on designated roads and trails that are identified, 

signed, and mapped by BLM 

Vehicle travel limited by the number and type of vehicle 

Vehicle travel limited by time or season 

Vehicle travel limited to licensed or permitted use 

Closed 

Prohibited OHV use to protect resources, ensure visitor safety, or reduce conflicts 

Vehicle travel not allowed both on or off roads and trails 

Access by nonmotorized vehicle is generally allowed 

The limited designation allows for parking within 300 feet from the edge of the road surface to 

accommodate recreationists, provided no damage occurs to the resources or hazard is imposed on public 

safety. Motorized vehicle use within 300 feet of roads and trails is also allowed to retrieve big game and 

trophy game animal kills. 

The OHV use designations for the JMH CAP planning area were made in the Green River RMP (Map 9). 

The WSAs, Boars Tusk, and Crookston Ranch are closed to OHV use. Official designations for the areas 

identified as limited to designated roads and trails would be completed through site-specific activity 

planning with public input. Until that designation is completed, the areas are managed as limited to 

existing roads and trails. 

3.3.3 Access and Realty Actions 

The BLM road network in the JMH CAP planning area provides access to public and private lands for 

different management activities and recreation. It is BLM policy to provide reasonable access to public 

facilities and resources to meet the needs of private landowners, visitors, and users, including those with 

disabilities, while minimizing conflicts among users, promoting visitor safety, and preventing damage to 

resources. 

Livestock operators use the many two-track roads and trails within the planning area to access water 

developments and other range improvements; recreationists use the routes for hiking, camping, hunting, 

sightseeing, rockhounding, and wildlife and wild horse viewing. Some existing roads are not passable 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 3-39 
Chapter 3 Final EIS 

during inclement weather or during winter months. Consequently winter access is subject to seasonal 

road closures, and plowing of these roads is considered only on a case-by-case basis. Access is also 

subject to non-weather-related seasonal closures to protect resources during more sensitive times of the 

year, including birthing and wintering. 

3.3.3.1 Rights-of-Way 

A ROW grants the use of a specific piece of public land for specific facilities for a specific period of time. 

It is the policy of BLM to authorize all ROW applications at the discretion of the authorized officer in the 

most efficient and economic manner possible. The majority of ROWs are authorized under Title V of the 

FLPMA and the Mineral Leasing Act. The ROWs under FLPMA are for structures, pipelines, and 

facilities to store and transport water, electrical power, communication systems, and solid materials, and 

for highways, roads, railroads, and other means of transportation. Under the Mineral Leasing Act, ROWs 

are granted for oil and natural gas gathering, distribution, and transmission pipelines and related facilities. 

Management objectives address the designation of ROW corridors for public lands that currently 

accommodate existing authorized ROWs consistent with natural resource planning decisions. The realty 

program in the JMH CAP planning area is driven by the local mineral industry, and the majority of the 

ROWs issued are in support of oil and gas development and for county roads. No utility corridors have 

been designated in the planning area; however, an east-west window for underground utility lines is 

located along the southern border. New ROW corridors would be considered and designated for interstate 

and intrastate ROW facilities to meet demand forecasts for utility commodities. A communication line, 

power line, and abandoned railroad line cross the width of the planning area, and two communication 

sites are also located on public lands. 

Portions of JMH are designated as avoidance or exclusion areas for ROWs. Avoidance areas are public 

lands where future ROWs may be granted only when no feasible alternative route or designated ROW 

corridor is available; exclusion areas would permit future ROWs only when mandated by law. The ROW 

avoidance and exclusion areas for the JMH CAP planning area were established in the Green River RMP 

(Map 8). 

3.3.3.2 Exchanges, Withdrawals, and Ownership Adjustments 

The majority of the planning area (surface and mineral) is composed of solid blocks of public lands 

administered by BLM. Nonfederal landowners include the State of Wyoming and private individuals. 

No communities are located within the area. Rock Springs and Superior are the nearest incorporated 

cities, and Eden-Farson is the nearest unincorporated populated area. 

BLM provides for acquisition, use, disposal, and adjustment of land resources when it is in the public 

interest and consistent with approved land use plans. Acquisition can be by exchange, purchase, 

easement, or donation. The land acquisition program is designed to improve management of natural 

resources through consolidation of federal, state, and private lands and to secure land necessary to protect 

endangered species, promote biological diversity, increase recreational opportunities, and preserve 

heritage resources. Exchanges are only pursued with willing landowners and are the preferred method of 

obtaining lands, because federal purchase dollars are limited. Lands to be exchanged must be of equal 

monetary value and located within the same state. BLM is proposing the exchange of state inholdings in 

the Sand Dunes WSA, in the Greater Sand Dunes ACEC, and on Steamboat Mountain. 

Withdrawals are used to protect sensitive environmental values, protect major federal investments in 

facilities, support national security, and provide for public health and safety. A withdrawal removes an 

3-40 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 3 

area from settlement, sale, location, or entry under the general land laws for the purpose of limiting 

activities and to maintain other public values. Public land orders provide for the initiation, modification, 

extension, or revocation of land withdrawals. 

Existing withdrawals in the planning area include lands classified as prospectively valuable for oil shale 

and coal. This classification indicates that oil shale and coal have priority for mineral resource 

development over location of mining claims. Oil shale and coal are leasable minerals, and therefore 

withdrawals to protect these minerals from speculation through mining claim activity are no longer 

applicable. Prior to revocation, withdrawn lands will be reviewed to determine whether any other 

resource values require withdrawal protection. Upon revocation, the area would be open to filing mineral 

claims, exploration, and development of locatable minerals. The White Mountain Petroglyphs located in 

the oil shale classification lands and Greater Sand Dunes ACEC, special status plant sites, Crookston 

Ranch, public water reserves, Tri-Territory Marker, and South Pass Summit located in the coal 

classification lands would be withdrawn from mineral location prior to the revocation. 

3.3.4 Hazardous Materials 

Hazardous materials are transported through the JMH CAP planning area and used primarily by mineral 

developers. There are no known hazardous materials sites within the planning area other than the 

materials kept and used by the minerals industry at individual well locations. A few old abandoned 

reserve pits remain scattered throughout the area but have not been tested for the presence of hazardous 

materials or hazardous waste. Small oil and gas fields within the planning area could contribute 

hazardous materials to the environment. Any spills or leakages of hazardous materials are reported by the 

operator and are controlled and removed as necessary in accordance with BLM regulations. The 

materials spilled or leaked are exempt from federal hazardous materials rules under the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976. 

3.4 RECREATION RESOURCES 

Recreation activities available on BLM-administered lands in the planning area are many and varied. A 

brief listing includes hunting for elk, deer, antelope, and greater sage-grouse; camping, backpacking, and 

hiking; horsepacking and riding; OHV use; mountain biking; rock and petrified wood collecting; 

sightseeing of historic trails and places; wild horse viewing; wildlife viewing; and photography. 

Recreation use in the planning area predominantly occurs between May and October, because lack of 

maintained roads in the winter restricts year-round recreational access. 

Major recreation locations include the Greater Sand Dunes area; Steamboat Mountain; Oregon Buttes; 

White Mountain Petroglyphs; Honeycomb Buttes; Tri-Territory Marker; and the Oregon, Mormon 

Pioneer, California, and Pony Express National Historic Trails (Map 2). 

Estimated dispersed recreational use within the planning area is summarized in Table 3-21. Recreational 

use was estimated by using recreational visitor days (RVD) (each RVD defined as a 12-hour period) as a 

unit of measure. Dispersed recreational uses in the planning area were estimated using data from the 

BLM Recreational Management Information System (RMIS). 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 3-41 
Chapter 3 Final EIS 

Table 3-21. Estimated Annual Nonconsumptive Recreational Visitor Days 

Activity 

Total RVDs Resident 

RVDs 

Nonresident 

RVDs 

OHV 16,691 6,676 10,015 

Other Dispersed Uses 

Archery 71 57 14 

Backpacking 214 107 107 

Bicycling—Mountain 143 71 71 

Camping 1,661 830 830 

Driving for Pleasure 1,720 1,548 172 

Environmental Education 50 5 45 

Gather Noncommercial Products 143 114 29 

Hiking/Walking/Running 500 250 250 

Nature Study 76 46 30 

Picnicking 100 50 50 

Re-enactment Events/Tours 60 6 54 

Rockhounding/Mineral Collection 285 228 57 

Target Practice 71 57 14 

Viewing Cultural Sites 106 11 95 

Viewing Wild Horses 285 171 114 

Viewing Wildlife 304 182 122 

Viewing—Interpretive Exhibit 528 53 475 

Subtotal—Other Dispersed Uses 6,315 3,786 2,529 

Total Recreational Visitor Days 23,006 10,462 12,544 

BLM tracks recreational use for several areas within Wyoming; however, visitor day estimates are not 

available specifically for the JMH CAP planning area. Therefore, estimated RVDs were extrapolated 

from the RMIS database for the Rock Springs Field Office. The RMIS database was queried for the 

number of RVDs per activity for the Rock Springs Field Office for the time period October 1, 1998, to 

September 30, 2001. The JMH CAP planning area accounts for 19 percent of the land area under the 

jurisdiction of the Rock Springs Field Office; as a first estimate, it was assumed that RVDs associated 

with JMH would account for 19 percent of those recorded within the field office. The estimated RVDs 

per activity were then modified using information specific to JMH. For example, it was assumed that 

very little fishing, cross-country skiing, or snowmobile activity occurs in the planning area. In addition, 

camping RVDs were revised downward given the lack of developed campsites within the JMH CAP 

planning area. Because this system does not track visitor origin, resident and nonresident visits were 

based on observations and professional judgment of BLM staff. 

The results summarized in Table 3-21 show that OHV use is the most popular recreational activity, 

accounting for more than 16,000 RVDs per year. In addition, it was estimated that visitors enjoyed 

approximately 5,400 RVDs associated with other dispersed recreational activities. 

3.4.1 Off-Highway Vehicle Use 

OHV use is the most popular recreational activity within the planning area. Most of this activity takes 

place within the Greater Sand Dunes Recreation Area, which carries an “open” OHV designation on 

10,020 acres. BLM estimates that an average of 14,000 RVDs occur in this area annually. In addition, 

OHV recreation occurs in other areas that fall within the “limited” use category. The limited category 

includes areas limited to existing roads and trails, areas limited to designated roads and trails, areas 

3-42 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 3 

limited by number and type of vehicle, areas limited to licensed or permitted use, and areas with seasonal 

limitations. Using the RMIS database for the Rock Springs Field Office, it was estimated that OHV use 

in other areas of the planning area account for approximately 2,400 RVDs per year. 

3.4.2 Hunting 

Hunting is the second most popular activity within the planning area and includes elk, antelope, mule 

deer, greater sage-grouse, morning dove, and rabbits. The seasons of use and limitations are summarized 

in Table 3-22. Hunting days reported under this section are not comparable with BLM recreation days 

given the differences in estimation procedures and the definition of a recreation day. Because of the 

migratory nature of game herds, it is difficult to estimate the total RVDs associated with hunting in the 

planning area; therefore, total hunting activity estimated by WGFD within hunting units that partially 

include the planning area were considered. 

The Wyoming Game and Fish Annual Report of Big Game Harvest and the Upland Game & Furbearer 

Harvest Annual Report published for the last 10 years were used to estimate the average hunting days per 

species within the planning area. Residents and nonresidents of Wyoming spend approximately 3,100 

days hunting in the planning area annually, as summarized in Table 3-23. Wyoming residents dominate 

hunting use in the planning area, accounting for more than 80 percent of the hunting days on average. 

Hunting antelope is the most popular hunting activity, with more than 1,300 hunting days, followed by 

greater sage-grouse, mule deer, and elk. 

Table 3-22. Hunting Seasons [2000]* 

Species Hunt 

Area 

Seasons Limitations Opens Closes 

Antelope 92 9/10 10/14 Limited Quota: 750 licenses to hunt any antelope 

9/10 10/14 Limited Quota: 705 licenses to hunt doe or fawn, valid 

only in that portion of Area 92 within the Pacific Creek 

Drainage 

9/10 10/14 Limited Quota: 150 licenses to hunt doe or fawn, valid 

only in that portion of Area 92 in the Farson-Eden 

Irrigation Project 

107 9/10 9/30 Limited Quota: 200 licenses to hunt any antelope 

9/10 9/30 Limited Quota: 500 licenses to hunt doe or fawn 

8/20 9/9 Limited Quota: 125 licenses to hunt any antelope; 

muzzleloading, firearms, and handguns using legal 

cartridges 

60 9/16 10/14 Limited Quota: 100 licenses to hunt any antelope 

9/16 10/14 Limited Quota: 50 licenses to hunt doe or fawn 

64 9/16 10/14 Limited Quota: 150 licenses to hunt any antelope 

9/16 10/14 Limited Quota: 300 licenses to hunt doe or fawn 

*WGFD 2000 Annual Report of Big and Trophy Game Harvest. 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 3-43 
Chapter 3 Final EIS 

Table 3-22. Hunting Seasons [2000]* Continued 

Species Hunt 

Area 

Seasons Limitations

 Mule Deer 95 10/15 10/22 General License; antlered mule deer or any while-tailed 

deer 

131 10/1 10/8 General License; antlered deer 

11/4 11/12 Limited Quota: 25 licenses to hunt antlerless deer valid 

only in that portion of Area 131 north of Wyoming 

Highway 28 and west of the Lower Farson Cut Off Road 

(Sweetwater County Road 8)

 Elk 100 10/15 10/31 Limited Quota: 100 licenses to hunt antlered elk 

10/15 10/31 Limited Quota: 110 licenses to hunt antlerless elk 

10/21 10/31 Limited Quota: 90 licenses to hunt antlerless elk 

10/15 10/31 Limited Quota: 50 licenses to hunt cow or calf valid only 

in that portion of Area 100 east and north of the Three 

Forks/Atlantic City Road (BLM Road 2317) and west of 

the Bison Basin Road (Fremont County and BLM Road 

3221)

 Greater sagegrouse 1 9/16 10/1 Daily Bag Limit: 3; Possession: 6 

*WGFD 2000 Annual Report of Big and Trophy Game Harvest. 

Table 3-23. Estimated Annual Average Hunting Days 

Hunter Type Elk1 Antelope2 Mule Deer3 Greater Sage-Grouse4 

Resident 

Nonresident 

Total

364 

97 

461 

1,486 

78 

1,565 

823 

785 

1,609 

695 

185 

880 1

Estimated with data from WGFD Hunt Area 100 (Steamboat); assumed that 70 percent of the hunting within Hunt Area 100 

occurred in the JMH CAP planning area.

2

Estimated with data from WGFD for Hunt Area 92 (Steamboat), 107 (Upper Sweetwater), 60 (Table Rock), and 64 (Bison 

Basin); assumed that 70 percent of the hunting within Hunt Area 92, 23 percent within Hunt Area 107, 4 percent within Hunt 

Area 64, and 6 percent within Hunt Area 60 occurred in the JMH CAP planning area. 3

Estimated with data from WGFD for Hunt Area 131 (Steamboat) and 95 (South Pass); assumed that 60 percent of the hunting 

within Hunt Area 131 and 13.5 percent within Hunt Area 95 occurred in the JMH CAP planning area. 4

Estimated with data from WGFD for Hunt Area 7 (Eden) and 8 (Beaver Rim); assumed that 25 percent of the hunting within 

Hunt Area 7 and 5 percent within Hunt Area 8 occurred in the JMH CAP planning area. 

3.4.3 Special Recreational Management Areas 

There are two SRMAs within the planning area: (1)Greater Sand Dunes and (2) Oregon, Mormon 

Pioneer, California, and Pony Express National Historic Trails. These areas are discussed in further detail 

in Section 3.7, Special Management Areas and Other Management Areas. 

3.4.4 Continental Divide National Scenic Trail 

The National Trails System Act of 1968 provides for designation and conservation of trails that provide 

maximum outdoor recreation potential in areas of nationally significant scenic, historic, natural, or 

cultural qualities. In 1978, as an amendment to the National Scenic Trail System Act, Congress 

designated the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail (CDNST). This trail route traverses 

approximately 3,100 miles of the length of the Rocky Mountains, in proximity to the Continental Divide, 

through the states of Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, and New Mexico. The Forest Service 

published a comprehensive management plan for the trail in 1985 that set broad goals and policy for local 

trail management. 

3-44 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 3 

In 1998, BLM issued an Environmental Assessment for the designation of the proposed on-the-ground 

route for the trail. The Continental Peak/South Pass Connecting Side Trail (35 miles) was proposed and 

analyzed. However, designation of the route was deferred pending completion of the JMH Environmental 

Impact Statement (EIS) to analyze the side trail along with other related resource issues. About 25 miles 

of existing roads and routes have been identified as a side trail for the CDNST. The remainder of the 

route would require cross-country travel. This route would partially occur in the South Pass Historic 

Landscape area (Map 64). 

Allowable uses of the Continental Peak/South Pass Connecting Side Trail include hiking, mountain 

biking, horseback riding, and limited motor vehicle use. Approximately 95 percent of the trail is 

primitive two-track roads, 4 percent is improved roads, and 1 percent requires cross-country travel. 

Cross-country segments are closed to motorized vehicles. 

3.4.5 Recreation Opportunity Spectrum 

The goal of the recreationist is to have satisfying recreational experiences by participating in preferred 

activities in favorable environmental settings, the goal of the recreation resource manager then becomes 

to provide opportunities to obtain such experiences. This can be achieved by managing the natural setting 

and activities through the use of the Recreational Opportunity Spectrum (ROS). 

Developed in the late 1970s by the Forest Service, the ROS has proven to be an effective recreation 

management and inventory tool for both the public and private sectors. In essence, the ROS is a spatialbased inventory system that recognizes the need to maintain a range of recreational opportunities while 

also providing multiple recreational experiences. Whereas traditional methods of recreational inventories 

have focused attention on the classification of facilities or types of activities, the ROS instead is a 

spatially orientated, experience-based inventory system. The key term is “experiences” in that the 

fundamental assumption is that different kinds of land, or landscapes, can support different kinds of 

recreational experiences and opportunities. 

Operationally, the ROS is a form of zoning in which inventories of lands are arranged along a continuum 

that is divided into six classes or zones, ranging from natural, low-use areas (resource-dependent 

recreational opportunities) to highly developed, intensive use areas (facility/vehicle-dependent 

recreational opportunities). The six classes included within the ROS are primitive, semiprimitive 

nonmotorized, semiprimitive motorized, roaded natural, rural, and urban. The principal factor in 

determining an ROS class is the setting. The setting describes the overall outdoor environment of a given 

area, which ultimately influences the types of opportunities and the experiences that take place within that 

area. Therefore, to enable the recreational manager to achieve the goal of providing opportunities for 

satisfying recreational experiences, he or she must provide settings that promote varying types of 

recreational opportunities. Although some classifications may appear to designate areas with wilderness 

qualities, they should never be confused with the classification of wilderness areas. Wilderness areas are 

special, legally designated areas that can cross classes. 

The following describes the six classifications of ROS settings and is then followed by a description of 

the types of experiences that each setting encourages. 

3.4.5.1 ROS Setting Characterization 

3.4.5.1.1 Primitive 

The primitive area is characterized by essentially an unmodified natural environment of fairly large size. 

Interaction between users is very low and evidence of other users is minimal. The area is managed to be 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 3-45 
Chapter 3 Final EIS 

essentially free from evidence of human-induced restrictions and controls. Motorized use within the area 

is not permitted. 

3.4.5.1.2 Semiprimitive Nonmotorized 

This area is characterized by a predominantly natural or natural-appearing environment of moderate to 

large size. Interaction between users is low, but there is often evidence of other users. The area is 

managed in such a way that minimum onsite controls and restrictions may be present but are subtle. 

Motorized use is not permitted. 

3.4.5.1.3 Semiprimitive Motorized 

This area is characterized by a predominantly natural or natural-appearing environment of moderate to 

large size. Concentration of users is low but there is often evidence of other users. The area is managed 

in such a way that minimum onsite controls and restrictions may be present but are subtle. Motorized use 

is permitted. 

3.4.5.1.4 Roaded Natural 

The roaded natural area is characterized by a predominantly natural appearing environment with moderate 

evidence of the sights and sounds of man. Such evidence usually harmonizes with the natural 

environment. Interaction between users may be low to moderate, but with evidence of other users 

prevalent. Resources modification and utilization practices are evident, but harmonize with the natural 

environment. Conventional motorized use is provided for in construction standards and design of 

facilities. 

3.4.5.1.5 Rural 

The rural area is characterized by a substantially modified natural environment. Resource modification 

and utilization practices are to enhance specific recreation activities and to maintain vegetative cover and 

soil. Sights and sounds of humans are readily evident, and the interaction between users is often 

moderate to high. A considerable number of facilities are designed for use by a large number of people. 

Facilities are often provided for special activities. Moderate densities are provided far away from 

developed sites. Facilities for intensified motorized use and parking are available. 

3.4.5.1.6 Urban 

The urban area is characterized by a substantially urbanized environment, although the background may 

have natural appearing elements. Renewable resource modification and utilization practices are to 

enhance specific recreation activities. Vegetative cover is often exotic and manicured. Sights and sounds 

of humans onsite are predominant. Large numbers of users can be expected, both onsite and in nearby 

areas. Facilities for highly intensified motor use and parking are available with forms of mass transit 

often available to carry people throughout the site. 

3.4.5.2 ROS Experience Characterization 

3.4.5.2.1 Primitive 

Extremely high probability of experiencing isolation from the sights and sounds of human, independence, 

closeness to nature, tranquility, and self-reliance through the application of woodsman and outdoor skills 

in an environment that offers a high degree of challenge and risk. 

3-46 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 3 

3.4.5.2.2 Semiprimitive Nonmotorized 

High, but not extremely high, probability of experiencing isolation from the sights and sounds of humans, 

independence, closeness to nature, tranquility, and self reliance through the application of woodsman and 

outdoor skills in an environment that offers challenge and risk. 

3.4.5.2.3 Semiprimitive Motorized 

Moderate probability of experiencing isolation from the sights and sounds of humans, independence, 

closeness to nature, tranquility, and self-reliance through the application of woodsman and outdoor skills 

in an environment that offers challenge and risk. There is opportunity to have a high degree of interaction 

with the natural environment. There is opportunity to use motorized equipment while in the area. 

3.4.5.2.4 Roaded Natural 

About equal probability of experiencing affiliation with other user groups for isolation from sights and 

sound of humans. There is opportunity to have a high degree of interaction with the natural environment. 

Challenge and risk opportunities associated with more primitive types of recreation are not very 

important. Practice and testing of outdoor skills might be important. Opportunities for both motorized 

and non-motorized forms of recreation are possible. 

3.4.5.2.5 Rural 

Probability of experiencing affiliation with individuals and groups prevalent, as is the convenience of 

sites and opportunities. These factors are generally more important than the setting of the physical 

environment. Opportunities for wildland challenges, risk-taking, and testing of outdoor skills are 

generally unimportant except for specific activities like downhill skiing, for which challenge and risktaking are important elements. 

3.4.5.2.6 Urban 

Probability of experiencing affiliation with individuals and groups is prevalent, as is the convenience of 

sites and opportunities. Experiencing natural environments, having challenges and risks afforded by the 

natural environment, and using outdoor skills are relatively unimportant. Opportunities for competitive 

and spectator sports and for passive uses of highly human-influenced parks and open spaces are common. 

Within the Jack Morrow Hills planning area, ROS classifications include semiprimitive nonmotorized, 

semiprimitive motorized, roaded natural, and rural (Map 72). 

3.5 MINERALS AND ALTERNATIVE ENERGY RESOURCES 

3.5.1 Regional Geologic Setting 

The planning area falls within a broad region of subdued relief that has been termed the Wyoming Basin 

physiographic province (Fenneman 1931). The Greater Green River Basin lies within this province, and 

the planning area lies in the north-central part of this basin (Figure 1). The planning area includes the 

north end of the Rock Springs Uplift, extends east into the Great Divide Basin, west into the main part of 

the Green River Basin, and northward across the southern end of the Wind River Range. Surface features 

reflect erosion by wind and water in an arid, cold temperature environment. Landforms in portions of the 

planning area have been modified by sand movement, faulting, and volcanic activity. Figure 2 lists 

formations present in the planning area and gives a brief lithologic description of each unit. 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 3-47 
Chapter 3 Final EIS 

Precambrian era rocks in the planning area include outcrops of granitic rock in the Wind River Range 

(dated at 2.6 billion years) and metamorphic rocks that may be more than 3 billion years old. 

Precambrian rocks are the deepest buried rocks in the planning area, forming the crystalline basement, 

and are also found near the surface in the area to the north of the thrust fault bounding the Wind River 

Range. 

For most of the Paleozoic era, the planning area was covered by shallow seas at the eastern margin of a 

marine basin. The area was also close to the equator and was frequently covered by warm shallow seas 

where limestone and fine-grained sediments were deposited. Mississippian and Permian age strata were 

deposited in the area during this time, including the Madison Limestone and the Phosphoria Formation. 

These units do not outcrop in the planning area, as they are buried under younger sedimentary rocks. The 

Phosphoria Formation is exposed west of the planning area and has been mined for phosphate minerals in 

districts along the Wyoming-Utah border and in central Idaho. The Phosphoria Formation has not been 

considered for mining in the Green River Basin because of the depth of occurrence and related costs that 

would be required to mine phosphate. The Phosphoria Formation also contains significant organic 

matter, and this unit may also be a source for oil and gas accumulations in southwest Wyoming. Madison 

Limestone well tests in the area have yielded carbon dioxide-rich gas. 

Most of the Mesozoic era rocks within the planning area were deposited in a northern subtropical region. 

Sea level fluctuated during this period because of periods of eastward fault movement in the Thrust Belt 

and mountain-building events in surrounding areas. Deposition of sediment took place in alternating 

marine and nonmarine environments. At the end of the Mesozoic era, mountain building caused the 

complete withdrawal of the sea, and the North American continent was approaching its present-day 

latitudes. 

Most of the Mesozoic sequence is composed of Cretaceous-age strata, including the Dakota Sandstone, 

Frontier Formation, Baxter Shale, Mesaverde Group, Lewis Shale, and Lance Formation. The Baxter 

Shale is a thick marine shale with lenses of fine-grained sandstone. The Mesaverde Group includes 

marginal marine and nonmarine deposits of the Blair Formation, Rock Springs Formation, Ericson 

Sandstone, and Almond Formation. The Rock Springs and Almond Formations contain significant coal 

seams; however, most of the coal beds in Cretaceous rocks in the planning area are at depths below 

practical limits for mining. The uppermost part of the Cretaceous section is composed of the Lewis Shale 

and the embedded sandstone and shale of the Lance Formation, which also contains thin coal seams. 

At the onset of the Cenozoic era, the Thrust Belt was in a late stage of development, and the ancestral 

structures of the Uinta Mountains, Wind River Range, Sierra Madre Range, and Granite Mountains had 

formed on the margins of the Green River, Great Divide, and Washakie Basins (Figure 1). These basinal 

areas were then largely filled with river and lake deposits, nearly burying the surrounding mountain 

ranges. The lake deposits and other nonmarine strata formed the Fort Union, Wasatch, and Green River 

formations. The Fort Union and Wasatch formations are both coal bearing, and the Green River 

Formation contains oil shale. Coal is mined south of the planning area at the surface and in underground 

mines, but Tertiary coal resources have not been economically viable for mining in the planning area. 

3.5.2 Present-Day Land Forms 

During the late Tertiary and Quaternary periods, uplift of the region continued, and igneous activity 

approximately 1.1 million years ago resulted in the formation of lava flows, volcanic necks, and cinder 

cones. The igneous rocks are resistant to erosion and have resulted in some of the prominent landforms in 

the area, including Boars Tusk, Steamboat Mountain, and the Leucite Hills. The rocks are potassium rich 

and were mined as a source of potassium at nearby Zirkel Mesa during World War I. 

3-48 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 3 

The widespread erosion that has shaped the planning area has resulted in the development of considerable 

areas of badlands. The main area of badlands is within the Honeycomb Buttes and Oregon Buttes WSAs. 

Badlands are best developed in soft, weak mudstones, which are relatively impervious and preclude 

infiltration of rainwater. As a result, runoff erodes intricate networks of rills and gullies. As the gullies 

deepen, the ground surface becomes highly dissected. Erosion and aerial deposition have produced sand 

dunes in other parts of the planning area. Dune activity ranges from active migration with loose sand 

present at the ground surface to stabilized dunes that are vegetated and not migrating. Other surficial 

deposits include alluvium in stream valleys and debris and landslide deposits along steep slopes in the 

area. These deposits have been weathered to produce the soils present across most of the planning area. 

Where the water table is present in these surficial deposits, they form the uppermost aquifer in the 

planning area. 

3.5.3 Geologic Hazards 

Several types of geologic hazards are present within the planning area (Map 66). Hydrogen sulfide, 

earthquakes, landslides, and windblown sand hazards are of primary concern. Hydrogen sulfide is present 

with the hydrocarbons in some deep producing oil and gas wells farther south on the Rock Springs Uplift 

and could be present in the planning area in formations deeper than those that presently produce 

hydrocarbons. Additional discussion of this hazard is on file in the Rock Springs Field Office (USDI 

1992). 

The only significant fault that demonstrates recent displacement is the Continental Fault area on the north 

perimeter of the planning area. Historical seismicity shows no major earthquakes within the planning 

area; however, earthquakes in adjacent regions may directly affect this area. Hazard assessments 

including seismic modeling have ranked the planning area as having the potential for ground movement at 

4 to 8 percent of the acceleration because of gravity. This is a relatively moderate ground motion risk; the 

highest classification in the continental United States is up to 32 percent of the acceleration because of 

gravity. 

Active landslides are relatively scarce in the planning area because of the relatively arid climatic 

conditions and the competent rocks underlying most steep slopes. The area of steep slopes around 

Steamboat Mountain and Oregon Buttes has the most potential for landslides or rock falls. These areas 

have been impacted by past landslides and are susceptible to development of unstable slope conditions 

where the ground surface is disturbed. The areas that are vulnerable to earth movement are shown on the 

map of potential landslide areas (Map 66). 

Windblown sand deposits occur throughout the southern part of the planning area. The Killpecker Dune 

field encompasses about 170 square miles, extending beyond the planning area boundary. Prevailing 

wind direction is from the west-northwest, and dune migration follows prevailing winds. Hazards are 

increased when dunes are migrating. No volcanic hazards exist within the area (Wright and Pierson 

1992). 

Several mappable faults occur in the planning area. The Continental Fault is approximately 55 miles long 

and roughly parallels the buried thrust fault (Wind River thrust fault) at the north edge of the planning 

area (Figure 1). 

3.5.4 Leasable Minerals 

Fluid minerals such as oil and gas are leased under the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 and its amendments 

of 1987. Leases are offered by competitive bid. Leases within the planning area include stipulations to 

mitigate impacts of development on wildlife, including seasonal restrictions on drilling activity. Other 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 3-49 
Chapter 3 Final EIS 

lease stipulations include restrictions on surface disturbances, wildlife, special resources (i.e., recreational 

areas and historic features), and no surface occupancy requirements. The purpose of these stipulations is 

to protect the environment and to inform the lessee about special requirements that may restrict 

development. Additional information about wells that have produced can be found in the Hydrocarbon 

Occurrence and Development Potential Report (Appendix 13). Methods and procedures for conducting 

geophysical exploration leasing, well permitting, drilling operations, development, production, and 

subsurface practices are described in Appendix 14. 

3.5.4.1 Oil and Gas 

Oil and natural gas are fluid minerals available for lease within the planning area (Map 67). 

3.5.4.1.1 Historical and Current Production 

Between 1900 and 1916, a number of shallow oil exploration wells were drilled on the Rock Springs 

Uplift. A number of oil and gas shows were encountered, but no wells were productive. The first 

production in the region occurred with the discovery of the South Baxter Basin field in August 1922. 

Exploration continued in the JMH CAP planning area, and the first producing well in the planning area 

was drilled in 1961. This Frontier Formation well was the discovery well for the Nitchie Gulch Field. 

Development of Nitchie Gulch and other producing units occurred through the early 1990s. Petroleum 

exploration and development is active in the Greater Green River Basin, and there is interest in additional 

development in the planning area. Through July 2001 there have been 153 wells drilled in the planning 

area. The well locations, unit designations, depths, and deepest formation tested for each well are listed 

in Table 3-24 at the end of Chapter 3. 

Five active producing units have been designated in the planning area: Buccaneer, Nitchie Gulch, Rim 

Rock, Steamboat Mountain, and Treasure units (Map 68). Three exploratory units have been designated 

in the planning area (Map 68). The Gold Coast Exploratory Unit was approved effective January 30, 

1998. The first well commenced drilling in the fall of 1998 and is temporarily shut in. The Johnson Gap 

Exploratory Unit was approved effective February 2, 1994. The West 187 Exploratory Unit was 

approved effective February 25, 1998. Development of these exploratory units has been deferred until 

management actions for the JMH CAP planning area are selected. 

Three exploratory units that were partially within the planning area were approved, and exploration wells 

were drilled outside the planning area in the 1990s. The Riva Exploratory Unit extended across the 

eastern boundary of the planning area; the Lewis Shale was tested and abandoned in this unit. The 

Encore Exploratory Unit extended into the southeast part of the planning area. This unit was terminated 

in 1998 after an exploration well was tested in the Almond Formation, Lewis Shale, and Ericson 

Sandstone. The Jade Exploratory Unit extended into the eastern part of the planning area and was tested 

in the Almond Formation and the Lewis Shale. 

All other units listed in Table A13-1 originally were part of exploratory unit proposals that were later 

terminated because economic quantities of oil and gas were not discovered. The large number of 

producing units and exploratory unit wells drilled in the planning area shows that unitization has been a 

popular method for exploration and orderly development. 

Five producing units are classified by the Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission as “fields.” 

The limits of these fields may extend beyond the unit boundaries. Other fields in the planning area are 

Pine Canyon Field south from the edge of the planning area, Essex Mountain and unnamed fields, and the 

abandoned Freighter Gap and Saddle Bag fields. In addition three other wells have been completed as 

3-50 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 3 

coalbed gas wells but have not generated production in an unnamed field. The wells in each of these 

fields are listed in Table A13-1. 

All fields in the planning area are developed over stratigraphic traps and produce gas and occasionally 

some oil or condensate from the lower Cretaceous Frontier, Dakota, and Mowry formations. Only four 

other productive wells have been drilled, all in the upper Cretaceous section. Three of these were coalbed 

gas wells completed in the Mesaverde Group, and one oil well was completed in the Rock Springs 

Formation. A number of other younger Tertiary formations and older Mesozoic and Paleozoic age 

formations produce oil and gas outside the planning area in other parts of the Greater Green River Basin. 

3.5.4.1.2 Undeveloped Reserves 

Oil and gas development potential (Map 69) was determined for the Green River Final EIS RMP (USDI 

1996) by geologic analysis of data from United States Geologic Survey publications and databases and a 

survey of industry interest in development within the planning area. The map has been updated to show 

increased potential for development based on the drilling of a well with a significant show of gas just 

outside the northwest boundary of the planning area. The area of high potential for oil and gas 

development has been extended north from areas of existing production to the northwest part of the 

planning area based on the results of exploration activity in 2001 and 2002. Resource estimates, potential 

recovery rates, and possible development scenarios are evaluated in the Hydrocarbon Occurrence and 

Development Potential Report (Appendix 13) that has been prepared for the planning area. 

3.5.4.1.3 Existing Facilities 

An extensive natural gas transmission system now exists in Wyoming and the Rocky Mountain region. 

Gathering lines and compression stations within the planning area are used to deliver gas to regional 

transmission pipelines. Most producers sell gas directly to local gas distribution companies, with the 

pipeline acting as a “common carrier” of natural gas. 

3.5.4.2 Coal and Coalbed Gas 

The southern part of the planning area is within the Coal Occurrence and Development Potential area. 

The focus of this designation is on the late Cretaceous and early Tertiary coal-bearing formations around 

the Rock Springs Uplift. Current information indicates that significant coal-bearing formations are 

present in the planning area. However, the depth to reach these formations and the thickness of the seams 

within the formations reduce the economic viability of mining. Map 56 shows the area with coal 

development potential that has been identified in the planning area. Coalbeds in this area are buried by 

overlying sediments. Exploration drilling data in this area indicate numerous coal seams, with thickness 

ranging from 0.3 to 8 feet at depths from 8 to 428 feet. One notable coalbed ranges in thickness from 3 to 

8 feet and occurs at depths ranging from 11 to 283 feet in depth. 

Presently there are no coal operations within the planning area boundary. Coal seams with sufficient 

thickness and suitable overburden ratios are present south of the planning area to support active mining. 

It is anticipated that future coal development in this part of Wyoming would focus on the extension of 

existing mining activities to develop additional resources. These resources would be economically 

favorable over coal mining within the JMH boundaries. 

Potential for the occurrence of Tertiary coalbed gas and the occurrence of Upper Cretaceous coalbed gas 

were determined by Stilwell (1991) for the Green River RMP (1996). New information obtained while 

preparing this EIS caused modification of the area development potential for coalbed gas (Map 70). 

Information provided by the Wyoming Geological Survey was used to identify coalbed gas potential areas 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 3-51 
Chapter 3 Final EIS 

based on the occurrence and distribution of coal seams in Cretaceous and Tertiary formations in the 

planning area. 

3.5.4.3 Sodium 

The planning area is not within any known sodium leasing area. Sodium brines exist in the Wilkins Peak 

Member of the Green River Formation near Eden and are open to exploration and consideration for 

leasing and development. However, previous efforts to process the brines for marketable commodities 

have not proved economically viable, and extensive trona resources are actively mined outside the 

planning area in other parts of the Green River Basin. 

3.5.4.4 Oil Shale 

Deposits of oil shale are known to occur in the Tipton, Wilkins Peak, and Laney members of the Green 

River Formation. The western part of the planning area officially has been classified as prospectively 

valuable for oil shale. This classification indicates that oil shale has priority for mineral resource 

development and that this area has been withdrawn from location of mining claims for other minerals 

under the Mining Act of 1872. However, development of oil shale has not proved economically viable, 

and there has been no interest in leasing oil shale resources in the planning area since the mid 1980s. 

3.5.4.5 Potash 

The Leucite Hills, including Boars Tusk and Steamboat Mountain, are known to contain potash. Schultz 

and Cross (1912) estimated that approximately 10 percent of more than 206 million tons of rock at 

Steamboat Mountain was potash. Boars Tusk was estimated to contain 2.9 million tons of potash. Potash 

was mined during World War I by the Liberty Potash Company on Zirkel Mesa, located south of the 

planning area. Potassium chloride was processed in a plant in Green River for fertilizer (Hausel, 

Sutherland, and Gregory 1995). Other sources of potash have been successfully developed in other areas 

where this commodity can be produced at lower costs than potash resources in the planning area. Based 

on these economic factors, potash mineral development is not anticipated in the planning area. 

3.5.5 Salable Minerals 

Salable minerals are those materials such as sand, gravel, and construction material that are sold or 

permitted under the Mineral Materials Sale Act of 1947. 

3.5.5.1 Sand and Gravel 

Lands open to development of salable minerals within the planning area lack good quality construction 

material, except for Steamboat Mountain, which is capped by volcanic lava. The South Pass Historic 

Landscape, Sweetwater River plus one quarter-mile buffer, and the Sand Dunes contain quality 

construction materials. However, the Green River RMP (USDI 1997) prohibits development of salable 

minerals in these areas. 

Nearly all material used for construction and maintenance of constructed gravel and paved roads comes 

from outside the planning area. The exception is a Wyoming Transportation Department borrow site 

along Wyoming Highway 28. Approximately four acres of disturbance has occurred at this site. 

3-52 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 3 

3.5.5.2 Clay 

The Cretaceous Lance Formation, Lewis Shale, and Mesaverde Group may contain clays and shales 

suitable for use in the manufacturing of structural clay products (Construction Materials Survey 1965). 

Potential products include brick tile, sewer pipe, and other items used in construction. Little testing of 

these clays and shales has been conducted. The sediments containing the potentially usable clays occur in 

the southern portion of the planning area. The scarcity of water supplies and lack of infrastructure in this 

part of the planning area would probably make clay mining and related manufacturing uneconomic. 

3.5.6 Locatable Minerals 

Locatable minerals are those that can be located and claimed under the Mining Act of 1872, including 

gold, diamonds, and uranium. Mining for these minerals requires staking a claim rather than receiving a 

lease issuance. In special management areas, a plan of operations is required for all mining activities. 

The plan of operations must describe surface disturbing activities, provide for mitigation of impacts to 

other resources, and provide for reclamation of surface disturbances. Outside of special management 

areas, plans of operation are required where mining activities disturb more than 5 acres of land. Casual 

use mining does not require a plan of operations for mining activity that does not use motorized 

equipment or powered hydraulic mining in streambeds. 

3.5.6.1 Gold 

Historically gold has been the primary locatable mineral explored for in the planning area. At present, 

active mining claims are located east of Dickie Springs, south of the Sweetwater River, and northwest of 

Honeycomb Buttes (USDI 1997). These claims are placer claims except for one lode claim on the preCambrian outcrop in Section 4, Township 27 North, Range 100 West. Active mining claims are those 

that have been properly recorded, have annual filings completed for the current year, and may or may not 

have exploration and/or mining operations in progress (Map 71). 

In the recent past, a few claims have been explored by trenching with a backhoe, but most exploration is 

done with pick and shovel. One notable exception is a small-scale trommel operation that is run by 

claimants in their free time. Weather restricts activity to the snow-free months, generally from May to 

mid-November. Current exploration activity disturbs less than 5 acres and is reflective of the amount of 

activity seen in the area since the placers were first worked in 1863. 

Reconnaissance investigations of placer gold deposits in the northern part of the planning area have 

indicated that a significant quantity of gold may be present in the area, and it has been estimated that more 

than 28 million troy ounces of gold may be present in the Dickie Springs and Oregon Gulch areas. Later 

investigations have determined that the placer gold deposits are restricted to a thin stratigraphic zone 

approximately 1 foot thick within the gold-bearing sequence of sedimentary deposits. In addition, the 

lateral extent and continuity of the gold-bearing zone has not been determined. The initial resource 

estimate assumed that the gold is present throughout the thickness of the host sand and gravel deposits. 

The restricted vertical section of gold-bearing material revealed by detailed sampling at discrete depth 

intervals indicates that the actual resource in the area may be significantly less than previously estimated. 

However, other resources in addition to placer deposits may be present in the planning area, such as lode 

deposits that were the source material for the placer gold in the Dickie Springs and Oregon Gulch areas. 

Because of the large uncertainties associated with these potential resources, a reliable quantitative 

estimate of gold resources cannot be provided for the planning area. 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 3-53 
Chapter 3 Final EIS 

3.5.6.2 Diamonds 

Diamonds could potentially occur in association with the Quaternary volcanic rocks (lamproites) found in 

the southern part of the planning area (Hausel et al. 1995, 1997). Although no diamonds have ever been 

recovered from these lamproites, they exhibit characteristics similar to diamond-bearing lamproites found 

in Arkansas, Western Australia, and India. Additional exploration is needed to further define these 

structures and to search for diamonds. Detailed petrographic and geochemical analyses and evaluation of 

larger sample volumes will be necessary to determine the presence of diamonds in this rock type. 

3.5.6.3 Uranium 

Wyoming has been a major producer of uranium in the United States (Harris and King 1993). Harris and 

King report that uranium mineralization is widespread in Wyoming. Large deposits of uranium occur 

outside the planning area in several districts. In the northern part of the planning area, the U.S. 

Geological Survey (Patterson et al. 1987) reports the occurrence of uranium within coalbeds of the 

Wasatch Formation (Tertiary) and possible deposits within the conglomeratic lenses of the Cathedral 

Bluffs Tongue of the Wasatch Formation. Uranium exploration has occurred on claims staked in the 

northern part of the planning area and south of the planning area around the Rock Springs Uplift. These 

claims targeted the Rock Springs Formation and/or Ericson Formation of the Cretaceous Mesaverde 

Group. Based on results of previous exploration activity, the potential for development of uranium within 

the planning area is very low. 

3.5.7 Alternative Energy Resources 

Alternative energy resources include development of wind power and solar power. 

3.5.7.1 Wind 

The Wind Energy Resource Atlas of the United States (Pacific Northwest Laboratory 1986) provides 

wind power classifications on a regional basis. The planning area is generally within wind power class 6 

(ranging from 1 to 7), with wind power densities of 300 to 400 watts per square meter. These data 

indicate that some locations within the planning area may be suitable for wind power development 

provided that suitable topographic locations could be developed and that access to the power grid and 

transmission line ROWs could be developed. However, interest in developing wind power facilities 

within the planning area has not been expressed to date. 

3.5.7.2 Solar 

The University of Oregon maintains a series of solar power research stations throughout the northwestern 

United States, including a station located at Green River, Wyoming (http://solardat.uoregon.edu/). Data 

from this station indicate that average daily photovoltaic cell output measured in kilowatt-hours per 

square meter per day range from 3.21 in January to 8.18 in June, based on data collected from 1994 to 

2000. These data indicate that the area has some development potential for solar power conversion to 

electricity. Development of solar power facilities would depend on accessibility to suitable locations and 

ROW access to power distribution lines, along with technological developments to decrease the costs and 

increase the efficiencies of photovoltaic cells. However, interest in developing solar power facilities 

within the planning area has not been expressed to date. 

3-54 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 3 

3.6 VISUAL RESOURCES 

Visual resources include the physical (natural and artificial) and biological features of the landscape that 

contribute to the scenic quality of an area. Scenic quality is a measure of the visual appeal of the 

landscape and is perhaps best described as the overall impression retained after driving through, walking 

through, or flying over an area. Although relative values can be used to evaluate scenic quality, visual 

appeal is subjective and can vary among observers. 

3.6.1 Visual Resource Inventory 

Scenic value is one of the resources for which public lands are to be managed in accordance with 

FLPMA. BLM manages this resource by determining visual values through a resource inventory process. 

The inventory consists of a scenic quality evaluation, sensitivity level analysis, and distance zones 

mapping. 

Visual resources are best described using the physiographic provinces, which are large-scale geographical 

units of land. The scenic quality is evaluated against seven factors or common characteristics within the 

province: landform, vegetation, water, color, adjacent scenery, scarcity, and cultural modifications. The 

physiographic province helps establish a frame of reference with which to classify the relative scenic 

quality. Areas with more variety and harmonious composition tend to have greater scenic value. 

The JMH CAP planning area lies mostly within the Wyoming Basin physiographic province. The 

landscape within the Wyoming Basin province is varied and characterized by highly erodible soils and 

multicolored, horizontally layered sedimentary bedrock. Colorful badlands landscapes are common 

throughout the planning area and are interspersed with low rolling or flat-topped hills. Low precipitation 

levels and localized occurrence of surface water provides for the following distinct vegetative 

communities: riparian vegetation found along perennial streams, intermittent surface water locations, and 

rivers; sparse vegetation located on well-drained soils of side slopes and hillsides; and alkaline vegetation 

in localized areas where evaporation rates exceed the volume of infiltrating surface water. 

Scenic quality includes cultural modifications, which are artificial (human-made) changes to the land, 

water, or vegetation, or the addition of a structure that creates visual contrast to the natural character of 

the landscape. Cultural modifications within the physiographic province are primarily associated with oil 

and gas production (such as well facilities, pipelines, roads, and power distribution lines) and with 

livestock grazing operations (such as fences and water developments). 

Evaluation of visual resources also considers sensitivity levels or measures of public concern for the 

maintenance of scenic quality. Sensitivity factors include type of user, amount of use, public interest, 

adjacent land use, and special management areas. 

Scenic quality can also depend on sight distances. Landscapes are divided into distance zones based on 

relative visibility from travel routes or observation points. These zones are foreground-middle ground, 

background, and seldom seen. Distance zones are used to adjust visual classes in areas of overlapping 

resource uses. Foreground-middle ground zones are more visible to the observer and are more sensitive 

to change. 

Lands are placed into one of four visual resource inventory classes. These classes represent the relative 

value of the visual resource as determined through the inventory process. Inventory Class I and Class II 

are the most valued, and Class III and Class IV represent moderate value and least value, respectively. 

Class I is assigned to areas where a management decision was made to maintain a natural landscape. The 

other classes are based on the combination of scenic quality, sensitivity level, and distance zones. 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 3-55 
Chapter 3 Final EIS 

3.6.2 Visual Resource Management 

The visual resource classes serve as a management tool in making land use decisions. Visual Resource 

Management (VRM) classes (I, II, III, IV) set standards for planning, designing, and evaluating projects 

by identifying various permissible levels of landscape alteration while protecting overall regional scenic 

quality. Management objectives for the classes are presented in Table 3-25. 

Table 3-25. Visual Resource Management Class Objectives 

Class Objective 

I 

Existing character of the landscape should be preserved. 

Natural ecological changes should be provided for (does not preclude very limited 

management activity). 

Level of change to characteristic landscape should be very low and must not attract 

attention. 

II 

Existing character of the landscape should be retained. 

Level of change to characteristic landscape should be low. 

Management activities may be seen but should not attract the attention of the casual 

observer. 

Any changes must repeat the basic elements of form, line, color, and texture found in 

predominant natural features of the characteristic landscape. 

III 

Existing character of the landscape should be partially retained. 

Level of change to characteristic landscape should be moderate. 

Management activities may attract attention but should not dominate the view of the casual 

observer. 

Changes should repeat the basic elements found in the predominant natural features of 

characteristic landscape. 

IV 

Management activities that require major modifications of the existing character of the 

landscape should be provided for. 

Level of change to characteristic landscape can be high. 

Management activities may dominate the view and be the major focus of viewer attention. 

Minimize the impact of activities through careful location, minimal disturbance, and 

repeating the basic elements. 

The VRM classes in the JMH CAP planning area are shown on Map 13. WSAs would be managed as 

VRM Class I areas to preserve the natural setting and existing character of the landscape. VRM Class II 

areas include the southern portion of Steamboat Mountain ACEC, Greater Sand Dunes ACEC, South Pass 

Historic Landscape ACEC, White Mountain Petroglyphs ACEC, and areas adjacent to the WSAs. Land 

areas included in VRM Class III include the northern portion of Steamboat Mountain ACEC, the northern 

portion of the White Mountains (Petroglyphs area), Split Rock, Eden Valley, and the western part of the 

Red Desert watershed area. The remainder of the JMH CAP planning area is classified as VRM Class IV. 

3.7 SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREAS AND OTHER MANAGEMENT AREAS 

A special management area is any area where an authorized officer has determined resources require 

special management and control measures for their protection. Special management areas within the 

JMH CAP planning area include WSAs, ACECs, SRMAs, and other areas such as watershed areas (Map 

14). 

3-56 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 3 

3.7.1 Special Management Areas 

3.7.1.1 Wilderness Study Areas 

WSAs are roadless areas that have been inventoried and found to have wilderness characteristics as 

defined in Section 2(c) of the Wilderness Act of 1964. These characteristics require an area to generally 

appear in a natural state and be substantially unaffected by the actions of humans. The area should 

encompass at least 5,000 acres to make practicable its preservation and to offer opportunities for solitude 

or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation. Although not a required characteristic, the area may 

also contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historic value. 

Section 603 of FLPMA directed BLM to inventory, study, and recommend to Congress by 1991, through 

the Secretary of the Interior and the President, public lands suitable or unsuitable for wilderness 

designation. BLM lands in the Green River Resource Management Area were inventoried for wilderness 

characteristics, and 13 areas were evaluated in the Final Rock Springs Wilderness EIS for suitability as 

WSAs (USDI 1990). Within the JMH CAP planning area, seven WSAs were determined to meet 

wilderness characteristics: Buffalo Hump, Sand Dunes, Alkali Draw, South Pinnacles, White Horse 

Creek, Oregon Buttes, and Honeycomb Buttes (Map 14). Table 3-26 outlines the results of these 

determinations. 

Table 3-26. Wilderness Study Area Determinations 

WSA Wilderness Criteria 

Met (acres) 

Suitable for Designation

(acres) 

Unsuitable for 

Designation (acres) 

Buffalo Hump 10,300 6,080 4,220 

Sand Dunes 27,109 21,304 5,805 

Alkali Draw 16,990 0 16,990 

South Pinnacles 10,800 0 10,800 

Honeycomb 

Buttes 

41,404 37,287 4,117 

Oregon Buttes 5,700 5,700 0 

Whitehorse Creek 4,002 0 4,002 

Total1 116,305 70,371 45,934 

Source: Final Rock Springs Wilderness Environmental Impact Statement, 1990. 1

Total acres vary from GIS files.

The BLM Interim Management Policy and Guidelines for Lands Under Wilderness Review provides 

direction for managing the WSAs so as not to impair their suitability for designation as wilderness, 

subject to valid existing rights. Permissible activities under interim management guidelines are temporary 

uses that create no new surface disturbance nor involve permanent placement of structures. Temporary, 

nondisturbing activities, as well as activities governed by valid existing rights, may generally continue in 

WSAs. 

Only Congress can designate areas as wilderness or release from interim management the areas that were 

placed under wilderness study. All wilderness recommendations within the JMH CAP planning area are 

pending congressional decision. 

3.7.1.1.1 Buffalo Hump 

Buffalo Hump WSA has no private or state inholdings. The primary topographic relief consists of sand 

valleys, blowouts, hills, and dunes with individual dunes exceeding heights of 100 feet. The interdunal 

areas contain ponds, grass-covered marshes, and playas. The WSA exhibits a natural condition of 

undisturbed sagebrush-grassland ecosystem intermingled with active sand dunes. The recreation values 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 3-57 
Chapter 3 Final EIS 

are outstanding, with opportunities for hiking, backpacking, nature study, photography, hunting, and 

rockhounding. 

3.7.1.1.2 Sand Dunes 

Sand Dunes WSA comprises a large part of the Killpecker Sand Dunes and contains large areas of barren 

active dunes, wet meadows, greasewood, big sagebrush, and rabbit brush communities. A unique feature 

of the WSA is the Aeolian ice-cells that feed pools at the base of many of the large sand dunes. The 

naturalness of this WSA is considered exceptional because of the lack of humanmade intrusions. The 

flowing dunes virtually eliminate any evidence of human activity in the area. The Steamboat elk herd 

uses this area. 

3.7.1.1.3 Alkali Draw 

Alkali Draw WSA contains a remnant of the Great Divide Basin-Red Desert area. A series of draws or 

canyons extend through the WSA, creating a “washboard” topographic effect. Alkali Rim dominates the 

southern aspect and exhibits colorful blue rock escarpments. Big sagebrush is the dominant vegetation 

community, with greasewood common along the major drainages. The WSA contains habitat for mule 

deer and elk. The WSA is in a natural condition, and the humanmade intrusions are substantially 

unnoticeable and undergoing natural revegetation. However, the value of the area for oil and gas 

production and the degree of the wilderness values made the WSA unsuitable for wilderness designation. 

3.7.1.1.4 South Pinnacles 

South Pinnacles WSA contains mostly flat topography with an exposure of broken rim rocks and ridges. 

Greasewood communities occupy the draws, with big sagebrush in the open areas. The WSA is natural in 

character and provides opportunities for solitude and varied recreation. However, the potential for gas 

production and the manageability of the area made the WSA unsuitable for wilderness designation. 

3.7.1.1.5 Honeycomb Buttes 

Honeycomb Buttes WSA contains several terrain types, ranging from sagebrush hills and greasewood 

flats surrounding the badlands to eroding buttes, colored bluffs, and side canyons. This area is one of the 

best examples of badlands topography in the state and of fossil- and fossil cast-bearing formation in the 

region. These highly colorful and rugged desert badlands provide outstanding opportunities for solitude. 

The WSA is natural in character and relatively free of human activities because of the severe topography 

of the area. 

3.7.1.1.6 Oregon Buttes 

Oregon Buttes WSA contains no private or state inholdings. The buttes are a prominent feature rising out 

of the Red Desert, with historical significance as the major landmark for travelers of the Oregon Trail. 

Resources of the area consist of limber pine stands, small aspen stands, prime raptor habitat, and valuable 

big game habitat. Visibility from the buttes extends for miles and provides scenic vistas of the mountain 

ranges to the north and south. The WSA is in a natural state and provides outstanding recreation 

opportunities for birdwatchers and photographers. 

3.7.1.1.7 Whitehorse Creek 

Whitehorse Creek WSA contains no private or state inholdings. A large portion of the area contains 

eroding red, green, and gray buttes. The area supports various habitats and landscapes, including aspen 

3-58 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 3 

and limber pine stands, sheer sandstone cliffs, and badland topography. The WSA contains important 

raptor habitat. Opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation are high in areas of the WSA where 

large escarpments and buttes are located. The potential for gas production and the manageability of OHV 

use in the portion of the area with little topographic relief contributed to the determination of unsuitability 

for wilderness designation for this WSA. 

3.7.1.2 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

ACECs are areas of BLM-administered lands where special management attention is needed to protect 

and prevent irreparable damage to important resources. To be designated an ACEC, the area must meet 

the criteria of relevance and importance (43 CFR §1610.7-2 and BLM Manual 1613). Areas meeting the 

relevance criterion possess significant historic, cultural, or scenic values; fish or wildlife resources 

including T&E species; or natural hazards. To meet the importance criterion, the resource must have 

substantial significance and value. This generally requires qualities of more than local significance and 

special worth, consequence, meaning, distinctiveness, or cause for concern. A natural hazard can be 

important if it is a significant threat to human life or property. 

There are five ACECs within the JMH CAP planning area: Greater Sand Dunes, Oregon Buttes, South 

Pass Historic Landscape, Steamboat Mountain, and White Mountain Petroglyphs (Map 14). Another 

ACEC within the Green River Resource Management Area, the Special Status Plant Species ACEC, does 

not currently contain acreage within the JMH CAP planning area; however, there is potential for other 

sensitive species within the planning area to be added. 

3.7.1.2.1 Greater Sand Dunes 

The Greater Sand Dunes ACEC met the relevance and importance criteria in 1982 for outstanding 

geologic features, prehistoric and historic values of national significance, and recreation values of 

regional and national importance. Management objectives preserve and protect the integrity of these 

unique values in the area for future public use and enjoyment. The ACEC is unique to the Wyoming 

Basin and contains values that are “geologically, aesthetically, and biologically interesting” (McGrew et 

al. 1974). 

The Greater Sand Dunes are part of the larger Killpecker dune field, the largest active dune field in North 

America. The Killpecker dune field encompasses approximately 109,000 acres, extending 55 miles east 

from the Green River Basin across the Continental Divide into the Great Divide Basin. The ACEC 

comprises approximately 41,600 acres (approximately 38 percent of the Killpecker dune field). Boars 

Tusk, a remnant volcanic neck, is an unusual geologic feature that lies within the Greater Sand Dunes 

ACEC. 

The dunes within the Greater Sand Dunes ACEC help to support the Steamboat elk herd known to occupy 

this unique desert habitat. Elk occupy the area during the spring and fall, using dunal ponds (flockets) as 

a source of water. The dunal ponds generally are not as alkaline as other water sources in the area and are 

known to provide an oasis for plants and animals. The dunal ponds also provide excellent habitat for 

waterfowl, amphibians, songbirds, and small mammals. 

The western portion of Greater Sand Dunes ACEC encompasses some of the Sand Dunes and Buffalo 

Hump WSAs. These WSAs are managed under the BLM Interim Management Policy for Lands Under 

Wilderness Review (BLM Manual H-8550-1), as discussed above. The eastern portion of Greater Sand 

Dunes ACEC incorporates the boundary of the Greater Sand Dunes SRMA, which offers outstanding 

motorized and nonmotorized recreational values. The historic Crookston Ranch is also located within the 

ACEC. 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 3-59 
Chapter 3 Final EIS 

3.7.1.2.2 Oregon Buttes 

Oregon Buttes ACEC was designated in 1982 to protect its scenic integrity as a historic landmark and to 

protect the significant wildlife values found in the area. The ACEC lies on a structural platform that joins 

the Rock Springs Uplift to the Wind River Mountain Range (Zeller and Stephens 1969). At Oregon 

Buttes, the Continental Divide splits into east and west rims, which rejoin at Bridgers’ Pass, south of 

Rawlins, and encloses an area known as the Great Divide Basin. 

The Buttes are a dominating landform and were often noted by emigrants using the Oregon Trail, marking 

the halfway point in their journey from Independence, Missouri, to the Pacific Ocean. The buttes also 

denoted the Continental Divide and the point where they crossed into the Pacific watershed. 

The ACEC provides excellent wildlife habitat. The area is used heavily by big game species, and the 

buttes themselves are occupied by many raptors. Deer fawning and elk calving also occur in the area. 

Honeycomb Buttes, Oregon Buttes, and Whitehorse Creek WSAs overlap the ACEC, thus the ACEC is 

managed under the BLM Interim Management Policy for Lands Under Wilderness Review (BLM Manual 

H-8550-1). 

3.7.1.2.3 South Pass Historic Landscape 

The South Pass Historic Landscape ACEC was designated in 1997. Management priority and emphasis 

was given to maintaining and enhancing the visual and historic integrity of the historic trails and their 

surrounding viewscape. 

South Pass is located on the northwest edge of the Wyoming Basin. The pass was the site where emigrant 

travelers traversed the Continental Divide, and thus it roughly marks the halfway point in the epic 

westward journey. The scenic vista of South Pass is among the most important historic landscapes, 

because South Pass served as the primary mountain gateway to the West along the Oregon, Mormon 

Pioneer, Pony Express, and California National Historic Trails. This viewscape includes the top rim of 

Pacific Butte on the south and the divide between waters flowing to Pacific Creek and the Sweetwater 

River on the north and east. 

The site on the pass where several commemorative markers have been placed is listed on the National 

Register of Historic Places. In 1959 the National Park Service designated South Pass a National Historic 

Landmark. The National Park Service proposed a boundary for the landmark in 1984; however, an 

official boundary has not been delineated. 

3.7.1.2.4 Steamboat Mountain 

The Steamboat Mountain ACEC was designated in 1997 to protect wildlife and cultural values of national 

significance and unique habitat features. The area is the year-round home of the Steamboat desert elk 

herd and has highly varied topographic features and unique habitats of stabilized sand dunes that are 

found nowhere else in the resource area. 

Tall sagebrush of up to 8 to 12 feet provides escape cover, shelter, thermal protection, and birthing areas 

for big game. Limber pine and aspen communities provide habitat to a wide variety of wildlife but are 

limited in size and localities. Other mountain shrub communities, such as serviceberry and mountain 

mahogany, provide forage in deep snow conditions. Grass-covered ridgetops offer additional forage for 

elk during crucial winter periods. 

3-60 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 3 

The Steamboat Mountain ACEC, along with a portion of the Greater Sand Dunes ACEC and overlapping 

crucial winter range, is part of what is called the “core area” within the planning area. The core area is 

approximately 90,700 acres in size and is considered the most crucial habitat for many of the species 

(especially elk and deer) that inhabit the planning area. 

3.7.1.2.5 White Mountain Petroglyphs 

The White Mountain Petroglyphs ACEC was designated in 1982 to protect cultural values of national 

significance. Native American drawings associated with the early ancestors of the present Shoshone 

Tribe and perhaps other tribes are contained within the ACEC. Common drawings include human 

figures, elk, buffalo, feather headdresses, and human stick figures. 

Several times during consultations both tribal councils and elders pointed out the importance of wildlife, 

especially elk in the Jack Morrow Hills area. The time depth of Native American appreciation of the 

Steamboat elk herd seems evident at White Mountain Petroglyphs. A number of renditions of elk are 

depicted in an amplified scale compared to warriors on horseback, bison, tipis and other features. The 

fact that these drawings of elk are very detailed, and that they are roughly five times larger than people 

and other animals depicted at the site reinforces the contention by modern Native Americans that the 

Steamboat elk herd has long been important to Native people of the area. 

3.7.1.2.6 Special Status Plant Species 

The Special Status Plant Species ACEC was designated in 1997. Special status plants are those listed, 

proposed for listing, or candidates for listing as T&E under the ESA, identified by the state in a category 

implying potential endangerment or extinction, or species designated by the BLM State Director as 

sensitive. 

Management priority and emphasis for the ACEC was given to maintain or enhance these species and 

their habitats. Although no species associated with the ACEC occur within the planning area, there is 

potential for other sensitive species to be added to the ACEC as provided in the Green River RMP. 

3.7.1.3 Special Recreation Management Areas 

SRMAs include areas where a commitment has been made to provide specific recreation activity and 

experience opportunities. These areas usually require a high level of recreation investment and 

management. There are two areas within the planning area designated as SRMAs: (1) Greater Sand 

Dunes and (2) Oregon, Mormon Pioneer, California, and Pony Express National Historic Trails. 

3.7.1.3.1 Greater Sand Dunes 

The Greater Sand Dunes SRMA incorporates the boundary of the Greater Sand Dunes ACEC and 

provides outstanding motorized and nonmotorized recreational values. In 1983, an ACEC management 

plan was completed that also serves as the Recreational Activity Management Plan for the SRMA. 

Located within the eastern portion of the SRMA is the Greater Sand Dunes Recreation Area, which 

carries an “open” OHV designation on 10,020 acres. The SRMA also contains an OHV parking lot and 

camping area that were built in the mid-1980s. 

3.7.1.3.2 Oregon, Mormon Pioneer, California, and Pony Express National Historic Trails 

The National Trails System Act provides for the designation and protection of original trails or routes of 

travel of national historic significance and historic remnants and artifacts for public use and enjoyment. 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 3-61 
Chapter 3 Final EIS 

National Historic Trails are designated through criteria established in the act, and only those parts of the 

trail that meet the criteria and are contained on federal lands are provided protection. 

The Rock Springs Field Office manages hundreds of miles of the best traces of 19th century emigration 

trails, including the Oregon, Mormon Pioneer, California, and Pony Express trail systems. These trails 

represent the main overland routes of people, property, and information available during the nation’s 

westward expansion. The National Historic Trails SRMA is within the South Pass Historic Landscape 

ACEC and is managed for a range of visitors, from local dedicated OHV users to the transient visitor that 

is simply passing through the area. The National Park Service prepared a comprehensive management 

and use plan in 1999 for the California and Pony Express National Historic Trails and an update to the 

Oregon and Mormon Pioneer National Historic Trails Management Plan. The trails are described in 

Section 3.2, Heritage Resources. 

3.7.2 Other Management Areas 

3.7.2.1 Red Desert Watershed Management Area 

The Red Desert Watershed was identified as a watershed management area in the Green River RMP. The 

management objective established for the watershed is management of all resource values in the Red 

Desert area, with emphasis on protection of visual resources, watershed values, and wildlife resources, 

and the provision of large areas of unobstructed views for enjoyment of scenic qualities. 

The Red Desert Watershed comprises one of the last undeveloped high desert regions in the west. It 

contains unique landforms, colorful badlands, and shifting sand dunes. Much of the Red Desert 

Watershed still looks the same way it did when the pioneers passed through the Continental Divide on the 

Oregon and Mormon Pioneer Trails. The Red Desert Watershed also contains portions of four WSAs 

within the planning area: Alkali Draw, Honeycomb Buttes, Oregon Buttes, and South Pinnacles. Portions 

of the Oregon Buttes and Steamboat Mountain ACECs are also within the Red Desert Watershed. 

The Red Desert Watershed falls within the Great Divide Basin, which is a hydrologically closed basin. 

Most streams are intermittent and flow toward the center of the basin into playa lakes, where they either 

recharge the aquifers or evaporate. Artesian groundwater and unconfined groundwater are found 

throughout the watershed area. 

The Great Divide Basin is a cold, high-elevation desert environment that provides habitat for a variety of 

wildlife species. Along Bush Rim, Freighter Gap, and other rims surrounding the basin, vegetation is 

highly variable and provides the most cover and forage. Aspen and limber pines provide cover for big 

game. South-facing slopes containing serviceberry, mountain mahogany, and currants are favored as big 

game winter range. Raptors can also be found throughout the watershed area, although most are 

concentrated in the Oregon Buttes ACEC and the Honeycomb Buttes WSA. 

3.7.2.2 Pinnacles Geographic Area 

The Pinnacles Geographic Area includes approximately 8,900 acres in the southeast portion of the Red 

Desert Watershed. The area is identified as having values of naturalness, solitude, and a primitive 

unconfined type of recreation. The Pinnacles Geographic Area includes the Pinnacles Geologic Feature, 

which is a 1,344-acre scenic, geologic, and watershed sensitive area that contains the actual Pinnacle 

monoliths, identified as the Pinnacles Proper (approximately 660 acres). The Pinnacles are visually 

interesting compared with other landforms in the surrounding area. Most landforms in this area are 

horizontal rims, whereas the Pinnacles are vertical and protrude upward from the desert floor, providing a 

very interesting contrast. The Pinnacles themselves are nesting grounds for the ferruginous hawk. 

3-62 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 3 

3.8 AIR RESOURCES 

Air resources are affected predominantly by existing concentrations of various pollutants and the climatic 

and meteorological conditions that influence their fate and transport in the atmosphere. 

3.8.1 Climate and Meteorology 

The climate of the JMH CAP planning area is classified as semi-arid steppe (Trewartha and Horn 1980). 

Steppe climate is characterized by large seasonal variations in temperature (cold winters and warm 

summers) and precipitation that is slight but still sufficient for the growth of short sparse grass. The 

dryness of the mid-latitude steppe climate of southwestern Wyoming is due to the distance from the 

Pacific Ocean, the main source of precipitable water for North America. This aridity is further intensified 

by the Rocky Mountains, which block the eastward flow of humid coastal air. In addition, annual rainfall 

amounts vary greatly from year to year (Trewartha and Horn 1980). 

Weather stations in the planning area include those located in Rock Springs and Farson in Sweetwater 

County, Wyoming. Rock Springs is at an elevation of 6,741 feet and is about 15 miles south of the JMH 

CAP planning area. Farson is at an elevation of 6,675 feet and is about 4 miles northeast of the JMH 

CAP planning area. 

3.8.1.1 Temperature 

Mean annual temperatures range from 36 degrees oF in Farson to 43 degrees oF in Rock Springs. Summer 

highs are usually in the 70s and 80s but may reach the high 90s. Winter lows are generally in the minus 

single digits but may reach the minus 20s in Farson. Rock Springs winter lows are generally in the teens. 

3.8.1.2 Precipitation 

Mean annual precipitation is 8 and 9 inches in Farson and Rock Springs, respectively. Annual 

precipitation ranges from 3 or 4 inches in drought years to as much as 17 inches in wet years. Mean 

monthly precipitation is greatest in spring. Mean annual snowfall in Farson averages about 3 feet, with 

most snow occurring from November through April. Mean annual snowfall in Rock Springs averages 

just under 4 feet, with most snow occurring from October through April. Average snow depth is 2 or 3 

inches. 

3.8.1.3 Dispersion 

Atmospheric stability is a measure of the atmosphere=s capacity to disperse pollutants. Mean annual 

stability at Rock Springs is high (leading to low dispersive capacity) less than 20 percent of the time, low 

(leading to high dispersive capacity) about 20 percent of the time, and neutral (leading to fair dispersive 

capacity) more than 60 percent of the time (USDI 1999a). 

3.8.1.4 Wind Velocity 

Winds in Rock Springs are relatively strong and are generally from the west and west-southwest. 

3.8.2 Air Quality 

Elements of air quality addressed in this study include concentrations of air pollutants, visibility, and 

atmospheric deposition. See Appendix 15 for more detailed information. 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 3-63 
Chapter 3 Final EIS 

3.8.2.1 Pollutant Concentrations 

Pollutant concentration refers to the mass of pollutants present in a volume of air and is reported in units 

of μg/m3

. Air quality in the planning area is considered excellent; however, current and complete 

concentration data on criteria air pollutants for JMH and the immediate vicinity are not available. The 

State of Wyoming has used monitoring to determine that the JMH region is in compliance with Wyoming 

Ambient Air Quality Standards (WAAQS) and National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) (Table 

3-27, Figure A15-10, and Figure A15-11). 

Table 3-27. Background Concentrations of Criteria Air Pollutants 

Pollutant Averaging

Time 

Background

Concentration 

(μg/m3

) 

Percent 

NAAQS 

(%) 

Percent 

WAAQS 

(%) 

Carbon Monoxide 8 hour 1,500 15 15 

(CO) 1 hour 3,500 9 9 

Nitrogen Dioxide 

(NO2) 

Annual 3.4 3 3 

Sulfur Dioxide Annual 9 11 5 

(SO2) 24 hour 43 12 17 

3 hour 132 10 19 

Ozone 8 hour 147 94 94 

(O3) 1 hour 169 72 72 

Particulate Matter Annual 16 32 32 

(PM10) 24 hour 40 27 27 

Fine Particulate Annual 5 33 33 

Matter 

(PM2.5) 

24 hour 13 20 20 

Refer to the Pinedale Anticline Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Project for description of data sources. 

3.8.2.1.1 Carbon Monoxide 

Carbon monoxide data were collected in Colorado in conjunction with the proposed oil shale 

development in the 1980s (USDI 1983). Because CO data are generally collected only in urban areas 

where automobile traffic levels are high, recent data are often unavailable for rural areas. 

3.8.2.1.2 Nitrogen Dioxide 

Nitrogen dioxide data were collected at the Green River Basin Visibility Study site from January 1 to 

December 31, 2001. Monitoring of other nitrogen-containing pollutants shows that concentrations at 

Pinedale, Wyoming, of nitric acid (HNO3), nitrate (NO3), and particulate ammonium (NH4) are low and 

not increasing over time. 

The Clean Air Status and Trends Network (CASTNet) has measured concentrations of nitric acid, nitrate, 

and ammonium, as well as ozone, sulfur dioxide, and sulfate, in the United States since the late 1980s. 

There are three CASTNet stations in Wyoming: Centennial, Yellowstone National Park, and Pinedale. 

Figure A15-1 shows mean annual concentrations of nitrogen-containing pollutants in Pinedale from 1989 

through 1999 to be 0.5 μg/m3

 or less. 

The Wyoming Air Resources Monitoring System (WARMS) has measured concentrations of nitrate and 

particulate ammonium, as well as sulfur dioxide and particulate sulfate, in Wyoming since 1999. There 

are four WARMS stations in Wyoming: Centennial, Buffalo, Sheridan, Newcastle, and Pinedale. Weekly 

concentrations of NO3 are below 1.5 μg/m3

, and concentrations of NH4 are below 0.5 μg/m3. 

3-64 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 3 

Because the chemistry of nitrogen-containing pollutants is very complex, it would be inappropriate to 

infer NO2 concentrations from concentrations of HNO3, NO3, and NH4. However, it would be unlikely 

that high NO2 concentrations would occur with low concentrations of other nitrogen-based pollutants. 

3.8.2.1.3 Sulfur Dioxide 

Sulfur dioxide data were collected at the La Barge study area in the 1980s. More recent SO2 data were 

collected by CASTNet and WARMS in Pinedale. Figure A15-2 shows mean annual CASTNet 

concentrations of SO2 in Pinedale from 1989 through 2001 to be about 0.5 μg/m3

. Weekly WARMS 

concentrations of SO2 from mid-1999 through 2001 are approximately 1.5 μg/m3

 or less. Although it may 

not be appropriate to compare mean annual CASTNet SO2 concentrations with national or Wyoming 

standards, the CASTNet concentrations do suggest that SO2 concentrations are well below NAAQS and 

WAAQS. 

3.8.2.1.4 Ozone 

Ozone concentration data were collected at the Green River Basin Visibility Study site from June 10, 

1998, to December 31, 2001. Ozone data were also collected by the CASTNet station at Pinedale. 

Concentrations are relatively high but in compliance with NAAQS and WAAQS. Figure A15-3 shows 

mean annual O3 concentrations have remained steady from 1989 through 2001. 

3.8.2.1.5 Particulate and Fine Particulate Matter 

Particulate matter (PM10) data were collected at the Carbon County Underground Coal Gasification site in 

1994 and 1995. Fine particulate matter (PM2.5) data were estimated at half PM10 concentrations, as 

recommended by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Mean annual PM10 concentrations were 

32 percent of NAAQS and WAAQS, and mean annual PM2.5 concentrations were 33 percent of NAAQS. 

3.8.2.2 Visibility 

The Inter-Agency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) has measured visibility in 

national parks and wilderness areas in the United States since the 1980s. Six IMPROVE stations are 

located in Wyoming. The IMPROVE station closest to the JMH CAP planning area is in the Bridger 

Wilderness. The best visibility monitored in the contiguous United States is at this station. 

Visibility can be expressed in terms of deciviews (dv), a measure for describing perceived changes in 

visibility. One dv is defined as a change in visibility that is just perceptible to an average person, about a 

10 percent change in light extinction. Monitored aerosol concentrations are used to reconstruct visibility 

conditions. 

• 20 percent cleanest: Mean visibility for the 20 percent of days with the best visibility 

• Average: The annual median visibility 

• 20 percent haziest: Mean visibility for the 20 percent of days with the poorest visibility. 

Figure A15-4 shows annual visibility in the Bridger Wilderness from 1988 through 1999. Visibility on 

the 20 percent cleanest days varies from 5 to 3 dv (visual range of about 136–68 miles). Average 

visibility varies from 8 to 6 dv (about 96 to 114 miles). Visibility for the 20 percent haziest days varies 

from 12 to 10 dv (about 56–6 miles). Trend analysis of Bridger visibility data reveals no significant 

worsening trend in visibility from 1989 through 2001. 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 3-65 
Chapter 3 Final EIS 

3.8.2.3 Atmospheric Deposition 

Atmospheric deposition refers to the processes by which air pollutants are removed from the atmosphere 

and deposited on terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems and is reported as the mass of material deposited on 

an area (kilogram per hectare [kg/ha]). Air pollutants are deposited by wet deposition (precipitation) and 

dry deposition (gravitational settling of particles and adherence of gaseous pollutants to soil, water, and 

vegetation). Substances deposited include— 

• Acids such as sulfuric acid (H2SO4) and nitric acid (HNO3), sometimes referred to as “acid rain” 

• Air toxics such as pesticides, herbicides, and volatile organic compounds (VOC) 

• Nutrients such as nitrate (NO3) and ammonium (NH4). 

Estimation of atmospheric deposition is complicated by the contribution to deposition of several 

components: rain, snow, cloud water, particle settling, and gaseous pollutants. Deposition varies with 

precipitation, which in turn varies with elevation and time. 

3.8.2.3.1 Wet Deposition 

The National Atmospheric Deposition Program (NADP) assesses wet deposition by measuring the 

chemical composition of precipitation (rain and snow). Figure A15-5 shows the precipitation pH in 

Pinedale from 1982 through 2002. The natural acidity of rainwater is generally represented by a range of 

pH values from 5.0 to 5.6. Mean annual pH at Pinedale is generally within this range, although from 

1994 through 1998 pH values dropped. During this period, pH ranged from 4.9 to 5.0. These lower 

values may be the result of anthropogenic acidification of precipitation in Pinedale, Wyoming. 

Figure A15-6 shows mean annual wet deposition of ammonium (NH4), nitrate (NO3), and sulfate (SO4). 

Deposition values are low: approximately 0.5 kg/ha for NH4

+

, less than 3 kg/ha for NO3, and less than 4 

kg/ha for SO4. Deposition values from 1982 through 2000 are low and steady, indicating that deposition 

has not worsened during that time. 

3.8.2.3.2 Dry Deposition 

Dry deposition refers to the transfer of airborne gaseous and particulate material from the atmosphere to 

the Earth=s surface. CASTNet measures dry deposition of ozone (O3), sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitric acid 

(HNO3), sulfate (SO4), nitrate (NO3), and ammonium (NH4). Figure A15-7 shows mean annual dry 

deposition of sulfur- and nitrogen-containing compounds for Pinedale, Wyoming, from 1990 through 

2001. Deposition values are low and steady, indicating that deposition has not worsened during this time. 

3.8.2.4 Lake Chemistry 

Acid deposition can cause acidification of lakes and streams. One expression of lake acidification is 

change in acid neutralizing capacity (ANC), the lake=s capacity to resist acidification from acid rain. Acid 

neutralizing capacity is expressed in units of micro-equivalents per liter (μeq/l). Lakes with ANC values 

of 25 to 100 μeq/l are considered to be sensitive to acid rain, while lakes with ANC values of less than 25 

μeq/l are considered to be extremely sensitive. 

3.8.2.5 Summary of Existing Air Quality 

Table 3-28 provides a summary of air quality monitoring and dispersion modeling, which shows that air 

quality in the JMH region is generally good. 

3-66 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 3 

Table 3-28. Air Quality Summary 

Air Quality

Component Status 

Air Pollutant Concentration 

Criteria Air 

Pollutants 

Concentrations are in compliance with NAAQS and WAAQS

 Nitrogen 

Compounds 

• Nitric acid (HNO3): Concentrations are slightly higher than typical for remote 

areas 

• Nitrate (NO3) and ammonium (NH4): Concentrations are typical for remote 

areas

 Sulfur

 Compounds 

• Sulfur dioxide (SO2): Concentrations are well below concentrations typical in 

remote areas 

• Sulfate (SO4): Concentrations are typical for remote areas 

Visibility 

Bridger 

Wilderness 

• 20% cleanest: 136–168 miles 

• Average: 96–114 miles 

• 20% haziest: 56–76 miles 

Atmospheric Deposition 

Precipitation pH Slight acidification from 1994 to 1998 (pH varied from 4.9 to 5.0) 

Total Deposition • Nitrogen: Deposition from ammonium (NH4) and nitrate (NO3) is less than 2.6 

kg/ha1 

• Sulfur: Deposition from sulfate (SO4) and sulfur dioxide (SO2) is less than 1.7 

kg/ha2 

1

Proposed acceptable level of total nitrogen deposition is 3 to 5 kg/ha/year (USFS 1989) 2

Proposed acceptable level of sulfur deposition is 5 kg/ha/year (USFS 1989)

3.9 SOCIOECONOMICS 

The JMH is located in southwest Wyoming in portions of Sweetwater, Fremont, and Sublette Counties. 

Activities in the planning area have the potential to affect all three counties; thus, the socioeconomic 

study area includes these three counties. Data on economic characteristics have been obtained where 

possible for the past 20 years to examine trends in the study area. 

3.9.1 County Characteristics 

The characteristics of the planning area reflect those of the State of Wyoming as a whole. The three 

counties in the area encompass a rather large landmass with a dispersed population and few urban areas. 

Federal public lands also dominate this area, as summarized in Figure 3. Within the three counties, 

federal agencies control 65 percent of the surface acreage, with BLM managing the majority of these 

acres. The JMH CAP planning area comprises approximately 622,000 surface acres, which is 4 percent of 

the socioeconomic study area. Land ownership within the planning area is split between federal, state, 

and private entities, as shown in Figure 3. 

3.9.2 Demographic Characteristics 

Demographic characteristics of the area include study area population trends and trends in personal 

income levels. 

3.9.2.1 Population 

Annual population estimates for each of the three counties for 1980 to 2000 are plotted in Figure 4. 

Population within the study area declined by more than 9 percent during the 1980s, unlike the State of 

Wyoming as a whole, which experienced a population increase. The opposite situation occurred during 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 3-67 
Chapter 3 Final EIS 

the 1990s, when population in the study area increased by 5.2 percent, exceeding population growth in the 

state. 

Population changes occur from both “natural changes” (i.e., the net result of births and deaths) and from 

“net migration” (i.e., the net result of persons moving in and out of the area). Natural changes caused an 

increase in the study area population of nearly 14 percent in the 1980s and of 6.6 percent during the 

1990s. However, net migration led to more people leaving this same area over the past two decades. All 

three counties reported significant decreases in population due to net migration during the 1980s, with 

nearly 20,000 people leaving the area. Net migration led to increases in population in Sublette and 

Fremont Counties during the 1990s, while Sweetwater County reported a nearly 7 percent decline. 

3.9.2.2 Personal Income Trends 

Personal income data were obtained for each of the counties in the study area from the U.S. Bureau of 

Economic Analysis (BEA). Table 3-29 summarizes components of personal income for 1979 and 1999 

for the three combined counties in inflation-adjusted dollars for 2001. Total personal income was more 

than $2 billion in 1999, up from $1.7 billion in 1979. During this 20-year period, personal income grew 

by more than 14 percent, with all of the growth occurring during the 1990s. 

Personal income can be broken down into three categories: labor income, investment income, and transfer 

payments income. Labor income is derived through wages, salaries, and self-employment income. 

Investment income includes income in the form of rents, dividends, and interest earnings. Transfer 

payments income is largely derived from Social Security benefits, Medicare and Medicaid benefits, and 

other income support and assistance. 

Table 3-29. Estimated Personal Income 

Personal Income by Source 

($1,000) Percentage of Total Personal Income 

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 

1979 1999 1979 1999 

Transfer payments $111,686 $273,353 6.4% 13.5% 

Manufacturing $47,485 $110,045 2.7% 5.4% 

Mining $574,033 $332,537 32.9% 16.5% 

Investment income $67,002 $135,760 3.8% 6.7% 

Agriculture $2,961 $4,620 0.2% 0.2% 

Federal and State 

Government $64,793 $91,243 3.7% 4.5% 

Total income earned 

from basic industries and 

outside sources $867,960 $947,558 

Total Personal Income $1,742,472 $2,019,817 49.8% 46.9% 

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Accounts Data, Table CA05 Personal Income 

by Major Source and Earnings by Industry, 1979–1999. 

The study area is showing signs of shifting patterns of income growth. Labor income now accounts for 64 

percent of total personal income, down from nearly 81 percent in 1979. Income from nonlabor sources 

has grown from 19 percent in 1979 to 36 percent in 1999. This change in how individuals earn income is 

not unlike national or state trends. For the nation as a whole, labor income fell from 73 percent in 1979 to 

68 percent in 1999. Similarly, labor income as a percentage of total income in Wyoming fell from 82 

percent in 1979 to 66 percent in 1999. 

3-68 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 3 

The study area has consistently reported lower than average per capita income than the national and state 

averages. By 1999, per capita income for the study area was $24,836, which was below the national 

($27,358) and state ($27,528) averages. 

3.9.3 Economic Characteristics 

This section focuses on trends associated with certain economic characteristics in the study area. This 

includes changes in the labor force and unemployment and trends in employment and earnings by 

industry. 

3.9.3.1 Labor Force and Unemployment 

Change in the labor force and unemployment can provide information on the health of the local economy. 

The average annual unemployment rates for each of the three counties, for Wyoming, and for the United 

States are summarized in Figure 5. Unemployment in the study area was consistently higher than 

unemployment for the State of Wyoming during the 1990s. In addition, unemployment in this area has 

been higher than the national average since 1993. Fremont County reported the highest unemployment 

during this time, followed by Sweetwater County. Sublette County consistently reported unemployment 

levels below the state and national averages during the 1990s. 

3.9.3.2 Employment and Earnings by Industry 

The BEA estimates annual employment and earnings for counties throughout the United States. Total 

annual employment includes both full-time and part-time jobs, so individuals with more than one job 

would be counted twice. Employment estimates include people employed by businesses and public 

entities, as well as persons who are self-employed. Data were obtained from BEA for total annual 

employment for each county within the study area, for Wyoming, and for the United States for 1979, 

1989, and 1999 to examine trends in employment by industry over this 20-year period. A summary of this 

information is provided in Appendix 16. 

Total employment in the study area increased by 9 percent over the 20-year period, from 45,028 jobs in 

1979 to 49,048 jobs in 1999. This lags behind the employment growth rate for the State of Wyoming and 

the United States as a whole. For example, over the same 20-year period, total employment grew by 19 

percent in Wyoming and 36.4 percent nationwide. 

Employment by industry for 1999 is summarized in Figure 6. Services, government, and trade constitute 

the largest percentage of total employment for this area. These three industries accounted for more than 

60 percent of total employment in 1999. Industries showing the greatest increase in employment between 

1979 and 1999 include services, government, and retail trade. Manufacturing also reported an increase in 

employment during this same period. Industries showing the greatest decline in employment between 

1979 and 1999 were mining, construction, and farming. 

Typically, rural areas such as southwest Wyoming are more dependent on traditional natural resourcebased industries, such as mining and agriculture. The study area is more dependent on mining for 

employment than is the State of Wyoming. Mining jobs accounted for 10 percent of total employment in 

the study area in 1999, compared with 5.5 percent throughout the state. However, this area is slightly less 

dependent on farm employment than is the rest of the state. In 1999, farm employment accounted for 3.5 

percent of total employment in the study area and 3.8 percent throughout Wyoming. 

Total earnings by industry in the study area, in Wyoming, and in the United States for 1979, 1989, and 

1999 were also obtained from BEA (Appendix 16). Total gross earnings for all industries (private 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 3-69 
Chapter 3 Final EIS 

nonfarm, farm, and government) fell by 8 percent between 1979 and 1999, with all the decrease occurring 

during the 1980s. However, earnings have been increasing over the past decade. 

Figure 7 provides a summary of gross earnings by industry for the study area in 1999. Mining provided 

the largest percentage (24 percent) of earnings of any industry in the area. This category includes metal, 

nonmetallic, coal mining, and oil and gas operations. Of these subcategories, oil and gas operations made 

up approximately 45 percent of mining earnings in 1999 for this area. 

Although mining remains important in terms of earnings for this area, the industry has reported 

significant declines in earnings between 1979 and 1999. Over the past 20 years, mining earnings declined 

by 90 percent, with most of this decline occurring during the 1990s. Other industries reporting declines in 

earnings between 1979 and 1999 include construction and farm services. Other industries important to 

this area in terms of earnings during 1999 include government, services, and trade. Industries reporting 

gains in earnings for the study area include manufacturing; finance, insurance, and real estate; and 

services. However, these three industries combined only accounted for 14 percent of total earnings for the 

study area in 1999. 

Another method of examining the importance of certain industries is to evaluate the trends in average 

earnings per job. Industries paying the highest earnings per job in 1999 were mining ($68,000), 

transportation and utilities ($46,000), and manufacturing ($46,000), whereas mining, manufacturing, and 

government industries reported the greatest increase in earnings per job between 1979 and 1999. Several 

industries reported declines in real earnings per job, with the greatest decline reported in agricultural 

services, construction and trade industries, followed by farming and services. 

3.9.3.3 Economic Base 

An area’s economic base is made up of the industries primarily responsible for bringing outside income 

into the local economy. Certain sectors within the economy are thought to be “basic” in nature, in that 

most of their sales are tied to outside markets or customers. These industries include manufacturing, 

mining, and agriculture. In addition, certain government sectors, such as federal and state government, are 

considered basic in nature because employees are paid from sources outside the local area. 

Outside sources of income can also be derived from nonlabor sources (investment income and transfer 

payments). For example transfer payment income can become an “economic driver” for the area’s 

economy, because many transfer payment programs are sustained by sources outside the local area. 

Therefore, when income of this type is received, spent, and respent in the area, it generates additional 

income for the local economy. This is also true of investment income. Because it is not known for certain 

what percentage of investment income is generated from outside sources, an assumption was made that 30 

percent was generated from such sources. 

Using these definitions of basic industries and outside sources of income, an analysis was conducted on 

the components of the economic base of the economy in the study area. Table 3-29 provides a breakdown 

of the components of the study area’s economic base and outside sources of income for 1979 and 1999. 

Columns 4 and 5 show that the percentage of total income earned from outside sources declined by 3 

percent between 1979 and 1999. In addition, there appeared to be a shift in the sources of outside income 

during the study period. Mining continued to account for the largest percentage of outside income, at 16.5 

percent but had declined in importance since 1979, when the industry accounted for 33 percent of outside 

income. In 1999, transfer payments were the second largest source of outside income, followed by 

investment income, manufacturing, and government. As of 1999, transfer payments made up more than 

3-70 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 3 

13 percent of personal income for the study area, up from 6.4 percent in 1979. Over the study period, 

agriculture consistently provided a very small percentage of outside income for the study area. 

Examination of these data indicates that the economy in the study area is lacking diversity, with a heavy 

dependence on one industry: mining. The mining industry has experienced declines over the past 20 

years; thus, other sources of income are now becoming more important. Data indicate that the study area 

is becoming more dependent on nonlabor sources of income, such as transfer payments and investment 

income, which now account for more than 20 percent of outside income. 

However, these data do not shed light on how the economy may be diversifying into other industries that 

are capable of bringing outside income into the local economy. For example, other industries, such as 

construction, real estate, and some service sectors, will bring outside income into the economy. It is 

possible that certain service sectors and the financial, insurance, and real estate sector have brought in 

additional outside income because of the nature of their business and the modest growth during the study 

period. The construction sector is likely not contributing to any economic diversification given its decline 

in the study area. 

3.9.4 Property Valuation and Taxation 

Total property valuation for 2001 for each of the three counties in the study area is summarized in Figures 

8 and 9. This valuation includes property assessed by the State of Wyoming and locally assessed 

property. The State of Wyoming assesses taxes on both mineral and nonmineral property. Nonmineral 

property assessed by the state includes airlines, utilities, pipelines, gas distribution systems, railroads, and 

phone service (Wyoming Department of Revenue Annual Report 2001). During fiscal year 2001, the 

valuation of property assessed by the state was $2.2 billion for the study area. Local government also 

assesses four categories of property: agricultural land, residential and commercial land, improvements and 

personal property, and industrial property. The value of property assessed by local governments in the 

study area exceeded $584 million, whereas the total value of assessed property during fiscal year 2001 

was $2.9 billion. 

Mineral production in the study area is a major source of tax revenue for government entities. During 

fiscal year 2001, minerals accounted for 80 percent of the property value assessed in the study area. In 

addition oil and gas production and operations provided a significant percentage of the assessed value of 

minerals. Table 3-30 summarizes the assessed value of oil and gas production and property for fiscal year 

2001 for each of the counties in the study area. Oil and gas production accounted for 85 percent of all 

mineral valuation for 2001 as assessed by the state. For Fremont and Sublette Counties, oil and gas 

production accounted for nearly 100 percent of all assessed mineral production. The physical assets of the 

oil and gas industry (property) constituted 19 percent of all property assessed by local governments. Of 

all property and production assessed by state and local governments, oil and gas operations accounted for 

67 percent of assessed value in the three-county study area during fiscal year 2001. 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 3-71 
Chapter 3 Final EIS 

Table 3-30. Assessed Value of Oil and Gas Production and Property

Fiscal Year 2001

County 

Oil and Gas 

Valuation– 

Production 

Oil and Gas 

Valuation 

As % of 

Total 

Mineral 

Valuation 

Oil and Gas 

Valuation– 

Property 

Oil and Gas 

Property As %

of Total 

Property

Valuation 

Oil and Gas 

Valuation As % of 

Total State and 

Local Assessed 

Property Valuation 

Fremont $352,327,499 99.92% $26,556,445 16% 70% 

Sublette $736,577,260 99.95% $42,147,672 39% 91% 

Sweetwater $670,371,775 68.39% $42,161,137 17% 51% 

Total for Study

Area $1,759,276,534 85.00% $110,865,254 19% 67% 

3.9.4.1 Ad Valorem Taxes—Counties 

Estimated ad valorem taxes from mineral production for each county during fiscal year 2001 are 

summarized in Table 3-31. The counties generated more than $129 million in tax revenues from mineral 

production, of which $110 million, or 85 percent, was derived from oil and gas production. Table 3-32 

provides an estimate of the ad valorem taxes assessed on property associated with oil and gas operations. 

During fiscal year 2001, the three counties generated an estimated $7 million in property taxes associated 

with oil and gas extraction assets. 

Table 3-31. Estimated Mineral Ad Valorem Tax Revenues

Fiscal Year 2001

County Natural Gas Crude Oil Stripper Oil Coal Trona Sand and 

Gravel Total 

Fremont $19,307,950 $4,016,437 $837,264 $0 $0 $20,468 $24,182,119 

Sublette $38,224,451 $4,734,654 $387,730 $0 $0 $19,830 $43,366,665 

Sweetwater $35,541,587 $6,938,002 $51,925 $6,544,036 $13,083,494 $28,479 $62,187,523 

Total for Study

Area $93,073,988 $15,689,093 $1,276,919 $6,544,036 $13,083,494 $68,777 $129,736,307 

Table 3-32. Estimated Ad Valorem Tax Revenues on Oil and Gas Property Fiscal Year

2001 

County Assessed 

Valuation 

Average Tax

Levy* 

Estimated Ad Valorem— 

Property 

Fremont $26,556,445 68.58 $1,821,168 

Sublette $42,147,672 58.85 $2,480,348 

Sweetwater $42,161,137 63.44 $2,674,899 

Total for Study Area $110,865,254 $6,976,415 

*Tax levy applied to every $1,000 of assessed value. 

Table 3-33 estimates the importance of oil and gas operations in terms of local government property tax 

revenues. The three counties in the study area generated $117 million in tax revenues from oil and gas 

operations, which accounted for approximately 66 percent of property taxes generated for fiscal year 

2001. 

3-72 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 3 

Table 3-33. Oil and Gas Tax Revenues As Percentage of

Total County Property Taxes for Fiscal Year 2001

County Ad Valorem Tax 

Revenue–Oil and Gas 

County Property

Tax Revenues 

Oil and Gas Tax Revenue As 

% of County Property Tax

Revenues 

Fremont $25,982,819 $37,234,045 70 

Sublette $45,827,184 $49,800,369 92 

Sweetwater $45,206,413 $89,145,656 51 

Total for Study Area $117,016,416 $176,180,070 66 

3.9.4.2 Mineral Severance Taxes 

Local government entities also benefit from severance taxes collected on mineral production throughout 

the State of Wyoming. The state assessed $2.1 billion for mineral production in the three-county study 

area. However, severance taxes collected on mineral production are distributed within the state according 

to a formula published in the state statutes. Severance tax revenues are distributed to a variety of sources, 

including the state general fund, water development account, state highway fund, counties, and cities and 

towns. Therefore, government entities will only benefit from a percentage of severance taxes collected on 

production within the study area, although these entities will also benefit from severance taxes collected 

on mineral production in other parts of the state. Table 3-34 summarizes the total severance tax revenues 

that were distributed to the local government entities within the study area during fiscal year 2001. 

Table 3-34. Total Severance Tax Distributions for Government Entities

Fiscal Year 2001

Area Severance Tax Distributions 

Counties in Study Area $2,313,489 

Total Severance Taxes Distributed to All Counties in WY $13,843,706 

Percentage Distributed to Study Area Counties 17% 

Cities and Towns in Study Area $5,518,054 

Total Severance Taxes Distributed to All Cities and Towns in WY $35,370,306 

Percentage Distributed to Study Area Cities/Towns 16% 

Source: Annual Report of the Treasurer of the State of Wyoming, June 30, 2001. 

Table 3-35 estimates the severance taxes that are generated from mineral production originating within 

the study area. The estimated severance taxes for each mineral type are based on production and assessed 

values and the effective tax rates, all of which were obtained from the Wyoming Department of Revenue, 

Mineral Tax Division. Natural gas production generated the most severance tax revenue in the study area, 

accounting for approximately 75 percent of all severance taxes generated. 

Table 3-35. Severance Tax Revenue Fiscal Year 2001 

County Natural Gas Crude Oil Stripper Oil Coal Trona Sand and 

Gravel Total 

Fremont $16,893,022 $3,514,084 $488,363 $0 $0 $5,969 $20,901,438 

Sublette $38,972,065 $4,827,257 $263,542 $0 $0 $6,739 $44,069,603 

Sweetwater $33,611,891 $6,561,310 $32,737 $7,220,190 $8,248,759 $8,978 $55,683,865 

Total $89,476,978 $14,902,651 $784,642 $7,220,190 $8,248,759 $21,686 $120,654,906 

% Severance 

Tax 74.2 12.4 0.7 6.0 6.8 0.02 100 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 3-73 
Chapter 3 Final EIS 

3.9.4.3 Federal Royalties 

Mineral production occurring on federally owned public lands is also assessed a federal mineral royalty. 

Production is assessed at 12.5 percent of value after allowable deductions. The Federal Government 

returns 50 percent of the total royalties collected to the state where the mineral production occurred. In 

Wyoming, distribution of the federal royalties is based on a formula promulgated by the Wyoming State 

Statutes (W.S. 9-4-601). The state allows a percentage of the federal royalties to be distributed to cities 

and towns for planning, construction, and maintenance of public facilities, for capital construction funds, 

and for transportation projects. Local school districts may benefit from federal royalty payments through 

advanced entitlement grants for capital construction funds. Total federal royalties distributed to local 

government agencies in the study area for fiscal year 2001 were $3.28 million (Wyoming State Treasurer 

2001). 

3.9.4.4 Mineral Taxation of Production—Jack Morrow Hills 

Tables 3-36 through 3-38 provide an estimate of the mineral tax revenues associated with oil and gas 

production within the planning area for production year 2000. Actual production was obtained from the 

Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission and was used in combination with the average taxable 

valuation per unit and average tax and royalty rates to estimate ad valorem taxes (county), severance taxes 

(state), and federal royalties. Oil and gas production occurring within the planning area generated an 

estimated $1.58 million in mineral tax revenues to the county, the state, and the Federal Government 

during fiscal year 2001. 

Figure 10 shows an estimate of the ad valorem taxes generated from gas production throughout the study 

area and the JMH CAP planning area. This graph demonstrates that JMH has historically accounted for a 

small fraction of gas production in the study area, which equates to a small percentage of ad valorem 

taxes generated in these counties. In addition, production has been declining over time in the planning 

area, making it less important to the counties as a source of mineral tax revenues relative to other 

producing areas. 

Table 3-36. Estimated Ad Valorem Tax Production From JMH 

Product 

Annual 

Production 

(BBLs/MCF) 

Taxable 

Valuation Per 

Unit 

Assessed 

Valuation 

Average Tax

Levy 

Estimated Ad 

Valorem 

(1) (2) (3) (4) = (2)*(3) (5) (6) = 

(4)/1000*(5) 

Oil 302 $24.47 $7,390 63.445 $469 

Natural Gas 2,012,000 $2.60 $5,231,200 63.445 $331,892

Total $5,238,590 $332,361 

Source: Wyoming Department of Revenue Annual Report—Fiscal Year 2001, Cheyenne, WY; Wyoming Taxpayers Association, 

Wyoming Property Taxation 2001, Cheyenne, WY. 

Table 3-37. Estimated Severance Tax Production from JMH 

Product 

Annual 

Production 

(BBLs/MCF) 

Taxable 

Valuation Per 

Unit 

Assessed 

Valuation 

Average Tax

Per Unit of 

Production 

Estimated 

Severance Tax 

(1) (2) (3) (4) = (2)*(3) (5) (6) = (4)*(5) 

Oil 302 $24.47 $7,390 0.060 $443 

Natural Gas 2,012,000 $2.60 $5,231,200 0.060 $313,872 

Total $5,238,590 $314,315 

Source: Wyoming Department of Revenue Annual Report—Fiscal Year 2001, Cheyenne, WY. 

3-74 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 3 

Table 3-38. Estimated Federal Royalties Production From JMH 

Product 

Annual 

Production 

(BBLs/MCF) 

Taxable 

Valuation Per 

Unit 

Assessed 

Valuation 

Federal 

Royalty Rate 

Estimated 

Federal Royalties 

(1) (2) (3) (4) = (2)*(3) (5) (6) = (4)*(5) 

Oil 302 $22.92 $6,921 0.125 $865 

Natural Gas 2,012,000 $2.10 $4,234,656 0.125 $529,332 

Total $4,241,577 $530,197 

Source: Wyoming Department of Revenue Annual Report—Fiscal Year 2001, Cheyenne, WY.

Note: The taxable valuation for oil and gas was decreased to account for allowable cost deductions taken by operators before

paying federal royalties. Therefore, the taxable valuation per barrel of oil is 93.66% of total valuation and 80.95% of total

valuation per mcf of natural gas. 

3.10 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 

Federal agencies are directed to consider the effects of their actions on minority populations and to 

determine the potential for the federal action to have disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental impacts on such populations. E.O. 12898, Federal Action to Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, guides this determination. 

An environmental justice (EJ) population is defined by minority or low-income status. A minority is 

defined as Black or African American, Hispanic or Latino, Asian American, Native American, Alaska 

Native, Native Hawaiian, and other Pacific Islander. Low-income is defined by using annual statistical 

thresholds from the Bureau of the Census Current Population Reports. 

The first step in evaluating potential environmental justice issues associated with BLM land management 

actions is to identify potential minority or low-income populations within the affected study area. Census 

data for Sublette, Fremont, and Sweetwater Counties and for the State of Wyoming were used to identify 

minority and low-income status. To determine whether the minority or low-income populations residing 

within the three counties constitute an EJ population, the following criteria were considered: 

• At least one-half of the population is of minority status. 

• At least one-half of the population is of low-income status. 

• Minority status population in the study area is at least 10 percentage points higher than for the 

State of Wyoming. 

• Low-income status population in the study area is at least 10 percentage points higher than for the 

State of Wyoming. 

The population distribution by minority status in the three counties is summarized in Table 3-39. Figure 

11 shows the minority population for each county in the State of Wyoming. Fremont and Sweetwater 

Counties have minority populations above the state average, whereas the minority population in Sublette 

County is well below the state average. 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 3-75 
Chapter 3 Final EIS 

Table 3-39. Percent Population By County 

County White 

Black or 

African 

American 

American Indian 

and Alaska 

Native 

Asian 

Native 

Hawaiian and 

Other Pacific 

Islander 

Hispanic or

Latino 

Sublette 97.5 0.2 0.5 0.2 0.1 1.9 

Fremont 76.5 0.1 19.7 0.3 0.0 4.4 

Sweetwater 91.6 0.7 1 0.6 0.0 9.4 

Wyoming 92.1 0.8 2.3 0.6 0.1 6.4 

Source: U.S. Bureau of Census, 2000. 

The minority population of Fremont County is more than 10 percentage points above the state average 

because of the Native American population that resides in the county on and near the Wind River 

Reservation. Further analysis of the population by race by census track for 2000 indicated that the Native 

American population within Fremont County is concentrated in the northeast corner of the county and 

that minority populations in census tracks nearest the planning area are very small. Although portions of 

Fremont County would be defined as an EJ population, these areas are not likely to be impacted by 

actions within the planning area, given the geographic distance between the reservation and the planning 

area. Sublette and Sweetwater Counties do not meet the criteria for an EJ population in terms of minority 

communities. 

Figure 12 summarizes the median household income and poverty rates for each county in Wyoming based 

on the 2000 Census. The median household income in Sublette and Sweetwater Counties is above the 

state average, while poverty levels are lower than elsewhere in the state. This indicates the absence of 

low-income populations within these two counties. Fremont County has a lower median household 

income and higher poverty rates than throughout Wyoming. However, the low-income population in 

Fremont County does not meet one of the four criteria for classification as an EJ population. 

It is concluded that the study area does not support an EJ population; thus, no such population would be 

affected by any management alternative in a disproportionately high or adverse manner compared with 

the general population. Therefore, no further discussion or analysis of impacts will be conducted. 

3-76 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 3 

Table 3-1. Estimated Acres for JMH Resources 

Resource Category Resources Acres 

General Planning Area JMH CAP planning area 622,340 

Core area 90,740 

Land Status Bureau of Land Management 574,810 

Bureau of Reclamation 1,980 

State of Wyoming 29,720 

Private 15,840 

Wild Horse Herd Management Area Great Divide Basin HMA (within JMH CAP planning area) 221,930 

Water Resources Wetlands, riparian areas, and 100-yr floodplains + 500-foot 

buffer 

112,990 

Wetlands, riparian areas, and 100-yr floodplains + 250-foot 

buffer 

59,110 

Wetlands, riparian areas, and 100-yr floodplains + 1⁄4-mile 

buffer 

273,510 

Recharge areas 80,640 

Great Divide Basin Watershed 190,940 

Colorado-Green River Watershed 376,360 

Platte-Sweetwater River Watershed 54,950 

Public water reserves 6,740 

Big Game Sensitive areas Elk crucial habitat 175,020 

Deer crucial habitat 52,070 

Antelope crucial habitat 81,550 

Elk birthing areas 91,470 

Deer birthing areas 36,350 

Connectivity area 301,320 

Sensitive Avian Resources Raptor nest sites (active) 930 

Raptor nest sites + 1⁄4-mile buffer 8,550 

Raptor nest sites + 1⁄2- to 1-mile buffer 46,150 

Greater sage-grouse leks + 1⁄4-mile buffer 3,900 

Greater sage-grouse leks + 1⁄2-mile buffer 14,270 

Greater sage-grouse leks + 2-mile buffer 149,980 

Potential greater sage-grouse nesting habitat (leks + 1 

mile)1 33,150 

Potential greater sage-grouse nesting habitat (leks + 2 

miles)1 98,400 

Potential greater sage-grouse nesting habitat (Proposed 

JMH CAP)1 266,440 

Greater sage-grouse concentration areas 170,590 

Greater sage-grouse winter concentration areas 420 

Greater sage-grouse winter range2 72,920 

Mountain plover aggregation areas 120 

Mountain plover aggregation areas + 1⁄4-mile buffer 1,410 

Sensitive Plant Resources Aspen 2,570 

Basin big sagebrush/lemon scurfpea 23,600 

Special status plants 3,240

 Large-fruited bladderpod 3,080

 Meadow pussytoes 70

 Nelson's milkvetch 80 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 3-77 
Chapter 3 Final EIS 

Table 3-1. Estimated Acres for JMH Resources (Continued) 

Special status plants potential habitat 5,640 

Cushion plant communities 4,340 

Grazing Allotments Bar X 6,550 

Bush Rim 98,790 

Chilton Place 210 

Continental Peak 89,940 

Crookston Ranch 50 

Fourth of July 7,270 

Hay Meadow 720 

Houghton 370 

Johnson Place 90 

Middle Hay 400 

Pacific Creek 196,390 

Red Desert 77,150 

Rock Springs 3,550 

Sands 104,860 

Steamboat Mountain 35,770 

Special Management Areas

 Wilderness Study Areas (WSA) All WSAs 119,340

 Buffalo Hump 9,520

 Sand Dunes 28,170

 Alkali Draw 17,950

 South Pinnacles 10,860

 White Horse Creek 4,700

 Oregon Buttes 5,820

 Honeycomb Buttes 41,920 

Areas of Critical Environmental 

 Concern (ACEC) All ACECs 146,930 

Steamboat Mountain ACEC 48,350

 Northern portion 8,760

 Southern portion 39,620

 Lava rock portion 3,050 

Greater Sand Dunes ACEC 41,640

 Eastern portion 13,380

 Western portion 28,260 

Oregon Buttes ACEC 3,440 

South Pass Historic Landscape ACEC 53,480

 Visible portion 23,740

 Portion not visible 29,740 

White Mountain Petroglyphs ACEC 20

 Special Recreation Management

Areas (SRMA) Greater Sand Dunes 41,640

 Developed recreation sites and OHV parking lot 50

 Recreation Area 10,020 

National Historic Trails + 1⁄4-mile buffer 19,940 

3-78 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 3 

Table 3-1. Estimated Acres for JMH Resources (Continued) 

Resource Category Resources Acres 

Other Management Areas Red Desert Watershed Management Area 179,310 

Steamboat Mountain Management Area 95,400 

Heritage Resources Paleosol deposition area 19,840 

South Pass Summit 5,260 

Indian Gap 690 

Boars Tusk 30 

White Mountain Petroglyphs 20 

White Mountain Petroglyphs vista 510 

National Historic Trails + 1⁄4-mile buffer 19,940 

Split Rock 13,300 

Tri-Territory Marker 20 

Crookston Ranch 40 

Expansion Era Roads + 1⁄4-mile buffer 10,110 

Rock art sites 1 

Pinnacles Geographic Area 8,950 

Pinnacles Geologic Feature 1,340 

Pinnacles proper 660 

Geologic Hazards Slopes > 25% 30,500 

Geologic hazards 30,550 

Mineral Status All federal minerals 574,830 

State and privately owned minerals 45,520 

Federal coal 2,090 

Minerals (general) Coal classification lands (to be revoked) 396,380 

Oil shale classification lands (to be revoked) 125,660 

Existing valid oil and gas leases 233,030 

Land in core area not covered by existing leases 43,750 

Steamboat Mountain diamond potential area 960 

Mining Claim Activity Active mining claims (existing claims) 7,600 

Abandoned mining claims 386,280 

Coal/Sodium Development Potential Brine potential development area 11,410 

Coal occurrence and development potential area 53,310 

Coalbed Gas Development Potential Tertiary 69,060 

Cretaceous 203,910 

Oil and Gas Potential High potential 274,690 

Moderate potential 150,420 

Low potential 77,440 

Exploratory unit 54,710 

Producing unit 8,600 

1 Only 50 percent of the area is expected to be suitable nesting habitat. 

2

 Only sagebrush vegetation is expected to be suitable habitat 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 3-79 
Chapter 3 Final EIS 

Table 3-6. Underground Water Class 

Use Suitability

Constituent or Parameter 

I 

Domestic 

Concentration1 

II 

Agriculture 

Concentration1 

III 

Livestock 

Concentration1 

Aluminum (AI) --- 5.0 5.0 

Ammonia NH3-N) 0.5 --- ---

Arsenic (As) 0.05 0.1 0.2 

Barium (Ba) 1.0 --- ---

Beryllium (Be) --- 0.1 ---

Boron (B) 0.75 0.75 5.0 

Cadmium (Cd) 0.01 0.01 0.05 

Chloride (Cl) 250.0 100.0 2,000.0 

Chronium (Cr) 0.05 0.1 0.05 

Cobalt (Co) --- 0.05 1.0 

Copper (Cu) 1.0 0.2 0.5 

Cyanide (CN) 0.2 --- ---

Flouride (F) 1.4-2.4 --- ---

Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S) 0.05 --- ---

Iron (Fe) 0.3 5.0 ---

Lead (Pb) 0.05 5.0 0.1 

Lithium (Li) --- 2.5 ---

Manganese (Mn) 0.05 0.2 ---

Mercury (Hg) 0.002 --- 0.00005 

Nickel (Ni) --- 0.2 ---

Nitrate (NO3-N) 10.0 --- ---

Nitrite (NO2-N) 1.0 --- 10.0 

Nitrite (NO3+NO2)-N --- --- 100.0 

Oil & Grease Virtually free 10.0 10.0 

Phenol 0.001 --- ---

Selenium (Se) 0.01 0.02 0.05 

Silver (Ag) 0.05 --- ---

Sulfate (SO4) 250.0 200.0 3,000.0 

Total Dissolved Solids 500.0 2,000.0 5,000.0 

Uranium (U) 5.0 5.0 5.0 

Vanadium (V) --- 0.1 0.1 

Zinc (Zn) 5.0 2.0 25.0 

pH2 6.5-9.0 s.u. 4.5-9.0 s.u. 6.5-8.5 s.u. 

SAR --- 8 ---

RSC3 --- 1.25 meq/l ---

Combined Total

 Radium 226 and

 Radium 2284 

5 pCi/l 5 pCi/l 5 pCi/l 

Total Strontium 904 8 pCi/l 8 pCi/l 8 pCi/l 

Gross alpha particle 

radioactivity (including 

radium 226 but excluding 

radon and uranium)4 

15 pCi/l 15 pCi/l 15 pCi/l 

1 mg/l, unless otherwise indicated 2 measured in standard units (s.u.) 3 meq/l = milliequivalents per liter 4

 pCi/l = picoCuries per liter

Source: State of Wyoming, Department of Environmental Quality. "Water Quality Rules and Regulations,” Chapter VIII. 

Notes: Milligrams per liter, abbreviated mg/l, means milligrams of solute per liter of solution—equivalent to parts per million 

assuming unit density of water. 

Standard unit (abbreviated s.u.) is the unit of measurement used to describe the numerical pH of a solution, fluid, or pollutant. 

3-80 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 3 

CONTINUED 

Milliequivalents per liter (abbreviated meq/l) used to report the residual sodium carbonate concentration in water used for 

irrigation, is defined as 0.001 of the equivalent weight of the ion per liter volume. 

Picocuries per liter (abbreviated pCi/l) is a measure of radioactivity of waters or fluids. A picocurie is equal to 10-12

 curie; a curie 

is defined as 3.7 x 1010 disintegrations per second. 

pH is a term to express the intensity of the acid or basic condition. A pH value of 7.0 at 25 degrees centigrade is neutral, with 

pHs of less than 7.0 progressively more acid and pHs of greater than 7.0 progressively more basic. 

Residual sodium carbonate (abbreviated RSC) is defined as twice the concentration of carbonate or bicarbonate water would 

contain after subtracting an amount equivalent to the calcium plus the magnesium; RSC is a measure of the potential hazard 

that exists when waters high in carbonate and bicarbonate and relatively low in calcium and magnesium are used for irrigation. 

Sodium adsorption ratio (abbreviated SAR) of water is defined by the U.S. Department of Agriculture Laboratory (1954) as— 

(Na+) SAR= 

(Ca 2 )+( Mg 2) 

2 

where ion concentrations are expressed in milliequivalents per liter. The SAR predicts reasonably well the degree to which 

irrigation water tends to enter into cation-exchange reactions in soil. 

Total dissolved solids (abbreviated TDS) is the sum of the dissolved mineral constituents in water, expressed as mg/l. 

The Rock Springs Field Office does not routinely test for all parameters listed in the DEQ guidelines. The choice of test 

parameters is based on known potential hazards and information needed for ongoing studies and monitoring 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 3-81 
Chapter 3 

Table 3-7. Allotment/Operator Data 

Allotment Operator Class of Livestock 

Permitted Use 5-year

Historic 

Use 

Percent of 

Allotment 

in JMH 

A

Active Suspended Total 

4th of July D. Mines C 836 532 1,368 240 30 Johnson Place D. Mines C 10 0 10 10 100 Crookston Ranch DeLambert C 4 0 4 4 100 Hay Meadow Blair & Hay C 91 0 91 91 100 Pacific Creek DeLambert C 5 0 5b 5 100 

Magagna Brothers S 22 0 22b 22 Blair & Hay Robert & Martha Hellyer G&E Livestock 

C 

S S 

8,859 

10 38 

4,526 

0 0 

13,385 

10b 38b 

3,925 

0 0 

Bar X Sheep White Acorn 

S 

C 

15 90 

0 0 

15b 90b 

0 0 

Bar X Bar X Sheep C 468 0 468 446 99 Continental Peak Robert & Martha Hellyer C,S 5,728 1,001 6,729 1,697 100 

Bar X Sheep S 41 0 41 0 White Acorn C 17 0 17b 0 

Red Desert Magagna Brothers S 2,582 64 2,646 883 30 

Blair & Hay Robert & Martha Hellyer 

C 

S 

4,171 

716 

6,539 

0 

10,710 

716b 

427 

0 

Bar X Sheep C 2,289 887 3,176 587 

Bush Rim 38 100 

Magagna Brothers Blair & Hay Robert & Martha Hellyer 

S S S 

63 

166 

22 

0 0 0 

63b 

166b 

22b 

0 0 

921 

Bar X Sheep C 3,026 2,456 5,482 

3-82 Jack Morrow 
Final EIS 

Table 3-7. Allotment/Operator Data (Continued) 

Allotment Operator Class of Livestock 

Permitted Use 5-year

Historic 

Use 

Percent of 

Allotment 

in JMH 

A

Active Suspended Total 

Steamboat Mountain 

Blair & Hay D. Mines 

S 

C 

80 

848 

0 

1,210 

80b 

2,058 

0 

260 97 

Sands Midland Dunton S 217 20 237b 178 95 

DeLambert C 1,257 354 1,611 1,257 G&E Livestock S 54 0 54b 20 GZ Livestock-Chilton lease 

C 1,789 866 2,655 1,615 

GZ Livestock C 581 355 936 252 Roberts Ranch S 341 41 382 337 

Rock Springs Blair & Hay C,S 1,637 133 1,770 1,818 0.22 

D. Mines-Chilton Lease C 1,338 528 1,866 

Middle Hay Blair & Hay C 16 0 16 16 100 Chiltons Place D. Mines-Chilton Lease C 15 0 15 15 100 Houghton Ranch Chilton Land & Livestock C 11 0 11 11 100 Total 44,818 19,512 55,430 15,107 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Predecisional Internal Working Document. Attorney-client Privileged. 

Table 3-24. Wells Drilled in the JMH

SEC. TWN. DIR. RNG. DIR. QTR/QTR OPERATOR UNIT/FIELD NAME WELL SURF. ELEV. TOTA

NO. ELEV. TYPE DEPT

30 27 N 98 W se se CHORNEY OIL CO CIRCLE BAR UNIT 1 7163 KB 10970 

3 27 N 99 W sw nw EUROPEAN SOUTHWEST CO CONTINENTAL PEAK UNIT 1-3 7389 KB 5005 

25 27 N 99 W nw se DAVIS OIL CO HONEYCOMB BUTTES UNIT 1 7238 KB 13984 26 27 N 99 W sw sw ENERGETICS INC HARRIS SLOUGH UNIT 1-A 7241 KB 13620 17 27 N 100 W sw nw AMOCO PRODUCTION CO SOUTH PASS UNIT 1 7428 KB 22947 30 27 N 100 W c sw BRITISH AMER OIL PROD CO 1 7742 KB 11012 

9 27 N 101 W nw sw SKINNER ROBERT E 1-9 7390 GR 3004 9 27 N 101 W ne sw WEST COAST OIL CO iNC 1 7438 KB 9691 

24 27 N 101 W ne nw SINCLAIR OIL & GAS CO OREGON TRAIL UNIT 1 8085 GR 1858 24 27 N 101 W sw nw MOUNTAIN FUEL SUPPLY CO DICKIE SPRINGS UNIT 1 8035 KB 12272 29 27 N 102 W se nw SUPERIOR OIL CO 1 7034 GR 3458 32 28 N 101 W se nw AMERICAN QUASAR PETR CO 1 7581 KB 15040 36 28 N 102 W nw se AMERICAN QUASAR PETR CO MONUMENT DRAW UNIT 36-33 7372 KB 3260 

5 22 N 104 W se sw BRITISH AMER OIL PROD CO 1 6694 KB 3712 1 22 N 105 W sw sw BRITISH AMER OIL PROD CO 1 7044 KB 5001 5 22 N 105 W lot 11 HUSKY OIL CO EDEN UNIT 7-5 7233 KB 11036 6 22 N 105 W sw ne HUSKY OIL CO EDEN UNIT 7-6 6984 KB 9383 

11 22 N 105 W sw nw HUSKY OIL CO EDEN UNIT 5-11 7693 KB 18150 

1 23 N 101 W ne ne SUN RAY MID-CONT OIL CO BIG DUNE UNIT 3 6996 KB 5720 4 23 N 101 W se ne DAVIS OIL CO TREASURE UNIT 3 7204 KB 13966 4 23 N 101 W nw sw CONOCO INC BIG DUNE UNIT 4-1 7202 KB 5456 3 23 N 102 W se nw WOODS PETROLEUM CORP STEAMBOAT MOUNTAIN UNIT/FIELD 1 7632 KB 13044 4 23 N 102 W sw ne WOODS PETROLEUM CORP STEAMBOAT MOUNTAIN UNIT/FIELD 2 7855 KB 12850 

10 23 N 102 W ne ne WOODS PETROLEUM CORP 1 7996 KB 4517 11 23 N 102 W se nw WOODS PETROLEUM CORP STEAMBOAT MOUNTAIN UNIT/FIELD 4 7862 KB 13025 33 23 N 102 W nw nw TRITON OIL & GAS CORP UNNAMED FIELD 3 7109 KB 4600 33 23 N 102 W ne ne UNION PACIFIC RESOURCES UNNAMED FIELD 2-33 7061 KB 4750 

1 23 N 103 W se nw MESA PETROLEUM CO 1 7980 DF 12091 3 23 N 103 W c sw AQUITAINE OIL CORP NITCHIE GULCH FIELD 13-3 7211 KB 10090 4 23 N 103 W ne sw AQUITAINE OIL CORP NITCHIE GULCH FIELD 1-4 7236 KB 10030 5 23 N 103 W nw nw K W B PROPERTY MGMT INC NITCHIE GULCH FIELD 2-5 7130 KB 9520 5 23 N 103 W sw ne OKLAHOMA SILURIAN PTRS NITCHIE GULCH FIELD 3-5 7205 KB 9693 5 23 N 103 W se sw MCBRIDE W C INC NITCHIE GULCH FIELD 1-5 7104 KB 9236 6 23 N 103 W se nw TERRA RESOURCES INC NITCHIE GULCH FIELD 2-6 6978 KB 9150 6 23 N 103 W ne ne TERRA RESOURCES INC NITCHIE GULCH FIELD 20-6 7087 KB 9361 6 23 N 103 W nw sw PACIFIC ENT OIL CO USA NITCHIE GULCH FIELD 30-6 6925 KB 9012 6 23 N 103 W c se MCBRIDE W C INC NITCHIE GULCH FIELD 1 7039 KB 9112 7 23 N 103 W se nw TERRA RESOURCES INC NITCHIE GULCH UNIT/FIELD 14-7 6999 KB 8400 7 23 N 103 W se nw TERRA RESOURCES INC NITCHIE GULCH UNIT/FIELD 19-7 7037 KB 9010 

3-84 Jack Morrow H
Final EIS Predecisional Internal Working Document. Attorney-client Privileged. 

Table 3-24. Wells Drilled in the JMH 

SEC. TWN. DIR. RNG. DIR. QTR/QTR OPERATOR UNIT/FIELD NAME WELL SURF. ELEV. TOTA

NO. ELEV. TYPE DEPT

7 23 N 103 W ne se PACIFIC ENT OIL CO USA NITCHIE GULCH UNIT/FIELD 22-8 6954 KB 9086 7 23 N 103 W ne se AMAX PETROLEUM CORP NITCHIE GULCH UNIT/FIELD 6-7 6968 KB 8950 8 23 N 103 W nw nw TERRA RESOURCES INC NITCHIE GULCH UNIT/FIELD 15-8 7002 KB 5840 8 23 N 103 W nw nw TERRA RESOURCES INC NITCHIE GULCH UNIT/FIELD 15-8X 7002 KB 8446 8 23 N 103 W nw se AMAX PETROLEUM CORP NITCHIE GULCH UNIT/FIELD 7-8 7031 KB 8930 9 23 N 103 W se nw C R A INC NITCHIE GULCH UNIT/FIELD 11-9 7064 KB 9150 

11 23 N 103 W c nw ELF AQUITAINE PETR INC 11-11 7322 KB 10254 16 23 N 103 W nw nw TERRA RESOURCES INC NITCHIE GULCH UNIT/FIELD 17-16 7063 KB 8870 16 23 N 103 W nw se TRIGOOD OIL CO NITCHIE GULCH FIELD 1 7096 GR 235 16 23 N 103 W se ne C R A INC NITCHIE GULCH FIELD 9-16 7184 KB 8966 17 23 N 103 W se se TRIGOOD OIL CO NITCHIE GULCH UNIT/FIELD 1 7134 KB 8713 17 23 N 103 W nw sw AMAX PETROLEUM CORP NITCHIE GULCH UNIT/FIELD 4-17 6949 KB 8750 18 23 N 103 W ne ne TERRA RESOURCES INC NITCHIE GULCH UNIT/FIELD 12-18 7031 KB 8200 18 23 N 103 W se nw AMAX PETROLEUM CORP NITCHIE GULCH UNIT/FIELD 8-18 6923 KB 8923 19 23 N 103 W se ne PACIFIC ENT OIL CO USA NITCHIE GULCH UNIT/FIELD 20-19 6925 KB 8660 19 23 N 103 W se nw AMAX PETROLEUM CORP NITCHIE GULCH UNIT/FIELD 5-19 6849 GR 8850 20 23 N 103 W nw nw PACIFIC ENT OIL CO USA NITCHIE GULCH UNIT/FIELD 13-20 7017 KB 8106 20 23 N 103 W nw se TRIGOOD OIL CO NITCHIE GULCH UNIT/FIELD 2-20 7084 KB 8596 21 23 N 103 W nw sw PACIFIC ENT OIL CO USA NITCHIE GULCH UNIT/FIELD 21-21 7145 KB 8620 21 23 N 103 W se nw TRIGOOD OIL CO NITCHIE GULCH UNIT/FIELD 3-21 7036 KB 8480 22 23 N 103 W sw nw LUFF EXPL CO PINE CANYON FIELD 3-22 7152 KB 8770 22 23 N 103 W se se LUFF KENNETH INC PINE CANYON FIELD 2-22 7265 KB 8849 26 23 N 103 W nw nw LUFF KENNETH INC PINE CANYON FIELD 4-26 7183 GR 8929 27 23 N 103 W ne nw UNION PACIFIC RESOURCES PINE CANYON FIELD 1 7420 KB 8830 28 23 N 103 W sw nw TERRA RESOURCES INC NITCHIE GULCH UNIT/FIELD 16-28 7290 KB 8731 28 23 N 103 W ne ne B P EXPL INC PINE CANYON FIELD 1-28 7427 KB 8875 

1 23 N 104 W n/2 se TEXAS OIL & GAS CORP NITCHIE GULCH FIELD 1 6911 KB 9308 1 23 N 104 W ne ne GULF OIL CORP INDIAN GAP UNIT/NITCHIE GULCH FIELD 1 6936 DF 10066 2 23 N 104 W se se TEXAS OIL & GAS CORP NITCHIE GULCH FIELD 1 6442 GR 9770 3 23 N 104 W ne se TEXAS OIL & GAS CORP NITCHIE GULCH FIELD 1 6810 KB 9550 3 23 N 104 W ne se C & K PETROLEUM INC NITCHIE GULCH FIELD 9-3 6830 KB 10765 

11 23 N 104 W se ne TEXAS OIL & GAS CORP BOARS TUSK UNIT/NITCHIE GULCH FIELD 1 6891 KB 9554 11 23 N 104 W nw se SUNSET INTL PETR CORP NITCHIE GULCH FIELD 11-10 6829 KB 9585 12 23 N 104 W c ne GRYNBERG JACK J NITCHIE GULCH FIELD 20-12 6895 KB 8997 12 23 N 104 W se se AMAX PETROLEUM CORP NITCHIE GULCH FIELD 1-12 6904 KB 8997 13 23 N 104 W sw ne TERRA RESOURCES INC NITCHIE GULCH FIELD 7-13 6876 KB 8400 15 23 N 104 W c se F M C WYOMING CORP BOARS TUSK UNIT/NITCHIE GULCH FIELD 1-15 6734 KB 10400 16 23 N 104 W sw sw BOARS TUSK OIL CO 1 0 1529 17 23 N 104 W sw sw HUSKY OIL CO 13-17 6717 KB 3300 23 23 N 104 W w/2 se F M C WYOMING CORP NITCHIE GULCH FIELD 1-23 6763 BB 9681 

 3-85 Jack Morrow H
Final EIS Predecisional Internal Working Document. Attorney-client Privileged. 

Table 3-24. Wells Drilled in the JMH 

SEC. TWN. DIR. RNG. DIR. QTR/QTR OPERATOR UNIT/FIELD NAME WELL SURF. ELEV. TOTA

NO. ELEV. TYPE DEPT

26 23 N 104 W w/2 sw SOUTHLAND ROYALTY CO NITCHIE GULCH FIELD 1-26 6713 KB 9914 29 23 N 104 W sw sw HUSKY OIL CO 13-29 6732 GR 3117 31 23 N 104 W se nw HUSKY OIL CO 31-1 6849 KB 3382 

2 24 N 100 W lot 6 ROWAN DRLG CO INC 1 7077 KB 8970 3 24 N 100 W ne se SOHIO PET CO 1 6946 KB 8660 

10 24 N 100 W ne ne CHEROKEE OIL & GAS CORP 1 6946 DF 218 12 24 N 100 W sw sw WOLF EXPL CO PINNACLES UNIT 1 6999 KB 9000 22 24 N 100 W ne sw WOODS PETROLEUM CORP SADDLE BAG UNIT/FIELD 1 7058 KB 16542 22 24 N 100 W nw se MONCRIEF W A JR OASIS UNIT 1 7057 KB 16660 28 24 N 101 W se ne H P C INC TREASURE UNIT/FIELD 4 7544 KB 14930 31 24 N 101 W se nw MOUNTAIN FUEL SUPPLY 1 7486 KB 5100 32 24 N 101 W sw ne HPC INC TREASURE UNIT 2 7402 KB 14036 33 24 N 101 W ne sw DAVIS OIL CO TREASURE UNIT/FIELD 1 7673 KB 14426 

7 24 N 102 W nw sw GRYNBERG JACK & ASSOC 1-7 7406 KB 13676 

11 24 N 102 W sw sw SOUTHLAND ROYALTY CO 1 7267 KB 7000 13 24 N 102 W sw ne WOODS PETROLEUM CORP FREIGHTER GAP UNIT/FIELD 1 7610 KB 14623 14 24 N 102 W sw ne WOODS PETROLEUM CORP FREIGHTER GAP UNIT/FIELD 2 7340 KB 14130 27 24 N 102 W se ne SAN JACINTO PETR CORP MONUMENT RIDGE UNIT 1 7465 KB 7507 34 24 N 102 W ne sw WOODS PETROLEUM CORP STEAMBOAT MOUNTAIN UNIT/FIELD 3 ? KB 13004 

2 24 N 103 W ne nw SHELL OIL CO PLUNGE UNIT 21-2 7036 KB 5021 4 24 N 103 W se nw WOLD JOHN S INDIAN GAP UNIT 1 7081 DF 4011 8 24 N 103 W se nw ENRON OIL & GAS CO ESSEX MOUNTAIN FIELD 1-8 7298 KB 12281 

10 24 N 103 W se nw WOODS PETROLEUM CORP RIM ROCK UNIT/FIELD 1 7171 KB 12657 16 24 N 103 W sw ne MONCRIEF W A JR RIM ROCK UNIT/FIELD 2 7278 KB 12230 20 24 N 103 W se nw MCBRIDE W C INC 1 7227 KB 11421 21 24 N 103 W se nw WOODS PETROLEUM CORP NITCHIE GULCH FIELD 21-1 7443 KB 12042 31 24 N 103 W ne sw TERRA RESOURCES INC NITCHIE GULCH FIELD 30-31 6985 KB 9518 31 24 N 103 W nw nw TERRA RESOURCES INC NITCHIE GULCH FIELD 10-31 7056 KB 9872 31 24 N 103 W se se TERRA RESOURCES INC NITCHIE GULCH FIELD 40-31 7019 KB 9430 31 24 N 103 W ne sw PACIFIC ENT OIL CO USA NITCHIE GULCH FIELD 30-31F 6968 KB 8435 32 24 N 103 W ne nw TERRA RESOURCES INC NITCHIE GULCH FIELD 10-32 7065 KB 10038 32 24 N 103 W c se ELF AQUITAINE PETR INC NITCHIE GULCH FIELD 33-32 7098 KB 10051 32 24 N 103 W se sw MCBRIDE W C INC NITCHIE GULCH FIELD 1-32 7141 KB 9732 33 24 N 103 W c sw AQUITAINE OIL CORP NITCHIE GULCH FIELD 13-33 7215 KB 10465 34 24 N 103 W c sw ELF AQUITAINE PETR INC NITCHIE GULCH FIELD 13-34 7367 KB 11075 

1 24 N 104 W se ne BROWN H L JR 1-1 7605 KB 8104 

24 24 N 104 W se se HOUSTON OIL & MIN CORP ESSEX MOUNTAIN UNIT/FIELD 44-24 7056 GR 10700 24 24 N 104 W sw se KIRBY ROYALTIES INC 1 7043 KB 5500 25 24 N 104 W se se TERRA RESOURCES INC NITCHIE GULCH FIELD 40-25 7046 KB 10049 35 24 N 104 W nw se FLORIDA EXPL CO NITCHIE GULCH FIELD 1-35 7019 KB 10100 

 3-86 Jack Morrow H
Final EIS Predecisional Internal Working Document. Attorney-client Privileged. 

Table 3-24. Wells Drilled in the JMH 

SEC. TWN. DIR. RNG. DIR. QTR/QTR OPERATOR UNIT/FIELD NAME WELL SURF. ELEV. TOTA

NO. ELEV. TYPE DEPT

36 24 N 104 W sw ne PERTO PACIFIC RESOURCES INC. NITCHIE GULCH FIELD 1 7035 KB 752 36 24 N 104 W c se TERRA RESOURCES INC NITCHIE GULCH FIELD 40-36 7056 KB 9500 36 24 N 104 W se ne TERRA RESOURCES INC NITCHIE GULCH FIELD 20-36 6985 KB 9650 36 24 N 104 W se sw TERRA RESOURCES INC NITCHIE GULCH FIELD 30-36 7085 KB 9700 36 24 N 104 W sw ne ROCK HILL INDUSTRIES INC NITCHIE GULCH FIELD 36-1 7026 KB 878 22 24 N 105 W se nw DAVIS OIL CO 1-2 6880 KB 7997 20 25 N 99 W ne sw WOODS PETROLEUM CORP LOST VALLEY UNIT 3 6944 KB 13738 20 25 N 99 W ne sw MONCRIEF W A JR LOST VALLEY UNIT 3 6944 KB 18723 10 25 N 100 W se ne WOODS PETROLEUM CORP CITATION UNIT 1 7013 KB 11000 19 25 N 100 W sw sw WOODS PETROLEUM CORP CENTURION UNIT 1 7488 KB 8613 26 25 N 100 W nw ne SOHIO OIL CO 2 7037 KB 9250 27 25 N 101 W se nw HUMBLE OIL & REFG CO PARNELL CREEK UNIT 1 7531 GR 8500 30 25 N 101 W sw ne DAVIS OIL CO PIRATE UNIT 1 7339 KB 15590 

3 25 N 102 W sw nw PAN AMERICAN PETR CORP 1 7451 KB 5220 7 25 N 102 W ne sw SAXON EXPL CO UNNAMED FIELD 7-11 7628 KB 6955 7 25 N 102 W ne sw H S RESOURCES INC BIG BEAR UNIT/UNNAMED FIELD 11-7 7643 GR 15990 9 25 N 102 W sw nw PAN AMERICAN PETR CORP 1 7372 KB 4901 

17 25 N 102 W sw nw ATLANTIC REFG CO PLUNGE UNIT 2 7501 KB 9803 26 25 N 102 W se nw SKELLY OIL CO 1 7229 DF 6998 

9 25 N 103 W sw se KERR MCGEE OIL IND INC MORROW CREEK UNIT 1 7485 KB 7050 

13 25 N 103 W ne ne FREEPORT MINERALS CO 1-13 7506 GL 9868 23 25 N 103 W sw se SAXON EXPL CO 23-15 7606 GR 5955 24 25 N 103 W nw se WOODS PETROLEUM CORP PACKSADDLE UNIT 1 7662 KB 14850 29 25 N 103 W nw ne EL PASO NATURAL GAS CO MORROW CREEK UNIT 1 7153 KB 9598 

9 26 N 98 W se nw DAVIS OIL CO SCOTTY LAKE UNIT 1 7086 KB 13150 

10 26 N 100 W sw sw WOODS PETROLEUM CORP HOURGLASS UNIT 10-1 7247 KB 15300 16 26 N 100 W nw ne MONCRIEF W A JR SANDS OF TIME UNIT 1 7202 KB 11978 25 26 N 100 W n/2 ne DAVIS OIL CO 1 7067 KB 11564 

8 26 N 101 W sw sw DAVIS OIL CO MUSKETEER UNIT 1 7543 KB 19569 

23 26 N 102 W sw se DAVIS OIL CO BUCCANEER UNIT/FIELD 1 7346 KB 17844 30 26 N 102 W sw sw GULF OIL CORP MORROW CREEK UNIT 1 7214 GR 8212 34 26 N 102 W se se GULF OIL CORP MORROW CREEK UNIT 2 7301 GR 8500 

3 26 N 103 W n/2 n/2 RAINBOW RESOURCES INC GREATER PACIFIC CREEK UNIT 1-3 6970 GR 15000 

25 26 N 103 W sw ne WOODS PETROLEUM CORP ROCK CABIN UNIT 1 7258 KB 18777 

 3-87 Jack Morrow H
Final EIS Chapter 4 

CHAPTER 4—ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

The “federal action” is the selection of a coordinated activity plan (CAP) on which future Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) land use actions would be based. The purpose of this chapter is to determine the 

potential for significant impact of the federal action on the human environment. As defined in 40 Code of 

Federal Regulations (CFR) §1508.14, the “human environment” is interpreted comprehensively to include 

natural and physical resources and the relationship of people with those resources. 

This chapter discusses the effects each alternative could have on various environmental, socioeconomic, 

and land use program areas (see Table 2-4 at the end of Chapter 2 for summary of impacts). Analysis of 

the alternatives has focused on identifying types of impacts and estimating their potential significance. 

The impact analysis for the No Action Alternative was prepared first as the baseline for the alternatives 

analysis. It contains a detailed discussion of impacts used for comparison with other alternatives. Where 

impacts are the same among alternatives, reference is made to those alternatives so that impacts are not 

repeated. However, the analysis under the Proposed Jack Morrow Hills (JMH) CAP does not make such 

references, and impacts are fully discussed. 

4.1 TYPES OF IMPACTS 

The terms “impact” and “effect” are synonymous. Impacts can be direct, indirect, or cumulative. A 

direct impact is caused by an action and occurs at the same time and place. An indirect impact occurs 

later in time or is farther removed in distance, but it is related to the action by a chain of cause and effect. 

Indirect impacts may reach beyond the natural and physical environment (i.e., environmental impact) to 

include growth-inducing effects and other effects related to induced changes to resource users (i.e., 

nonenvironmental impact). 

An impact can be adverse or beneficial. An impact is considered adverse when the outcome of the action 

results in undesirable effects. A beneficial impact can result if the current condition is improved. 

Although beneficial impacts are identified, the analysis focuses on those impacts that are adverse in 

determining whether the effects are significant or insignificant. The criteria used to differentiate between 

significant and insignificant effects are introduced in the next section. 

Adverse impacts can be mitigated through avoidance, minimization, restoration, reduction, or 

compensation. Mitigation measures are considered when identifying and implementing management 

actions and when determining and comparing impacts. Impacts may be reduced to less-than-significant 

levels if mitigation guidelines and standard practices are implemented. Mitigation measures may be 

imposed by regulation or through BLM policies and may be applied broadly or site-specifically. Standard 

practices and mitigation guidelines that would be implemented for particular activities are described in 

Appendices 5 and 6. 

Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions’ taking place 

over time. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) describes cumulative impacts as follows: 

The impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action 

when added to other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of 

what agency (federal or nonfederal) or person undertakes such other actions. 

Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions 

taking place over a period of time. 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 4-1 
Chapter 4 Final EIS 

• The cumulative impact analysis for this environmental impact statement (EIS) evaluates the 

potential impacts associated with the JMH alternatives, in combination with the potential impacts 

associated with other relevant activities that have occurred, are occurring, or may occur in the 

vicinity of the JMH CAP area. Cumulative impacts are discussed in Section 4.13 of this chapter. 

4.2 DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE 

The concept of significance used in this chapter encompasses several factors, including the magnitude of 

change from existing conditions and the likelihood of the change to occur. The context and the intensity 

of the impact are also considered. Context relates to the environmental circumstances at the location of 

the impact; intensity refers to the severity or extent of an impact. 

In evaluating the context of an impact, the area or quantity of an affected resource relative to the available 

area or quantity of that resource is considered. The potential for change in growth and reproductive 

success of a species, maintenance of a population at preproject levels, and period of recovery after 

disturbance are other factors considered. The intensity of an impact is dependent on several factors, 

including the potential for violation of laws or regulations; the degree of uncertainty and controversy; the 

degree of adverse effect on specific concerns such as public health and safety, unique resources, or 

threatened and endangered species; and the resilience of the resource. 

Determining significance is complex. The significance of a resource or impact is dynamic and may 

change during the planning period. Significance can be “real” and supportable by fact or “perceived” and 

perhaps not fully supportable even through rigorous study. For this analysis, the approach for 

establishing significance criteria was based on legal issues, public perception, and professional judgment. 

Significance criteria are introduced in the specific resource categories. 

4.3 ANALYSIS METHODS 

Impact analysis is a cause and effect process. Analysis methods identified resources that would be 

considered important for reasons such as legality, uniqueness, availability, or resilience, and then 

predicted changes to these resources. The magnitude or scale of the resource change was defined, and a 

judgment made as to the significance of that change. 

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

alternatives by using geographic information system (GIS) coverages and databases. The locations of 

resources and overlapping issues are shown in Maps 1 through 87. The approximate geographic size of 

these resources is listed in Table 3-1 at the end of Chapter 3, and the magnitudes of the overlapping 

resource issues are compared among the alternatives in Tables 4-1 to 4-10 at the end of Chapter 4. These 

tables and maps should be reviewed in conjunction with the discussion of impacts in the following 

sections. 

Environmental impacts associated with the management alternatives are caused by land use activities. 

Certain assumptions are made regarding level of land use activity, resource condition, and resource 

response as a basis for determining potential impacts. The analysis considered the following: 

• Restrictions or prohibitions on activities in specific areas to protect sensitive resources 

• Mitigation requirements that prevent or limit direct impacts associated with land use activities or 

that reclaim the land after the activity has been completed 

4-2 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 4 

• Standards and guidelines that assess rangeland health and provide strategies to achieve resource 

conditions and management objectives 

• Projections of the level of activity for land uses based on historical trends; existing land use 

agreements, such as leases or permits; and statements of interest in land use by individuals and 

industry organizations 

• Impacts of land use activities that occur regardless of location of the land use, and impacts 

dependent on the location of the activity and potentially affected resources. 

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

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

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

there are conflicts between resource uses, or where a land use activity might result in unacceptable or 

irreversible impacts on the environment, BLM may restrict or prohibit some land uses in specific areas. 

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

alternatives on resource users (albeit nonenvironmental impacts) are identified and assessed as part of the 

planning process. The projected impacts on land use activities and the associated environmental impacts 

of land uses are characterized and evaluated for each management alternative in the following sections. It 

is important to note that all management prescriptions for each resource and resource use directly and/or 

indirectly relate to each other; therefore, impacts of other prescriptions and guidance may apply to each 

resource management activity. 

4.4 LAND AND WATER RESOURCES 

The land and water resource management category encompasses the biological and hydrologic resources 

and the users and land use programs associated with those resources. The significance criteria and 

analysis assumptions are described within each subcategory. 

4.4.1 Potential Impacts on Fire 

The fire management program is a land use program that has both adverse and beneficial environmental 

impacts on resources and nonenvironmental effects on resource users. Impacts on resources and resource 

users resulting from implementation of the fire management program are discussed in those particular 

resource sections. This section describes potential impacts on the fire management program resulting 

from the implementation of management actions for other resource management categories. 

Adverse impacts on the fire management program would be considered significant if management actions 

or activities increased the costs related to the fire management program to the point where the overall 

effectiveness of the program was reduced. 

It is assumed that a direct relationship exists between density of human use within the planning area and 

the frequency of person-caused fires and that a direct relationship exists between fuel loads (standing and 

nonstanding vegetation) and potential fire size and intensity. Prescribed burns would be limited 

throughout the planning area and planning period. The potential for land treatments through the use of 

prescribed fire would be limited. Some areas of dense overmature Wyoming and mountain big sagebrush 

could benefit from planned ignitions. The amount of area to be treated with prescribed fire is not 

expected to exceed 5,000 acres over the 20-year planning period. 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 4-3 
Chapter 4 Final EIS 

4.4.1.1 Common to All Alternatives 

The management actions associated with the alternatives would primarily impact the fire management 

program by affecting costs associated with prescribed burns and wildfire suppression efforts. Program 

costs would increase because of increased fire frequency and increased fire size and/or intensity. The 

level of significance of any impact would depend on the number of wildfires occurring in any given year. 

Adhering to the Fire Management Implementation Plan for BLM-Administered Public Lands and the 

National Fire Plan would assist in maintaining the program as planned and budgeted. 

Activities that would affect fire frequency under all alternatives include off-highway vehicle (OHV) use, 

recreational activity, livestock grazing, and mineral exploration and development. These activities 

introduce additional ignition sources into the planning area, which in turn increase the probability of 

wildfire occurrence. The activities can occur in remote areas, which would affect the time and cost 

related to transporting fire suppression equipment to such locations. Livestock grazing can also affect fire 

frequency by reducing fine fuels, which decreases the probability of ignition. This could benefit the fire 

management program by decreasing fire fighting costs but could also adversely impact the opportunity for 

positive effects of fire. 

Fire size and intensity can be affected by the level of fire suppression activities allowed and by activities 

that increase or decrease fuel loading. The restrictions and limitations placed on fire suppression 

activities within special management areas and around heritage sites could adversely affect the ability of 

firefighters to protect these sites from wildfires. However, limiting suppression activities to existing 

roads and trails could reduce suppression-related costs by focusing suppression efforts on existing fuel 

breaks. 

Livestock grazing could also increase fire intensity by decreasing fire frequency. Decreasing the 

probability of ignition through the reduction of fine fuels could provide more time for the accumulation of 

larger fuel sources (e.g., shrub vegetation) between fires. When properly managed, livestock grazing 

activity would leave sufficient fine fuel to allow for ignition. Excessive removal of fine fuels caused by 

overgrazing could lead to increased brush size and density, which could also increase fire intensity. 

However, this is not anticipated because of the implementation of the Wyoming Standards for Healthy 

Rangelands and the desired plant community (DPC) objectives, which would ensure that widespread 

overgrazing would not occur. Fine fuel reduction by grazing livestock could also adversely impact fire 

prescription activities by limiting the ability of an area to support prescribed fire as a management tool. 

Factors affecting the costs associated with prescribed burns include restrictions on vehicle and other 

equipment use, construction of control lines in areas of sensitive resources, and timing requirements for 

burns in sensitive watersheds. Approximately 5,000 acres of prescribed burns are proposed over the 

planning period. Any adverse impacts on the fire management program due to prescribed burning would 

be minimal, because there should be adequate planning, timing, and budgeting for this type and level of 

activity. 

4.4.1.2 No Action Alternative 

Mineral exploration, development and production increase the potential for wildfire occurrence by 

increasing the number of ignition sources, which in turn increases the cost of managing fire within the 

planning area. Development of 221 oil and gas wells is anticipated under this alternative (Appendix 13), 

which would act as potential ignition sources throughout the planning area. Closing areas to fluid mineral 

development under this alternative (Map 10) would diminish development activity and consequently 

reduce adverse impacts on the fire management program. 

4-4 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 4 

Recreational activities such as camping and OHV use have the potential to increase fire frequency by 

increasing the number of ignition sources (e.g., campfires and catalytic converters). Further, because 

these activities often occur in remote areas, costs related to transporting fire suppression equipment could 

increase. Under this alternative, camping would be allowed throughout the planning area (except where 

necessary to protect water quality and wildlife), which could increase fire management costs by 

increasing fire activity over a large area. Limiting OHV use to designated and existing roads and trails 

could minimize the potential for fires ignited by these vehicles. 

The impacts of wild horse management actions on the fire management program would be somewhat 

similar to those resulting from livestock grazing, but on smaller scale and over a smaller area. 

Management of wild horses could reduce fine fuels through foraging activities and thereby reduce the 

probability of ignition. This could also increase fire intensity by providing more time for the 

accumulation of larger fuel sources (e.g., shrub vegetation) between fires. Excessive removal of fine 

fuels could lead to increased brush size and density, which could increase fire intensity. However, this is 

not anticipated because of the implementation of the Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands and 

DPC objectives, which would ensure that widespread overuse would not occur. 

Vegetation management actions could have both beneficial and adverse impacts on the fire management 

program. Beneficial impacts could result from reducing fire size and/or intensity by maintaining healthy 

and diverse vegetation communities. Highly diverse vegetation communities promote mosaic vegetation 

patterns that slow the spread of fires. Beneficial impacts would also be realized by applying full fire 

suppression in basin big sagebrush/lemon scurfpea vegetation associations, which would help reduce fire 

size and/or intensity. Adverse impacts could include increased costs related to prescribed burn 

stipulations (e.g., spring burning) and fire suppression restrictions within certain sensitive vegetation 

resources (e.g., vehicular suppression activities limited to existing roads and trails within special status 

plant species habitat). Using prescribed burns as a vegetative treatment would be planned in advance and 

thus should not significantly impact the fire management program. 

4.4.1.3 Alternative 1 

Impacts on the fire management program from implementing management actions for wild horses and 

vegetation would be the same as those under the No Action Alternative. 

Although camping activities are anticipated to be similar to those of the No Action Alternative, increased 

OHV use would be expected within the planning area because there would be more available areas in 

which to travel. This would increase the potential for increased fire frequency and related costs. 

This alternative provides the greatest opportunity for mineral development and production, which could 

affect fire management. More of the planning area would be open to all types of mineral exploration and 

development, which could increase the potential for human-caused fires by increasing the number of 

ignition sources. However, the increased and/or improved access and construction of fuel breaks 

resulting from increased mineral activities could improve suppression opportunities and effectiveness. 

The level of significance of these impacts would depend on the fire frequency in any given year. 

Under this alternative, the anticipated use of livestock animal unit months (AUM) would increase over the 

planning period to the permitted active use amount, which is approximately double the historic use. This 

would increase the impacts of livestock grazing on the fire management program. 

Activities related to special management areas under this alternative could reduce localized effects on fire 

management. Removing the area of critical environmental concern (ACEC) designation from Steamboat 

Mountain ACEC and reducing the South Pass Historic Landscape viewshed would eliminate the specific 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 4-5 
Chapter 4 Final EIS 

management actions associated with these areas, which would in turn reduce the area subject to fire 

suppression-related limitations and restrictions. 

4.4.1.4 Alternative 2 

Impacts on the fire management program from implementing management actions for vegetation would 

be the same as those under the No Action Alternative. 

The Divide Basin Wild Horse Herd Management Area (HMA) would be reduced to exclude the planning 

area. This would remove from the planning area wild horses that would otherwise affect the fire 

management program through the reduction of fine fuels. 

Recreation management activities could have less of an impact on fire management under this alternative 

than under the No Action Alternative. Camping would be allowed only in designated areas, and parties of 

five or more would require a group camping permit. Such restrictions would concentrate camping 

activities, thereby controlling the areas that could be adversely impacted by escaped campfires or other 

accidental ignitions. A large portion of the planning area would be closed to OHV use or subject to OHV 

limitations. These limitations would likely decrease fire frequency related to human recreational activity 

and have an overall beneficial effect on the fire management program. 

This alternative provides the least opportunity for mineral development and production, which would 

result in reduced impacts on fire management compared with all other alternatives. More areas would be 

closed to all types of mineral development, which would decrease the potential for wildfire occurrence by 

reducing the number of ignition sources. 

Activities related to special management areas could have greater impacts on the fire management 

program under this alternative than under the other alternatives. Management actions associated with the 

expansion of existing ACECs and historic viewsheds and management of new ACECs within the 

planning area could increase the area subject to fire suppression-related limitations and restrictions, which 

could increase related costs and reduce the ability of firefighters to protect these sites from wildfires. 

However, limiting suppression activities to existing roads and trails could reduce suppression-related 

costs by focusing suppression efforts on existing fuel breaks. The level of significance of these impacts 

would depend on the number of wildfires occurring in these special management areas in any given year. 

4.4.1.5 Alternative 3 

Impacts on the fire management program from implementing management actions for vegetation would 

be the same as those under the No Action Alternative. 

Recreation management activities could have less of an impact on fire management under this alternative 

than under the No Action Alternative. Camping would be allowed only in designated areas, and parties of 

10 or more would require a group camping permit. Such restrictions would concentrate camping 

activities, thereby controlling the areas that could be affected by escaped campfires or other accidental 

ignitions. Additional portions of the planning area would be closed to OHV use or subject to OHV 

limitations. These limitations would likely decrease fire frequency related to human recreational activity 

and, consequently, the cost of managing fire within the planning area. 

Impacts on the fire management program from mineral development would be slightly less than under the 

No Action Alternative, because of development of fewer oil and gas wells. Development of 205 wells is 

anticipated under this alternative (Appendix 13), which would act as potential ignition sources throughout 

the planning area. Closing areas to fluid mineral development under this alternative (Map 42) would 

4-6 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 4 

diminish development activity and consequently reduce adverse impacts on the fire management 

program. 

Expanding the Divide Basin Wild Horse HMA to include the entire planning area could increase the 

beneficial and/or adverse effects associated with wild horses (reduction of fine fuels via foraging) on the 

fire management program by allowing wild horses to graze more areas. However, this additional impact 

would not be significant because the number of horses allowed in the expansion area would be limited. 

Impacts related to special management areas would be similar to those under Alternative 2, but not as 

great. Management actions associated with fewer designations and less expansion of special management 

areas under this alternative would result in fewer limitations and restrictions on fire suppression activities. 

4.4.1.6 Proposed JMH CAP 

The management actions associated with this alternative would impact the fire management program 

primarily by affecting costs associated with prescribed burns and wildfire suppression efforts. Program 

costs would increase because of increased fire frequency and increased fire size and/or intensity. 

Adhering to the Fire Management Implementation Plan for BLM-Administered Public Lands and the 

National Fire Plan would assist in maintaining the program as planned and budgeted. 

Management of heritage resources could adversely impact fire management by placing restrictions on fire 

suppression activities. Protections afforded to heritage resources and surrounding areas include fire 

suppression-related limitations and restrictions, which could affect the ability of firefighters to protect 

these sites from wildfires. However, limiting suppression activities to existing roads and trails could 

reduce suppression-related costs by focusing these efforts on existing fuel breaks. The level of 

significance of these impacts would depend on the number of wildfires occurring in these areas in any 

given year. 

Prescribed burning could adversely affect the fire management program by increasing costs. Factors 

could include restrictions on vehicle and other equipment use, construction of control lines in areas of 

sensitive resources, and timing requirements for burns in sensitive watersheds. Approximately 5,000 

acres of prescribed burns are proposed over the 20-year planning period. Any adverse impacts on the fire 

management program due to prescribed burning would be minimal because there should be adequate 

planning, timing, and budgeting for this type and level of activity. 

Mineral exploration, development, and production increase the potential for wildfire occurrence by 

increasing the number of ignition sources, which in turn increases the cost of managing fire within the 

planning area. Impacts on the fire management program under this alternative would be similar to those 

under Alternative 3, with development of 205 wells (Appendix 13). However, the strategy for 

implementing fluid mineral leasing decisions under this alternative (Appendix 17) could affect the degree 

of impact in certain areas. There would be no new oil and gas leasing in the majority of Area 3 (Figure 

A17-1), which could reduce impacts in this area over the long term. However, this could also result in 

more rapid exploration and development of existing leases in Area 3 because there would not be any 

opportunity to renew leases upon expiration. Moreover, given that much of this area is within the high 

development potential area (Map 69), successful well completion rates are expected to be high. These 

factors could result in the introduction of substantially more ignition sources over a relatively short period 

of time, potentially increasing impacts on fire management compared with Alternative 3. 

Recreational activities such as camping and OHV use have the potential to increase fire frequency by 

increasing the number of ignition sources (e.g., campfires and catalytic converters). Furthermore, because 

of the remote areas in which these activities often occur, costs related to transporting fire suppression 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 4-7 
Chapter 4 Final EIS 

equipment might increase. Under this alternative, camping would be allowed throughout the planning 

area (except where necessary to protect water quality and wildlife), which could increase fire 

management costs by increasing fire activity over a larger area. Placing limitations on OHV use and 

closing certain areas to such use could minimize the potential for fires ignited by these vehicles. 

Livestock grazing can affect fire frequency by reducing fine fuels, which decreases the probability of 

ignition. This could benefit the fire management program by decreasing fire fighting costs but could also 

adversely impact the opportunity for positive effects of fire. Livestock grazing could also increase fire 

intensity by decreasing fire frequency. Decreasing the probability of ignition through reduction of fine 

fuels could provide more time for the accumulation of larger fuel sources (e.g., shrub vegetation) between 

fires. When properly managed, livestock grazing activity would leave sufficient fine fuel to allow for 

ignition. Excessive removal of fine fuels caused by overgrazing could lead to increased brush size and 

density, which could also increase fire intensity. However, this is not anticipated because of the 

implementation of the Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands and DPC objectives, which would 

ensure that widespread overgrazing would not occur. Fine fuel reduction by grazing livestock could also 

adversely affect fire prescription activities by limiting the ability of an area to support prescribed fire as a 

management tool. 

Impacts of wild horse management actions on the fire management program would be somewhat similar 

to those resulting from livestock grazing, but on smaller scale and over a smaller area. Management of 

wild horses could reduce fine fuels through foraging activities and thereby reduce the probability of 

ignition. This could also increase fire intensity by providing more time for the accumulation of larger fuel 

sources (e.g., shrub vegetation) between fires. Excessive removal of fine fuels could lead to increased 

brush size and density, which could increase fire intensity. However, this is not anticipated because of the 

implementation of the Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands and DPC objectives, which would 

ensure that widespread overuse would not occur. 

Vegetation management actions could have both beneficial and adverse impacts on the fire management 

program. Beneficial impacts could result from reducing fire size and/or intensity by maintaining healthy 

and diverse vegetation communities. Highly diverse vegetation communities promote mosaic vegetation 

patterns that slow the spread of fires. Beneficial impacts would also be realized by applying full fire 

suppression in basin big sagebrush/lemon scurfpea vegetation associations, which would help reduce fire 

size and/or intensity. Negative impacts could include increased costs related to prescribed burn 

stipulations (e.g., spring burning) and fire suppression restrictions within certain sensitive vegetation 

resources (e.g., vehicular suppression activities limited to existing roads and trails within special status 

plant species habitat). Using prescribed burns as a vegetative treatment would be planned in advance and 

thus should not significantly impact the fire management program. 

Activities related to special management areas and other management areas could result in greater 

impacts on the fire management program than under the No Action Alternative. Management actions 

associated with the expansion of the Steamboat Mountain ACEC and management of the West Sand 

Dunes Archaeological District and Steamboat Mountain Management Area could increase the area 

subject to fire suppression-related limitations and restrictions, which could increase related costs and 

affect the ability of firefighters to protect these areas from wildfires. However, limiting suppression 

activities to existing roads and trails could reduce suppression-related costs by focusing these efforts on 

existing fuel breaks. The level of significance of these impacts would depend on the number of wildfires 

occurring in these special management areas in any given year. 

4-8 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.4.2 Potential Impacts on Water Resources 

Water resources include surface and subsurface water resources and the quality of each. Resources 

include perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral waterways; riparian areas; wetlands; floodplains; 

groundwater recharge areas; and groundwater. Impacts on resources and resource users resulting from 

implementation of water resource management actions are discussed in those particular resource sections. 

This section describes potential impacts on water resources resulting from the implementation of 

management actions for other resource management categories. 

Adverse impacts on water resources as a result of human activities would be considered potentially 

significant if proper functioning condition (PFC) could not be attained or maintained as a minimum 

physical state or if Wyoming BLM Standards for Healthy Rangelands Standard #2 were not obtainable. 

Actions that accelerated erosion and runoff and thereby altered the physical characteristic of streams, 

wetlands, and riparian areas or degraded water quality beyond the designated use of the receiving stream 

(Table 3-5) would be considered a significant impact. Any loss of wetlands or wetland function or 

violation of the requirements of Section 404 permits would also be considered a significant impact. 

Analysis of impacts on water resources is based on achieving the watershed objectives of stabilizing and 

conserving soil; increasing vegetative production; maintaining or improving surface and groundwater 

quality; and protecting, maintaining, or improving wetlands, floodplains, and riparian areas. 

It is assumed that any substantial disturbance to the soils or changes in vegetative cover would have an 

adverse effect on watershed health and water quality. Surface disturbances result in accelerated erosion 

and runoff, increasing sediment and nutrient loads to local channels. The degree of impact attributed to 

any one disturbance or series of disturbances is influenced by location within the watershed, soil type, 

time and degree of disturbance, existing vegetation, and precipitation. 

4.4.2.1 Common to All Alternatives 

Fire could have both long-term beneficial and short-term adverse impacts on water resources, the degree 

of which would depend on fire size, timing, and fuel type. Adverse impacts could include increased 

runoff from exposed soils and sedimentation of surface waters. Over the long term, positive impacts 

could include increased age and species diversity of plant communities, enhanced nutrient cycling, and 

increased plant vigor, which would slow erosion rates and improve watershed health and water quality. 

Wildfires usually have more adverse impacts than do prescribed burns because wildfires generally cover 

larger areas and remove more vegetation, and, if burning outside established prescription, often burn with 

enough heat to adversely affect soil organisms and damage the root system of some plants. This could 

result in long-term adverse impacts by compromising future plant rejuvenation and growth rates. Fire 

suppression activities could also result in adverse impacts on water resources by increasing soil erosion 

from fire line construction and heavy equipment transport. Prescribed fires generally result in long-term 

beneficial effects on watershed health and water quality. The significance of any impact would depend 

on the amount of area burned, fire type, proximity to a water source, amount of sedimentation, and rate of 

revegetation. 

Riparian areas would be managed to attain PFC as the minimum acceptable level of ecological condition. 

This would have a beneficial impact on watershed resources and water quality by helping to stabilize 

streambanks, reduce erosion and sediment yield, promote vegetative cover, and enhance water quality. 

Watershed assessments, increased monitoring efforts, and implementation of mitigation measures would 

improve the health of watersheds with sensitive baseline conditions, having a long-term beneficial impact 

on the resource. Water quality would be further protected through BLM’s participation with federal, 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 4-9 
Chapter 4 Final EIS 

state, and local government agencies to develop and implement salinity control plans for the Colorado 

River Basin. 

Livestock grazing could have localized adverse impacts on watershed resources and water quality. Soil 

compaction and loss of vegetative cover could result in reduced soil infiltration, increased runoff, and 

sedimentation of surface waters. Other potential adverse impacts from livestock grazing activities could 

include channel destabilization, nutrient loading of surface waters, and promotion of invasive plant 

species. In addition, surface alterations and water depletions resulting from development of livestock 

pits, ponds and water wells could alter flow dynamics and cause overall degradation of the riparian 

corridor (see Appendix 3 and Section 4.4.6 for further details). Approximately 80 percent of the water 

used for livestock water developments would be from the Colorado River drainage, with the remaining 

amount coming from the Platte River drainage. Implementation of the Wyoming Standards for Healthy 

Rangelands and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing and DPC objectives would help ensure proper 

management of livestock resources and reduce adverse impacts on watershed resources and water quality. 

Livestock water developments and range improvements would be designed to improve resource 

conditions and livestock distribution. They generally distribute livestock within the pasture/allotment in 

an effort to prevent livestock concentration and overuse of forage. The immediate area surrounding water 

developments would generally be adversely affected because of construction disturbances and livestock 

concentrations around the developments. This would accelerate runoff and erosion within the affected 

area and could adversely impact nearby surface waters by increasing sediment and nutrient loads. With 

proper planning and effective management of range improvements, adverse impacts on water resources 

would be minimized to acceptable levels. 

Vegetation management activities would most likely result in beneficial impacts on watershed resources 

and water quality. The protective measures afforded to special status plant species and management 

actions to achieve the DPC objectives would have a beneficial effect on watershed resources by 

maintaining plant diversity and preserving ecological conditions. Preventing and controlling the spread of 

invasive plant species would also improve watershed health by reducing competition with native plants 

and maintaining biodiversity. Vegetation manipulation to enhance wildlife habitat would have shortterm, adverse impacts on watershed resources by removing vegetation and consequently increasing 

erosion and sedimentation; however, long-term, beneficial impacts could be realized through increased 

age and species diversity of plant communities, enhanced nutrient cycling, and increased plant vigor. 

Long-term beneficial impacts on water resources are anticipated from wildlife habitat management 

activities. Actions to improve wildlife habitat generally involve the protection of water sources and the 

promotion of diverse plant communities, which are better able to slow and filter overland flow, reduce 

erosive forces, and improve water quality. Short-term adverse impacts could occur where wildlife 

populations concentrate near water sources, potentially increasing erosion and sediment loads. 

Management of heritage resources should have minimal impacts on watershed health and water quality. 

Management actions generally focus on the protection or preservation of heritage sites, which would in 

turn benefit water resources by limiting or excluding surface disturbing activities on or near such sites. 

Data recovery excavations could adversely affect watershed resources through surface disturbances and 

vegetation removal if not properly conducted. Indirect effects could occur if avoidance of cultural sites 

directed activities to other areas, possibly concentrating uses and increasing adverse impacts on local 

watersheds. However, because of the limited activity allowed in proximity to water resources, any 

adverse impacts would be insignificant. Protection measures afforded by the National Historic 

Preservation Act would further mitigate potential adverse impacts. 

4-10 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 4 

Recreational activities that occur in proximity to water sources could impact watershed resources and 

water quality. Camping and hiking adjacent to waterways could result in localized compaction of soils, 

vegetation removal, and streambank instability, which in turn could increase sediment, salt, and nutrient 

loads from increased runoff. Waste products from recreational activities near riparian areas could have 

localized adverse effects on aquatic resources. The use of OHVs could have an adverse impact on water 

resources, especially if the OHVs were used in an unauthorized manner. Such impacts could include 

erosion, soil compaction, and increased turbidity from unauthorized stream crossings and use of wetland 

meadows. OHV use limitations and visitor compliance with BLM’s OHV designations would help 

prevent degradation of sensitive watersheds. Educational programs, such as “Tread Lightly,” would 

further help reduce adverse impacts on land and water resources. 

Surface disturbing activities, such as those associated with the construction of linear rights-of-way 

(ROW) for pipelines, transmission lines, and communication lines, and oil and gas development, 

including construction of well pads, mud pits, and roads, could impact water resources. Land clearing 

and grading activities necessary for construction remove vegetation and compact soils, which contributes 

to increased erosion and subsequent sedimentation of local surface waters. Water depletions from oil and 

gas drilling processes would reduce the total volume of flows to the Colorado River and Platte River 

drainages (see Appendix 3 and Section 4.4.6 for further details). Approximately 95 percent of the water 

used for drilling would be from the Colorado River drainage (i.e., 95 percent of the wells would be within 

this watershed), with the remaining amount coming from the Platte River drainage. Implementation of 

standard practices and mitigation measures would help minimize long-term adverse impacts on water 

resources by stabilizing soil conditions and promoting revegetation of disturbed areas. Disturbed sites 

would be monitored for effective reclamation, and linear ROWs would avoid or be excluded from 

sensitive areas whenever possible. If sensitive areas could not be avoided, appropriate mitigation 

measures would be applied. 

Groundwater could be affected during construction of drill pads or by other exploration and development 

activities. Improper casing and cementing of wells, undetected spills, or leachate from produced water or 

mud pits could introduce contaminants into the groundwater. Chemicals used for production drilling 

could cause local contamination of soils and groundwater if not managed properly. Construction of 

drilling pads, proper disposal practices, proper casing and cementing, and recycling of drilling fluids 

would be in accordance with BLM guidelines and should minimize adverse effects on groundwater 

quality. Hydrological investigations would be conducted before coalbed gas development to determine 

whether any connection existed between surface waters and the aquifer that would be dewatered. 

Appropriate measures would be taken to prevent adverse impacts on water quality during dewatering. 

Dewatering during coalbed gas production could affect the quantity of groundwater by changing flow 

gradients. Given the present state and federal regulations regarding general water quality, as well as 

salinity and the Colorado River Basin, surface discharge of produced water is not anticipated. However, 

accidental surface discharges could adversely impact nearby surface water quality by increasing salinity 

levels. The extent of any impact would depend on the quality and quantity of the produced water and any 

fluids being released. 

Irrigation diversions on private lands have a noticeable influence on channel dynamics and morphology. 

Pacific Creek, the primary stream system in the JMH CAP planning area, has been under the influence of 

irrigation diversions for close to 100 years. Irrigation diversions will most likely continue to be a 

noticeable influence in the future. 

Management actions for special management areas could benefit watershed resources. Restrictions on 

development and other surface disturbing activities within these areas would help prevent accelerated 

erosion and sedimentation of surface waters. 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 4-11 
Chapter 4 Final EIS 

4.4.2.2 No Action Alternative 

Prescribed burns and wildfire suppression activities would have both short-term and long-term impacts on 

water resources like those described above under Impacts Common to All Alternatives. The minimal 

amount of proposed prescribed burns (approximately 5,000 acres) and the requirements for these 

activities (e.g., post-treatment rest, mosaic patterns, and limiting of suppression activities to existing roads 

and trails) would minimize adverse impacts by limiting the amount of exposed ground susceptible to 

erosion. The long-term benefits from fire would be minimized as well. Full fire suppression would be 

applied to basin big sagebrush/lemon scurfpea vegetation associations, which stabilize the sand dunes and 

maintain the integrity and stability of the watershed in which they grow. 

Achieving and maintaining the appropriate management level (AML) for wild horses within the Divide 

Basin Wild Horse HMA would serve to maintain or improve watershed resources. Some trampling of 

riparian vegetation and subsequent erosion would occur, but this could be held to an acceptable level if 

the selective gathering program were successful in reducing and maintaining wild horse population levels. 

Concentration of wild horses near water sources could increase localized erosion and sediment loads 

caused by trampling and overgrazing of riparian vegetation. Construction of water developments to better 

distribute the horse herd would help minimize this effect. 

Livestock grazing activities could impact water resources as described above in Impacts Common to All 

Alternatives. Implementation of the Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands and Guidelines for 

Livestock Grazing would ensure that adverse impacts would not be significant. Under this alternative, 

exclosures and water developments would be constructed as needed to keep livestock out of sensitive 

riparian areas, thereby reducing the impacts on watershed health and water quality. Prohibiting placement 

of salt and mineral supplements within 500 feet of riparian areas would help minimize soil compaction 

and subsequent runoff near surface waters. 

Recreational activities are not anticipated to have significant impacts on watershed resources. Although 

camping would be allowed within riparian corridors, areas would be closed if resource damage occurred, 

thereby preventing significant impacts. In addition, OHV use designations would help prevent OHVrelated impacts from becoming significant. 

Surface disturbing activities, such as those associated with mineral development and ROW construction 

activities, could cause impacts similar to those common to all alternatives. Actions that limit the extent of 

surface disturbing activities generally minimize impacts on surface water sources and recharge areas. 

Under this alternative, surface disturbance would be controlled within 500 feet of riparian areas, wetlands, 

and 100-year floodplains. Controlled use means that surface disturbing activities would avoid these areas 

unless a site-specific analysis determined that there would be no adverse impacts on water resources. 

Permanent facilities (other than linear facilities) would not be allowed within 100-year floodplains or 

wetland areas, and linear ROWs would be identified and collocated as much as practicable. These 

limitations would ensure that any adverse impacts on water resources would not be significant. Some 

surface disturbing activities might serve to maintain or improve water quality (e.g., reconstruction of 

crossings, road surfacing, gabions). 

Development of 221 oil and gas wells is anticipated under this alternative, with 95 percent of these wells 

occurring in the Green River/Colorado River Basin. Using the assumption of 1.5 acre-feet of water per 

well, depletions from these actions would total approximately 390 acre-feet in the Colorado River 

drainage and 16.5 acre-feet in the Platte River drainage. Based on a 20-year time frame, the average 

annual depletion for the two drainages would be 19.5 acre-feet and 0.83 acre-feet, respectively. 

4-12 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.4.2.3 Alternative 1 

Impacts resulting from management actions for fire, recreation, and wild horses would be the same as 

those under the No Action Alternative. 

Livestock grazing management would likely have greater impacts on water resources under this 

alternative than under the No Action Alternative. The anticipated use of AUMs would increase over the 

planning period to the fully permitted active use amount, which is approximately double the historic use. 

This could put greater pressure on watershed resources, potentially causing increased erosion, 

sedimentation, and bank instability. These additional impacts would be realized only on allotments that 

are not currently close to using their fully permitted AUMs. In addition, under this alternative, salt and 

mineral supplements could be placed within 250 feet of water resources (compared with the 500-foot 

minimum distance under the No Action Alternative), and would therefore have a greater potential for 

subjecting surface waters to increased sediment loads. Livestock water developments would be permitted 

wherever they enhanced livestock production, as opposed to enhancing livestock distribution as under the 

No Action Alternative. This could increase localized erosion and sedimentation of surface waters, 

possibly resulting in significant impacts. Existing riparian exclosures could be removed under this 

alternative and the area made available to livestock grazing, consequently increasing grazing pressures 

along riparian corridors. This could result in degradation to these riparian areas depending on current 

livestock management. Implementation of the Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands and 

Guidelines for Livestock Grazing would help minimize adverse impacts. 

Benefits to watershed resources from wildlife management actions would be less extensive than under the 

other alternatives because there would be less emphasis on improving wildlife habitat and fewer habitat 

protection measures under this alternative. 

Of the five alternatives, this alternative would provide the least amount of protection to riparian areas and 

floodplains from surface disturbing activities, which could result in an increase in related impacts. The 

amount of land area subject to the controlled surface use stipulation would be reduced. Specifically, the 

avoidance area surrounding riparian areas and 100-year floodplains would be reduced to 250 feet, 

allowing surface disturbing activities to occur closer to water resources. Similarly, the avoidance area for 

intermittent and large ephemeral drainages would be reduced to 50 feet. New permanent facilities would 

be allowed in floodplains, wetlands, and riparian areas provided that no practicable alternatives were 

available for placing the facility elsewhere and that appropriate mitigation measures would be 

implemented. The level of significance of impacts would depend on whether the buffer zones were large 

enough to adequately attenuate impacts related to surface disturbing activities. 

Additional land area would be open for linear ROWs under this alternative, which could allow increased 

construction activities to occur within sensitive watersheds. This could cause further degradation of 

watershed resources and water quality, and depending on where and to what degree the ROW activities 

occurred, impacts could be significant. 

It is assumed that the amount of mineral exploration and development that would occur during the 

planning period would be related to the amount of acreage available for such development. The land area 

available for lease and mining claims would be greatest under this alternative; thus, the potential for 

mineral development would likely increase. This would result in greater surface disturbance and related 

adverse impacts on water resources because of increased potential for exposed soils, erosion, runoff, 

sedimentation of surface waters, and salt and nutrient loading. Development of more wells would also 

increase annual water depletions from the Colorado River and Platte River drainages. Using the 

assumption of 1.5 acre-feet of water per well over the 20-year planning period and development of 264 

wells, water depletion from these activities would total approximately 451.5 acre-feet in the Colorado 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 4-13 
Chapter 4 Final EIS 

River drainage and 19.5 acre-feet in the Platte River drainage. Based on a 20-year time frame, the 

average annual depletion for the Colorado River and Platte River drainages would be 22.5 acre-feet and 

0.98 acre-feet, respectively. The level of significance for all of these impacts would depend on the rate 

and location of development activities and the rate and effectiveness of reclamation. 

Management activities related to special management areas under this alternative could reduce 

opportunities to maintain or improve water resources. Removing the ACEC designation from Steamboat 

Mountain ACEC and reducing the South Pass Historic Landscape viewshed would eliminate specific 

management actions associated with these areas, which would in turn reduce the area subject to surface 

disturbance restrictions and limitations, potentially reducing benefits to water resources. 

4.4.2.4 Alternative 2 

Impacts resulting from vegetation management would be the same as those under the No Action 

Alternative. 

Under this alternative, the fire management program would have similar impacts to those discussed under 

the No Action Alternative. However, prescribed burns would not be considered under this alternative, 

which would eliminate both the positive and negative impacts of this activity. In addition, limited fire 

suppression (as opposed to full suppression) would be applied to the basin big sagebrush/lemon scurfpea 

vegetation associations, which could increase their susceptibility to fire. This could result in 

destabilization of the sand dunes and related impacts on water resources. In contrast, reducing the level of 

disruptive fire suppression activities could actually result in less erosion and less subsequent 

sedimentation of surface waters. 

Adverse impacts from wild horse management actions could occur in the portion of the Divide Basin 

Wild Horse HMA located outside the planning area. Under this alternative, the HMA would be modified 

to exclude the planning area while maintaining the current AML for the herd. Although this would 

benefit water resources within the planning area, indirect adverse impacts could occur in the remainder of 

the HMA because of the concentration of approximately the same number of wild horses within a smaller 

area. 

Under this alternative, livestock grazing management would most likely have fewer impacts on water 

resources than under the other alternatives. Although livestock operators could increase AUM use to the 

fully permitted amount, anticipated use of AUMs would be similar to historic levels. Salt and mineral 

supplements would not be allowed within one-half mile of riparian resources, thereby further reducing 

related impacts. Whether the one-half-mile distance would provide greater protection to riparian areas 

than would some shorter distance could depend on the topography, drainage patterns, and vegetative 

cover at a particular location. Within sensitive wildlife habitat, livestock water developments would be 

allowed only if resource conditions were improved. This could benefit water resources through improved 

planning of such developments. Moreover, only 11 water developments would be constructed under this 

alternative (compared to 23 under all other alternatives), which would lessen annual water depletions (2.8 

acre-feet versus 5.75 acre-feet) from the Colorado River and Platte River drainages. Exclosures would be 

maintained and new ones constructed as needed to keep livestock out of sensitive riparian areas, which 

would maintain or improve riparian corridors. 

Beneficial impacts on watershed resources from wildlife management activities would likely be greatest 

under this alternative because of expanded protection of and habitat enhancement for wildlife resources. 

Specifically, placing a no surface occupancy (NSO) stipulation on big game birthing areas and greater 

sage-grouse winter range and concentration areas would limit the type and degree of surface disturbing 

activity occurring in these areas, thereby reducing erosion, runoff, and sedimentation of surface waters. 

4-14 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 4 

Increased protection would be afforded to heritage resources under this alternative, which could increase 

beneficial impacts on watershed resources and water quality as compared to the other alternatives. Buffer 

zones around most sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) would 

be increased to 300 feet. Because surface disturbing activities are prohibited within these buffers, the 

potential for erosion and sedimentation of surface waters would be reduced. 

Recreation management activities would have less of an adverse impact on watershed resources and water 

quality under this alternative than under all other alternatives. Camping would be allowed only in 

designated areas, and parties of five or more would require a group camping permit. Such restrictions 

would limit camping along streams and within sensitive areas, reducing related impacts on water 

resources. The area closed to OHV use would increase, thus reducing the potential for accelerated 

erosion and sedimentation related to OHV use. 

Of the five alternatives, this alternative would provide the most protection to water resources from surface 

disturbing activities, primarily because a greater amount of land area would be subject to NSO 

requirements or ROW exclusion. Any actions that limit the extent of surface disturbing activities help 

minimize adverse impacts on surface water sources and recharge areas. Surface disturbance would be 

controlled within one-quarter mile of riparian areas, wetlands, and 100-year floodplains. Permanent 

facilities would not be allowed in 100-year floodplains, riparian areas, or wetlands, and linear ROWs 

would be identified and collocated as much as practicable. This larger avoidance area surrounding 

riparian areas and floodplains could provide considerably more protection to water resources. The degree 

of adverse impact would depend on the size and type of the activity and on the topography and drainage 

patterns of the activity location. This alternative would also include site-specific management 

prescriptions to protect the ecological integrity of the dunal ponds (flockets), which would have a 

beneficial effect on this unique water resource. Opportunities to construct structures that could enhance 

watershed resources (e.g., gabions, fences) would be limited in this alternative. 

It is assumed that the amount of mineral exploration and development that would occur during the 

planning period under this alternative would be related to the amount of acreage available for such 

development. The land area available for lease and mining claims would be the most restrictive under 

this alternative; thus, the potential for mineral development would likely decrease. Withdrawing areas 

from mineral development reduces the degree to which surface disturbance can occur, which in turn 

reduces adverse impacts on watershed resources and water quality. Development of fewer wells would 

considerably lessen annual water depletions from the Colorado River and the Platte River drainages. 

Using the assumption of 1.5 acre-feet of water per well over the 20-year planning period and development 

of 163 wells, water depletions from these actions would total approximately 270 acre-feet in the Colorado 

River drainage and 12 acre-feet in the Platte River drainage. Based on a 20-year time frame, the average 

annual depletion for the Colorado River and Platte River drainages would be 13.5 acre-feet and 0.6 acrefeet, respectively. 

Management actions related to special management areas could have a greater beneficial effect on water 

resources under this alternative. Management actions associated with expansion of existing ACECs and 

historic viewsheds and management of new ACECs within the planning area could increase the area 

subject to surface disturbance restrictions and limitations, and thus limit potential adverse impacts 

resulting from exposed soils and subsequent erosion and surface runoff. 

4.4.2.5 Alternative 3 

Impacts resulting from management of the fire program and vegetation resources would be the same as 

those under the No Action Alternative. 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 4-15 
Chapter 4 Final EIS 

Expanding the Divide Basin Wild Horse HMA to include the entire JMH CAP planning area could better 

distribute wild horses and reduce use in riparian areas within the current HMA. In contrast, this action 

could have additional adverse impacts on riparian areas because more of these areas would be included in 

the expanded HMA. Introducing wild horse grazing activities to new areas could result in overuse of 

riparian habitat, leading to accelerated erosion and sedimentation of water resources. Ensuring that no 

more than 100 horses were allowed in the expansion area could minimize this effect. However, this 

would likely not be realized until herd levels reached and maintained the AML because wild horses 

currently inhabit areas outside the existing HMA boundary. 

Livestock grazing activities under this alternative could have adverse impacts on water resources similar 

to those under the No Action Alternative. Although livestock operators could increase AUM use to the 

fully permitted amount, anticipated use of AUMs would be similar to historic levels. Implementation of 

the Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing would ensure that 

adverse impacts on water resources from grazing practices would not be significant. Exclosures and 

water developments would be constructed as needed to keep livestock out of sensitive riparian areas, 

which would have a beneficial impact on watershed health and water quality. Prohibiting placement of 

salt and mineral supplements within one-quarter mile of riparian areas would minimize soil compaction 

that promotes runoff and sedimentation of surface waters. Whether the distance of one-quarter mile 

would be adequate to prevent adverse impacts on riparian areas or would be excessive would depend on 

topography, drainage patterns, and the amount of vegetative cover at a particular salt block location. 

Benefits to watershed resources from wildlife management activities would most likely increase under 

this alternative compared with the No Action Alternative because of expanded protection and habitat 

enhancement for wildlife resources. 

Recreation management activities under this alternative would have less impact on watershed resources 

and water quality than would those under the No Action Alternative. Dispersed camping would be 

allowed only in designated areas, and parties of 10 or more would require a group camping permit. Such 

restrictions would limit camping along streams and within sensitive areas, reducing related impacts on 

water resources. Impacts would likely be more extensive than under Alternative 2 because measures 

designed to limit adverse impacts would not be as restrictive. The amount of area closed to OHV use or 

limited to existing roads and trails would be less than that under Alternative 2, which could increase the 

potential for soil exposure, accelerated erosion, and sedimentation of water sources. The level of 

significance of this impact would depend on the concentration of OHV use in proximity to water sources 

and watersheds of concern. 

This alternative would provide more protection to water resources from surface disturbing activities than 

would the No Action Alternative and Alternative 1, primarily because greater land area would be subject 

to controlled surface use requirements, ROW exclusion areas, or management under a transportation plan. 

Any actions that limit the extent of surface disturbing activities would help reduce adverse impacts on 

surface water sources and recharge areas. Under this alternative, surface disturbance would be controlled 

within 500 feet to one-quarter mile of riparian areas, wetlands, and 100-year floodplains. Permanent 

facilities would not be constructed in 100-year floodplains, and linear ROWs would be identified and 

collocated as much as practicable. Defining the boundaries of groundwater recharge areas within the 

JMH CAP planning area would ensure that appropriate measures would be taken in these locations to 

protect groundwater quantity and quality. 

It is assumed that the amount of mineral development that could occur during the planning period would 

be related to the amount of acreage available for such development. Therefore, reducing available 

acreage (i.e., closing areas to mineral exploration and development) would serve to diminish surface 

disturbance and consequently reduce adverse impacts on watershed resources and water quality. Impacts 

4-16 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 4 

on water resources from mineral development would be similar to but slightly less than those under the 

No Action Alternative, with development of 205 oil and gas wells (compared to 221 wells under the No 

Action Alternative). Although adverse impacts (exposed soils, erosion, and sedimentation) would be 

anticipated in localized areas, the health of watersheds would be used as an indicator in determining when 

to limit further development to ensure adverse impacts remained insignificant. 

Impacts related to special management areas would be similar to those of Alternative 2, but not as great. 

Management actions associated with fewer designations and less expansion of special management areas 

under this alternative could result in fewer limitations and restrictions on surface disturbing activities. 

4.4.2.6 Proposed JMH CAP 

Fire could have both long-term beneficial and short-term adverse effects on water resources under this 

alternative, the degree of which would depend on fire size, timing, and fuel type. Adverse impacts could 

include increased runoff from exposed soils and sedimentation of surface waters. Over the long term, 

positive impacts could include increased age and species diversity of plant communities, enhanced 

nutrient cycling, and increased plant vigor, which would slow erosion rates and improve watershed health 

and water quality. Wildfires usually have more adverse impacts than do prescribed burns because 

wildfires generally cover larger areas and remove more vegetation, and, if burning outside established 

prescription, often burn with enough heat to adversely affect soil organisms and damage the root systems 

of some plants. This could result in long-term adverse impacts by compromising future plant 

rejuvenation and growth rates. Fire suppression activities could also result in adverse impacts through 

increased soil erosion resulting from fire line construction and heavy equipment transport. Prescribed 

fires generally result in long-term beneficial effects on watershed health and water quality. The 

significance of any impact would depend on the amount of area burned, fire type, proximity to a water 

source, amount of sedimentation, and rate of revegetation. The minimal extent of proposed prescribed 

burns (approximately 5,000 acres), and the requirements related to these activities under this alternative 

(e.g., post-treatment rest, mosaic patterns, and limiting suppression activities to existing roads and trails), 

would minimize short-term adverse impacts by limiting the amount of exposed ground susceptible to 

erosion. Full fire suppression would be applied to basin big sagebrush/lemon scurfpea vegetation 

associations, which stabilize the sand dunes and maintain the integrity and stability of the watershed in 

which they grow. 

Riparian areas would be managed to attain PFC as the minimum acceptable level of ecological condition. 

This would have a beneficial impact on watershed resources and water quality by reducing erosion and 

sediment yield, promoting vegetative cover, stabilizing streambanks, and enhancing water quality. 

Watershed assessments, increased monitoring efforts, and implementation of mitigation measures would 

improve watersheds with sensitive baseline conditions, having a long-term beneficial impact on the 

resource. BLM would continue to participate with federal, state, and local government agencies to 

develop and implement salinity control plans for the basin and to maintain existing and future applicable 

water quality plans. Aquatic, wetland, and riparian habitat would not be disposed of unless exchanged for 

lands with equal or greater value (including monetary and functional resource values). 

Livestock grazing could have localized impacts on watershed resources and water quality. Soil 

compaction and loss of vegetative cover could result in reduced soil infiltration and increased runoff and 

sedimentation of surface waters. Other potential adverse impacts from livestock grazing activities could 

include channel destabilization, nutrient loading of surface waters, and promotion of invasive plant 

species. In addition, surface alterations and water depletions resulting from development of livestock 

pits, ponds, and water wells could alter flow dynamics and cause overall degradation of the riparian 

corridor (see Appendix 3 and Section 4.4.6 for further details). Approximately 80 percent of the water 

used for livestock water developments would be from the Colorado River drainage, with the remaining 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 4-17 
Chapter 4 Final EIS 

amount coming from the Platte River drainage. Using 5 acre-feet per water development over the 20-year 

planning period, average annual depletions anticipated from these actions would not exceed 4.75 acre-feet 

for the Colorado River system and 1 acre-foot for the Platte River system. Implementation of the 

Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing and the DPC 

objectives would help ensure proper management of livestock resources and reduce adverse impacts on 

watershed resources and water quality. 

Certain requirements and mitigation measures for livestock grazing operations would further help 

minimize impacts. Livestock water developments and range improvements would be designed to 

improve resource conditions and livestock distribution. These activities generally distribute livestock 

within the pasture/allotment in an effort to prevent livestock concentration and overuse of forage. The 

immediate area surrounding water developments would generally be adversely affected because of 

construction disturbances and livestock concentrations around water developments. This would 

accelerate runoff and erosion within the affected area and could adversely impact nearby surface waters 

by increasing sediment and nutrient loads. With proper planning and effective management of range 

improvements, adverse impacts on water resources would be minimized to acceptable levels. Within 

sensitive wildlife habitat, livestock water developments would be allowed only if resource conditions 

were improved, which could benefit water resources through improved construction planning of such 

developments. Riparian exclosures would be constructed as needed to keep livestock out of sensitive 

riparian areas, thereby reducing impacts on watershed health and water quality. Prohibiting placement of 

salt and mineral supplements within 500 feet of riparian areas would help minimize soil compaction and 

subsequent runoff near surface waters. 

Vegetation management activities would most likely result in beneficial impacts on watershed resources 

and water quality. The protections afforded to special status plant species and the management actions 

designed to achieve the DPC objectives would have a beneficial effect on watershed resources by 

maintaining plant diversity and preserving ecological conditions. Preventing and controlling the spread of 

invasive plant species would also improve watershed health by reducing competition with native plants 

and maintaining biodiversity. Vegetation manipulation to enhance wildlife habitat would have adverse 

short-term impacts on watershed resources by removing vegetation and consequently increasing erosion 

and sedimentation; however, long-term beneficial impacts could be realized by increasing age and species 

diversity of plant communities, enhancing nutrient cycling, and increasing plant vigor. 

Long-term beneficial impacts on water resources are anticipated from wildlife habitat management 

activities. Actions to improve wildlife habitat generally involve the protection of water sources and the 

promotion of diverse plant communities, which are better able to slow and filter overland flow, reduce 

erosive forces, and improve water quality. Short-term adverse impacts could occur where wildlife 

populations concentrate near water sources, potentially increasing erosion and sediment loads. These 

beneficial impacts would likely increase over the No Action Alternative because of expanded protection 

measures for greater sage-grouse. Placing a controlled surface use stipulation on sage-grouse nesting 

habitat and increasing the amount of sage-grouse winter habitat would reduce the level of surface 

disturbing activities occurring in these areas, thereby reducing related erosion, runoff, and sedimentation 

of surface waters. 

Management of heritage resources should have minimal impacts on watershed health and water quality. 

Management actions generally focus on the protection or preservation of heritage sites, which in turn 

benefit water resources by limiting or excluding surface disturbing activities on or near such sites. Data 

recovery excavations could adversely affect watershed resources via surface disturbances and vegetation 

removal if not properly conducted. Indirect effects could occur if avoidance of cultural sites directed 

activities to other areas, possibly concentrating uses and increasing adverse impacts on local watersheds. 

However, because of the limited activity allowed in proximity to water resources, any adverse impacts 

4-18 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 4 

would be insignificant. Protection measures afforded by the National Historic Preservation Act would 

further mitigate potential adverse impacts. Impacts on water sources near the paleosol deposition area 

would most likely be less extensive than under the No Action Alternative because of the management of 

this area as an archeological district. Such management would increase protection from surface 

disturbing activities, thereby reducing adverse impacts on nearby water sources. 

Recreational activities that occur in proximity to water sources could impact watershed resources and 

water quality, but significant impacts are not anticipated. Camping and hiking adjacent to waterways 

could result in localized compaction of soils, vegetation removal, and streambank instability, which in 

turn could increase sediment, salt, and nutrient loads from increased runoff. Waste products from 

recreational activities near riparian areas could have localized adverse effects on aquatic resources. 

Although camping would be allowed in riparian corridors, areas would be closed if resource damage 

occurred, thereby preventing adverse impacts from becoming significant. Requiring that special 

recreation use permits be reviewed and recommendations made by the Rock Springs Field Office would 

ensure input from field office resource specialists before authorization of special recreation activities. 

This could reduce impacts on water resources, because such activities would be directed by the personnel 

most familiar with the planning area. 

Use of OHVs could have an adverse impact on water resources, especially if OHVs were used in an 

unauthorized manner. Impacts could include erosion, soil compaction, and increased turbidity from 

unauthorized stream crossings and use of wetland meadows. OHV use limitations and visitor compliance 

with BLM’s OHV designations would locally contain adverse impacts and help prevent degradation of 

sensitive watersheds. Implementation of educational programs such as the “Tread Lightly” program 

would further help to reduce adverse impacts on land and water resources. 

Surface disturbing activities, such as those associated with the construction of linear ROWs for pipelines, 

transmission lines, and communication lines, and oil and gas development, including construction of well 

pads, mud pits, and roads, could impact water resources. Land clearing and grading activities necessary 

for construction would remove vegetation and compact soils, which would contribute to increased erosion 

and subsequent sedimentation of local surface waters. Water depletions from oil and gas drilling 

processes would reduce total volume of flows to the Colorado River and Platte River drainages (see 

Appendix 3 and Section 4.4.6 for further details). Approximately 95 percent of the water used for drilling 

would be from the Colorado River drainage (i.e., 95 percent of the wells would be within this watershed), 

with the remaining amount coming from the Platte River drainage. Using the assumption of 1.5 acre-feet 

of water per well, water depletion from these actions would total approximately 367.5 acre-feet in the 

Colorado River drainage and 15 acre-feet in the Platte River drainage. Based on a 20-year time frame, the 

average annual depletion for the Colorado River and the Platte River drainages would be 18.4 acre-feet 

and 0.75 acre-feet, respectively. 

Implementation of standard practices and mitigation measures would help minimize long-term adverse 

impacts on water resources by stabilizing soil conditions and promoting revegetation of disturbed areas. 

Disturbed sites would be monitored for effective reclamation, and linear ROWs would avoid or be 

excluded from sensitive areas whenever possible. If sensitive areas could not be avoided, appropriate 

mitigation measures would be applied. Surface disturbance would be controlled within 500 feet of 

riparian areas, wetlands, and 100-year floodplains. Controlled use means that surface disturbing activities 

would avoid these areas unless a site-specific analysis determined that there would be no adverse impacts 

on water resources. Permanent facilities (other than linear facilities) would not be allowed in 100-year 

floodplains, or riparian or wetland areas, and linear ROWs would be identified and collocated as much as 

practicable. These limitations would ensure that any adverse impacts on water resources would not be 

significant. Some surface disturbing activities (e.g., reconstruction of crossing, road surfacing, gabions) 

could serve to maintain or improve water quality. 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 4-19 
Chapter 4 Final EIS 

Impacts on water resources from oil and gas development would be similar to those under Alternative 3, 

with 1,675 acres of anticipated surface disturbance (Table A13-7) and development of 205 wells 

(Appendix 13). However, the strategy for implementing fluid mineral leasing decisions under this 

alternative (Appendix 17) could affect the degree of impact in certain areas. There would be no new oil 

and gas leasing in the majority of Area 3 (Figure A17-1), which could reduce impacts in this area over the 

long term. However, in the short term, this could result in more rapid exploration and development of 

existing leases in Area 3 because there would not be any opportunity to renew leases upon expiration. 

Moreover, given that much of this area is within the high development potential area (Map 69), successful 

well completion rates are expected to be high. These factors could result in a substantial increase in 

surface disturbance over a relatively short period of time, potentially increasing short-term impacts on 

water resources compared with Alternative 3. 

Groundwater could be affected during construction of drill pads or by other exploration and development 

activities. Improper casing and cementing of wells, undetected spills, or leachate from produced water or 

mud pits could introduce contaminants into the groundwater. Chemicals used for production drilling 

could cause local contamination of soil and groundwater if not properly managed. Construction of 

drilling pads, proper disposal practices, proper casing and cementing, and recycling of drilling fluids 

would be in accordance with BLM guidelines and should minimize adverse effects on groundwater. 

Hydrological investigations would be conducted before coalbed gas development to determine whether 

any connection existed between surface waters and the aquifer that would be dewatered. Appropriate 

measures would be taken to prevent adverse impacts on water quality during dewatering. Dewatering 

during coalbed gas production could affect the quantity of groundwater by changing flow gradients. 

Given the present state and federal regulations regarding general water quality, as well as salinity and the 

Colorado River Basin, surface discharge of produced water is not anticipated. However, accidental 

surface discharges could adversely impact nearby surface water quality by increasing salinity levels. The 

extent of any impact would depend on the quality and quantity of the produced water and any fluids being 

released. 

Irrigation diversions on private lands have a noticeable influence on channel dynamics and morphology. 

Pacific Creek, the primary stream system in the JMH CAP planning area, has been under the influence of 

irrigation diversions for close to 100 years. Irrigation diversions will most likely continue to be a 

noticeable influence in the future. 

Management actions for special management areas and other management areas could maintain or 

improve water resources. Restrictions on development and other surface disturbing activities would help 

maintain or improve water sources and prevent accelerated erosion and sedimentation of surface waters. 

This beneficial impact would most likely be greater than under the No Action Alternative because of 

implementation of management actions associated with the expansion of Steamboat Mountain ACEC and 

management of the West Sand Dunes Archaeological District and Steamboat Mountain Management 

Area. This would increase the area subject to surface disturbance restrictions and limitations and thus 

limit potential adverse impacts resulting from exposed soils and subsequent erosion and surface runoff. 

4.4.3 Potential Impacts on Wild Horses 

BLM is responsible for protecting, managing, and controlling wild horses. The wild horse program is 

responsible for monitoring both the land and the herds, providing opportunities for public viewing, 

removing excess animals, and preparing animals for adoption. Impacts on resources and resource users 

resulting from implementation of wild horse management actions are discussed in those particular 

resource sections. This section describes potential impacts on wild horses resulting from the 

implementation of management actions for other resource management categories. 

4-20 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 4 

Adverse impacts on wild horses would be considered significant if available forage were insufficient to 

sustain the AML of the herd or if the AML could not be achieved or maintained. 

For analysis purposes, it is assumed that the Divide Basin Wild Horse Herd would continue to be 

maintained at the AML of 415 to 600 horses over the long term through gathering efforts. It is also 

assumed that approximately 1 acre would be disturbed, and vegetation and forage removed, through 

construction and use of wild horse traps every 3 years for gathering. 

4.4.3.1 Common to All Alternatives 

Impacts on wild horses generally result from activities that affect forage levels, water sources, or allotted 

acreage within the HMA. 

Both wildland fires and prescribed burns could have short-term adverse impacts on wild horses due to 

loss of forage resources. However, fire has the potential to improve the forage production capacity of a 

given area and to convert shrub habitat to grasslands. This would provide long-term benefits to wild 

horses by providing increased levels of preferred forage. 

In general, watershed management activities would benefit wild horses by enhancing vegetation resources 

aimed at reducing erosion and improving water quality. Requiring PFC as the minimum acceptable level 

of ecological condition for all riparian habitats would maintain and improve the health of both upland and 

riparian vegetation, which would have the indirect effect of increasing forage levels available for wild 

horses. Riparian management exclosures could have minor adverse effects by excluding horses from 

water and forage. 

Implementing wild horse management actions would have an overall benefit for wild horses. Achieving 

and maintaining the AML and implementing monitoring and gathering plans would serve to limit wild 

horse population numbers and achieve a balance among forage resources, other resource uses, and wild 

horse management. Establishing viewing sites and providing interpretive information on wild horses 

would serve to educate the public on the importance of appropriately managing the wild horse program. 

The impact of gathering activities on wild horses would be addressed during site-specific analyses. 

Livestock grazing activities could benefit or adversely affect wild horses because the horses’ forage 

preference overlaps with that of domestic livestock. However, because of the provisions and restrictions 

of grazing management actions, the overall effect would likely be beneficial. Implementation of the 

Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing would help ensure a 

healthy rangeland condition, thereby providing adequate forage levels for wild horses. Most range 

improvements or water developments designed to facilitate livestock management, with the exception of 

restrictive fencing, would also benefit wild horses and their management. 

Vegetation management activities most likely would benefit wild horses and their habitat. Any actions 

designed to enhance vegetative conditions would indirectly benefit wild horses by enhancing and 

increasing forage production. Vegetation treatments and manipulation would have adverse, short-term 

impacts on wild horses through vegetation removal, but long-term benefits would be realized because of 

enhanced forage production. Preventing and controlling the spread of invasive plant species would also 

benefit wild horses by reducing competition with native plants, consequently maximizing forage 

production. Implementation of the Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands would ensure that any 

impacts would not significantly impact wild horses or their habitat. 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 4-21 
Chapter 4 Final EIS 

Management actions to improve habitat for wildlife, prevent habitat fragmentation, and provide protection 

from human activity would benefit wild horses by maintaining and improving forage production, 

reducing human disturbance, and enhancing habitat conditions. 

Management of heritage resources generally would be low impact and limited to relatively small areas, 

and would not be anticipated to have measurable effects on wild horse forage. Even under the most 

intense management (i.e., excavation), the amount of acreage disturbed would likely be very small. The 

most likely adverse impact on wild horses would be temporary displacement while human activity 

occurred at a heritage site. Limitations on surface disturbing activities near heritage sites could benefit 

wild horses by protecting vegetation resources, which in turn could maintain or enhance forage 

conditions. 

Recreational activities, such as camping and hiking, would not likely have any impact on wild horses. 

Some adverse impacts could result from the temporary removal of vegetation in concentrated areas used 

by special recreation groups, but such impacts would be negligible. The use of OHVs in designated areas 

and on existing roads and trails would not adversely affect wild horses because this activity would not 

affect any forage base; however, some temporary displacement of horses might occur. 

Surface disturbing activities associated with the construction of linear ROWs for pipelines, transmission 

lines, communication lines, and roads, and oil and gas development, including construction of well pads, 

mud pits, and roads, could adversely impact wild horses. Land clearing and grading activities necessary 

for construction remove vegetation (i.e., result in loss of forage resources) and create disturbance by 

human activity. Standards for reclamation of linear surface disturbances would be adequate to mitigate 

any potential adverse impact on wild horses due to vegetation removal. Effects from most mineral 

development would be temporary, because the vegetative conditions on most sites would ultimately be 

reclaimed, and displacement from areas experiencing increased human activity related to mineral 

development is not anticipated to be long term. 

The protections afforded to special management areas would generally result in beneficial impacts on 

wild horses. Protections aimed at conserving sensitive vegetation communities, and limitations on 

mineral development and other surface disturbing activities, would benefit wild horses by enhancing 

overall vegetation conditions and consequently increasing forage production. Restrictions on gathering of 

wild horses in these areas could have minor impacts on the wild horse program. Removing horses from 

these areas might require that horses be moved a greater distance to access available trap sites. 

4.4.3.2 No Action Alternative 

Implementing management prescriptions for watershed resources would generally result in beneficial 

impacts on wild horses. Managing wetlands in accordance with current laws, and limiting surface 

disturbance within 500 feet of riparian areas and floodplains, would aid in maintaining or improving 

forage conditions within these areas. Adverse impacts might result from maintaining and developing 

riparian exclosures, which would reduce the amount of available forage and limit access to water sources. 

Wild horse management actions would result in impacts similar to those common to all alternatives. 

Further benefits could be realized by allowing construction of water developments designed to improve 

herd distribution and manage forage utilization. Maintaining the current HMA boundaries could 

adversely impact the management of wild horses. Currently wild horses are using habitat outside the 

established HMA boundary, and they will continue to do so. Total removal of these horses is not possible 

because other horses will move into the areas as horses are removed. These “outside area” wild horses do 

not count toward the AML for the Divide Basin Wild Horse HMA, and the need to remove them will 

continue. 

4-22 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 4 

Impacts on wild horses from livestock grazing activities would be similar to those common to all 

alternatives. Although livestock operators could increase AUM use to the fully permitted amount, 

anticipated use of AUMs would be similar to historic levels and would not result in any additional grazing 

pressure on available forage. Construction and maintenance of livestock range improvements and water 

developments would be designed to improve resource conditions and/or enhance livestock distribution. 

This would maintain healthy forage conditions, prevent overuse of vegetation resources, and ultimately 

benefit wild horses. Prohibiting placement of salt and mineral supplements within 500 feet of riparian 

areas would help ensure that water quality remained adequate for consumption by wild horses. 

Impacts on wild horses from mineral development and other surface disturbances (e.g., ROWs) would 

include temporary displacement of wild horses and direct removal of forage. The majority of the Divide 

Basin Wild Horse HMA is currently open to mining claims, is under lease, or would be open to new oil 

and gas leases or linear ROWs for pipelines and communication and transmission lines. Construction of 

mining pits removes forage and habitat for wild horses, and dredging or placer mining affects water 

sources, all of which could have adverse impacts on the long-term viability of wild horse habitat. Oil and 

gas development potential within the HMA varies; thus, the amount of available forage that would be 

removed or disturbed would depend on the level of development that occurred within this area. 

4.4.3.3 Alternative 1 

Impacts resulting from management of wild horses would be the same as those under the No Action 

Alternative. 

Watershed management actions would be less restrictive under this alternative, which could reduce or 

increase benefits to wild horses compared with the No Action Alternative. Reducing the avoidance area 

around riparian zones and floodplains to 250 feet would provide less protection to vegetation resources 

from surface disturbing activities and possibly result in degraded forage conditions. Removing riparian 

exclosures could benefit wild horses by increasing the amount of available forage in the short term. 

Adverse impacts on wild horses resulting from livestock grazing management actions would increase 

compared with the No Action Alternative. The anticipated use of livestock AUMs would increase over 

the planning period to the permitted active use amount, which is approximately double the historic use. 

This would increase pressure on forage and water resources within allotments that were not currently 

using their fully permitted AUMs, thereby reducing the quantity and quality of forage available to wild 

horses. Moreover, less restrictive measures for range improvements, water developments, and salt 

placement could limit protections to forage and surface water resources. The level of significance of the 

adverse impacts on wild horses would depend on the overall condition of the range within the HMA and 

the actual increase in AUM usage. The implementation of the Wyoming Standards for Healthy 

Rangelands and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing would help minimize adverse impacts on forage and 

water resources. 

Benefits from wildlife management would be less extensive than under the other alternatives because of 

less restrictive actions to protect wildlife habitat. 

This alternative would provide the greatest opportunity for mineral development, which would increase 

the potential for impacts related to forage removal. The majority of the Divide Basin Wild Horse HMA 

would be open to mining claims, under lease, or open to new leases for oil and gas or linear ROWs. 

Development potential within the HMA varies; thus, the amount of available forage that would be 

removed or disturbed would depend on the level of development that occurred within this area. The level 

of development would likely be greater under this alternative because of fewer limitations imposed on 

developers; thus, an adverse impact on wild horses could result if development outpaced reclamation and 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 4-23 
Chapter 4 Final EIS 

replacement of habitat. This could also have indirect adverse impacts if wild horses were displaced 

elsewhere for long periods of time. 

4.4.3.4 Alternative 2 

This alternative would reestablish the boundaries of the Divide Basin Wild Horse HMA to exclude the 

JMH CAP planning area. A gathering plan would be developed and implemented to remove wild horses 

from the planning area and maintain the AML within the reestablished boundaries of the HMA outside 

the planning area. Until reestablishment of the HMA boundaries and gathering of excess wild horses 

occurred, management actions associated with other land and water resources would generally have 

beneficial impacts on wild horses because of increased protection of forage and water resources. The 

potential could exist for adverse cumulative impacts in the reestablished HMA outside the planning area 

if the concentration of wild horses in a smaller area caused overuse of available forage and water 

resources. 

Wild horses currently exist in favorable habitats outside the existing HMA boundary. The only way to 

ensure that the horses would not stray from the reestablished HMA would be to create a barrier to their 

movement. This would require the construction of more than 30 miles of fence, which could impact the 

wild and free roaming nature of the herd. 

4.4.3.5 Alternative 3 

Impacts resulting from management of livestock would be the same as those under the No Action 

Alternative. 

This alternative would expand the Divide Basin Wild Horse HMA to include the entire JMH CAP 

planning area. This would have an overall beneficial impact by improving wild horse management and 

providing additional habitat for wild horses. The horses currently outside the HMA would be counted 

against the AML for the HMA, which at present is not the case. These “outside area” horses would gain 

legal status and would no longer be considered outside-HMA animals. Replacement of removed horses 

by other animals would not re-create the outside-HMA situation. No barrier would need to be constructed 

to limit wild horse use to the present HMA boundary (No Action, Alternative 1) or a reduced HMA 

boundary (Alternative 2). Increased flexibility in where to remove horses within a much larger area 

would allow for more responsiveness to site-specific needs. For example, more horses could be removed 

from the areas within the existing HMA boundary because the horses in the expansion area would count 

toward the AML. 

Management actions to improve habitat for wildlife, prevent habitat fragmentation, and provide protection 

from human activity would benefit wild horses by maintaining and improving forage production and 

habitat conditions. These beneficial impacts could be slightly greater than under the No Action 

Alternative because of expanded protection measures for greater sage-grouse. Increasing the amount of 

sage-grouse winter habitat would reduce surface disturbing and disruptive activities within this area, 

thereby reducing related forage removal and horse displacement. 

Impacts on wild horses from mineral development and other surface disturbances (e.g., ROWs) would 

include temporary displacement of wild horses and direct removal of forage. The majority of the Divide 

Basin Wild Horse HMA would be open to mining claims, under lease, or open to new oil and gas leases 

or linear ROWs for pipelines and communication and transmission lines. Construction of mining pits 

removes forage and habitat for wild horses, and dredging or placer mining affects water sources, all of 

which could have adverse impacts on the long-term viability of wild horse habitat. Oil and gas 

development potential within the HMA varies; thus, the amount of available forage that would be 

4-24 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 4 

removed or disturbed would depend on the level of development within this area. Impacts would be 

similar to, but slightly less than, under the No Action Alternative, with 1,675 acres of anticipated surface 

disturbance (Table A13-7) and development of 205 oil and gas wells (Appendix 13). 

Any actions that limited the extent of surface disturbing activities would help minimize adverse impacts 

on available forage and water sources, having a beneficial impact on wild horses. Under this alternative, 

a greater amount of land area would be subject to controlled surface use requirements or ROW exclusion, 

withdrawn from mineral location, or managed under a transportation plan. Surface disturbing activities 

would be controlled within 500 feet to one-quarter mile of riparian areas, wetlands, and 100-year 

floodplains, but parameters could vary on a case-by-case basis. 

Management actions related to special management areas under this alternative could result in slightly 

greater beneficial impacts on wild horses than under the No Action Alternative. Implementation of 

management actions associated with the expansion of existing ACECs would increase the area subject to 

surface disturbance restrictions and limitations and thus protect available forage and water sources. 

4.4.3.6 Proposed JMH CAP 

Both wildland fires and prescribed burns could have short-term adverse impacts on wild horses due to 

loss of forage resources. However, fire has the potential to improve the forage production capacity of a 

given area and to convert shrub habitat to grasslands. This would provide long-term benefits to wild 

horses by providing increased levels of preferred forage. 

In general, watershed management activities would benefit wild horses through enhancement of 

vegetation resources aimed at reducing erosion and improving water quality. Requiring PFC as the 

minimum acceptable level of ecological condition for all riparian habitats would maintain and improve 

the health of both upland and riparian vegetation, which would have the indirect effect of increasing 

forage levels available for wild horses. Managing wetlands in accordance with current laws, and limiting 

surface disturbance within 500 feet of riparian areas and floodplains, would further aid in maintaining or 

improving forage conditions within these areas. Riparian management exclosures could have short-term 

adverse effects by excluding horses from water and forage. Over the long term, such exclosures would 

benefit wild horses by improving water quality and riparian forage conditions. However, the provision 

under this alternative that allows exclosures to be removed could partially offset these impacts. 

Implementing wild horse management actions would have an overall benefit for wild horses. Maintaining 

the AML and implementing monitoring and gathering plans would serve to limit wild horse population 

numbers and achieve a balance among forage resources, other resource uses, and wild horse management. 

The impact of gathering activities on wild horses would be addressed during site-specific analyses. 

Establishing viewing sites and providing interpretive information on wild horses would serve to educate 

the public on the importance of appropriately managing the wild horse program. However, maintaining 

the current HMA boundaries as specified under this alternative could adversely impact the management 

of wild horses. Currently wild horses are using habitat outside the established HMA boundary, and they 

will continue to do so. Total removal of these horses is not possible because other horses will move into 

these areas as horses are removed. These “outside area” wild horses will not count toward the AML for 

the Divide Basin Wild Horse HMA, and the need to completely remove them will continue. 

Livestock grazing activities could benefit or adversely affect wild horses because the horses’ forage 

preference overlaps with that of domestic livestock. However, because of the requirements and 

restrictions associated with grazing management actions, overall effects would likely be beneficial. 

Implementation of the Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing 

would help ensure a healthy rangeland condition, thereby providing adequate forage levels for wild 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 4-25 
Chapter 4 Final EIS 

horses. Although livestock operators could increase AUM use to the fully permitted amount, anticipated 

use of AUMs would be similar to historic levels and would not result in any additional grazing pressure 

on available forage. The construction and maintenance of livestock range improvements and water 

developments would be designed to improve resource conditions and/or enhance livestock distribution. 

This would maintain healthy forage conditions, prevent overuse of vegetation resources, and ultimately 

benefit wild horses. Within sensitive wildlife habitat, livestock water developments would be allowed 

only if resource conditions were improved. This could further benefit wild horse habitat through 

improved construction planning of such developments. Prohibiting placement of salt and mineral 

supplements within 500 feet of riparian areas would help ensure that water quality remained adequate for 

consumption by wild horses. 

Vegetation management activities would most likely benefit wild horses and their habitat. Any actions 

designed to enhance vegetative conditions would indirectly benefit wild horses by enhancing and 

increasing forage production. Vegetation treatments and manipulation would cause adverse short-term 

impacts on wild horses through vegetation removal, but long-term benefits would be realized because of 

enhanced forage production. Preventing and controlling the spread of invasive plant species would also 

benefit wild horses by reducing competition with native plants, consequently maximizing forage 

production. Implementation of the Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands would ensure that any 

impacts did not significantly impact wild horses or their habitat. 

Management actions to improve habitat for wildlife, prevent habitat fragmentation, and provide protection 

from human activity would benefit wild horses by maintaining and improving forage production, 

reducing human disturbance, and enhancing habitat conditions. These beneficial impacts could be greater 

than under the No Action Alternative because of expanded protection measures for greater sage-grouse. 

Placing a controlled surface use stipulation on sage-grouse nesting habitat and increasing the amount of 

sage-grouse winter habitat subject to seasonal limitations would reduce the level of surface disturbing 

activities occurring in these areas, thereby reducing related forage removal and wild horse displacement. 

Recreational activities such as camping and hiking would not likely have any impact on wild horses. 

Some adverse impacts could result from the temporary removal of vegetation in concentrated areas used 

by special recreation groups, but such impacts would be negligible. The use of OHVs in designated areas 

and on existing roads and trails would not adversely impact wild horses because this activity would not 

affect the overall forage base; however, some temporary displacement could occur. 

The management of heritage resources generally would be low impact and limited to relatively small 

areas, and would not be anticipated to have measurable effects on wild horse forage. Even under the most 

intense management (i.e., excavation), the amount of acreage disturbed would likely be very small. The 

most likely adverse impact on wild horses would be temporary displacement while human activity 

occurred at the heritage site. Limitations on surface disturbing activities near heritage sites could benefit 

wild horses by protecting vegetation resources, which in turn could maintain or enhance forage 

conditions. Impacts on vegetation resources near the paleosol deposition area would most likely be less 

extensive than those under the No Action Alternative because of designation of this area as an 

archeological district. This designation would increase protections from surface disturbing activities, 

thereby reducing adverse impacts on forage resources. 

Surface disturbing activities associated with the construction of linear ROWs for pipelines, transmission 

lines, communication lines, and roads, and oil and gas development, including construction of well pads, 

mud pits, and roads, could adversely impact wild horses. Land clearing and grading activities necessary 

for construction remove vegetation, resulting in loss of forage resources, and create disturbance by human 

activity. Standards for reclamation of linear surface disturbances would mitigate potential adverse 

impacts on wild horses due to vegetation removal. Effects from most mineral development would be 

temporary because the vegetative conditions of most sites ultimately would be reclaimed, and 

4-26 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 4 

displacement from areas experiencing increased human activity related to mineral development is not 

anticipated to be long term. Construction of mining pits removes forage and habitat for wild horses, and 

dredging or placer mining affects water sources, all of which could have adverse impacts on the long-term 

viability of wild horse habitat. 

Oil and gas development potential within the HMA varies; thus, the amount of available forage that 

would be removed or disturbed would depend on the level of development within this area. Impacts on 

wild horses would likely be similar to those under Alternative 3, with development of 205 wells 

(Appendix 13). However, the strategy for implementing fluid mineral leasing decisions under this 

alternative (Appendix 17) could affect the degree of impact in certain areas. There would be no new oil 

and gas leasing in the majority of Area 3 (Figure A17-1), which could reduce impacts in this area over the 

long term. However, in the short term, this could result in more rapid exploration and development of 

existing leases in Area 3 because there would not be any opportunity to renew leases upon expiration. 

Moreover, given that much of this area is within the high development potential area (Map 69), successful 

well completion rates are expected to be high. These factors could result in the removal of a substantial 

amount of forage over a relatively short period of time, potentially increasing short-term impacts on wild 

horses compared with Alternative 3. 

Management actions for special management areas and other management areas would generally result in 

beneficial impacts on wild horses. Protections aimed at conserving sensitive vegetation communities and 

limitations on mineral development and other surface disturbing activities would benefit wild horses by 

enhancing overall vegetation conditions and consequently increasing forage production. Restrictions on 

gathering of wild horses in these areas could have minor impacts on the wild horse program. Removing 

horses from these areas might require that horses be moved a greater distance to access available trap 

sites. These impacts would be greater than under the No Action Alternative because of implementation of 

management actions associated with the expansion of Steamboat Mountain ACEC and management of 

the West Sand Dunes Archaeological District and Steamboat Mountain Management Area. 

4.4.4 Potential Impacts on Livestock Grazing 

BLM identifies lands available for livestock grazing, implements grazing management practices, and 

authorizes permitted use for maintaining ecological balance and multiple use relationships. Livestock 

grazing is not a natural, physical, or biological resource but is a user of those resources. Impacts on 

resources and resource users resulting from implementation of the livestock grazing management actions 

are discussed in those particular resource sections. This section describes potential impacts on livestock 

grazing operations resulting from the implementation of management actions for other resource 

management categories. Implementing resource management actions would have environmental impacts 

on livestock grazing activities and indirect, nonenvironmental impacts on livestock operators. 

Impacts on livestock grazing would be considered significant if resource management actions caused a 

reduction in forage levels that would require livestock operators to reduce their permitted AUMs. 

For analysis purposes, it is assumed that livestock grazing would occur throughout the entire JMH CAP 

planning area. It is also assumed that anticipated grazing use would increase over the planning period to 

the fully permitted active use amount (26,830 AUMs) under Alternative 1 but maintain the historic use 

(11,569 AUMs) under all other alternatives. Although some areas are more suitable for different classes 

of livestock, the impacts are assumed to be similar for all areas and therefore are not discussed separately. 

The rate of revegetation of disturbed areas would vary by type of activity. Construction of fences, 

pipelines, water wells, troughs, and reservoirs would cause a loss of some soil and vegetation. Vegetation 

would be reestablished along fences and pipelines within 3 to 5 years, whereas water wells, troughs, and 

reservoirs would remain disturbed during their useful life and would be revegetated upon abandonment. 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 4-27 
Chapter 4 Final EIS 

Except under Alternative 2, approximately 23 livestock water developments (e.g., pits, ponds, and water 

wells) would be constructed or rebuilt in the JMH CAP planning area over the 20-year planning period, 

disturbing approximately 23 acres. Under Alternative 2, only 11 livestock water developments would be 

constructed or rebuilt in the JMH CAP planning area over the 20-year planning period, disturbing 

approximately 11 acres. Prescribed burns and wildfires would cause a loss of vegetation for a period of 1 

to 2 years and a change in vegetation for 15 to 30 years. 

4.4.4.1 Common to All Alternatives 

Impacts on livestock grazing activities are generally the result of activities that affect forage levels or 

allowable AUMs for individual grazing allotments. Grazing management practices and permitted use 

must achieve the desired outcomes outlined in the Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands. 

Both wildland and prescribed fires would have short-term impacts on livestock grazing due to loss of 

forage resources. However, over the long term, fire has the potential to improve forage production 

capacity and convert shrub habitat to grasslands. This would benefit livestock by providing increased 

levels of preferred forage. The requirement to rest a burn area to allow new vegetation to establish could 

have a short-term impact on livestock operators because the amount of available forage would be reduced 

for the localized area of the burn. The level of significance of this impact would depend on the extent of 

the burn area and the season of use. 

Watershed management would enhance vegetation resources by reducing erosion and improving water 

quality. Requiring PFC as the minimum acceptable level of ecological condition for riparian areas would 

maintain and improve the health of riparian vegetation, which would have the indirect effect of increasing 

forage levels for livestock. However, short-term adverse impacts on operators could result from 

construction of riparian exclosures or the need to remove livestock from allotments and/or pastures to 

achieve healthy rangeland standards. 

Implementation of livestock grazing management actions could have both beneficial and adverse impacts 

on livestock operators. Most impacts would result from the need to make grazing adjustments for the 

purposes of complying with the Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands. Such adjustments could 

include modified turnout dates, shorter grazing periods, growing season rest, riparian exclosures, forage 

utilization levels, and livestock conversions. Although these adjustments would benefit long-term forage 

production and subsequently livestock growth rates, adverse impacts on livestock operators could occur in 

the short term. The extent of any impact on livestock grazing operations would depend on the flexibility 

of the individual operator to implement and respond to these adjustments. 

Livestock water developments would provide additional watering sites, thereby improving livestock 

distribution and reducing competition with other grazing animals. Restrictions on salt and mineral 

placement could require additional planning and effort but would distribute forage use and reduce impacts 

on other resources, including water sources. Livestock grazing management would benefit from 

enhanced distribution of livestock and the maintenance or improvement of vegetation. This would 

increase available forage and help achieve the Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands. 

Vegetation management activities would most likely result in beneficial impacts on livestock grazing 

management. Any actions designed to enhance vegetative conditions would indirectly benefit livestock by 

enhancing and increasing forage production. Vegetation treatments and manipulation could have shortterm effects on livestock grazing through vegetation removal, but long-term benefits would be realized 

through enhanced forage production. Preventing and controlling the spread of invasive plant species 

would also benefit livestock by reducing competition with native plants, and consequently maintaining or 

improving forage production. 

4-28 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 4 

Activities associated with wildlife habitat management would generally benefit livestock grazing 

operations through habitat enhancement measures that consequently improve forage production. 

However, adverse effects could also result because of the inherent competition between big game species 

and livestock for forage resources. Because of dietary preference, this competition is more pronounced 

with elk than with antelope or mule deer. Similar to livestock, elk are considered grazers that prefer 

grasses, whereas the preference for mule deer and antelope is to browse shrub species. Large 

concentrations of these big game animals occur within portions of the planning area (Map 51), which 

could require some livestock operators to alter grazing management practices to comply with the 

Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands. Uneven distribution of big game causes some grazing 

allotments to receive a disproportionate amount of the total wildlife grazing within the planning area, 

thereby putting additional strain on the forage resources within those allotments. This is especially true 

for allotments located either entirely or partially within the south-central portion of the planning area, 

including the core area, which is birthing and wintering habitat for a majority of the big game populations 

that inhabit the planning area. Although the population objective for elk would vary between the No 

Action Alternative (500) and the action alternatives (1,200), impacts on allotments located within the 

south-central portion of the planning area would remain approximately the same among the alternatives 

regardless of the changes in the population objective because of the expectation that the elk population 

size in this area would not change considerably. Achieving wildlife population objectives and 

implementing the various management options available to livestock operators would help minimize 

effects. Further effects could occur if management actions resulted in increased wildlife populations, 

which could reduce available forage for livestock. It is unlikely that this would occur, because of 

Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD) efforts to maintain objectives. 

The management of heritage sites would generally be limited to relatively small areas. Even under the 

most intense management (i.e., excavation), the amount of acreage disturbed would be very small. These 

activities are not anticipated to have measurable impacts on livestock forage resources. Impacts could 

occur if heritage sites were fenced from livestock use, causing a loss of available forage. However, given 

the size of most heritage sites, this impact would be minimal. Other impacts could occur because of 

restrictions on surface disturbing activities near heritage sites, which might preclude the construction of 

range improvements designed to facilitate livestock grazing. Conversely, such restrictions would provide 

protection to vegetation resources, which in turn could maintain or enhance forage conditions. 

Recreational activities would likely not impact livestock grazing activities, except by limited human 

disturbance. Some impacts could result from the temporary removal of vegetation by campers in 

concentrated areas, but any impact would be negligible. The use of OHVs would not impact livestock if 

this recreational activity stayed within authorized areas. However, unauthorized OHV activity could 

affect livestock grazing by damaging vegetation resources and consequently reducing available forage. 

Surface disturbing activities associated with the construction of linear ROWs for pipelines, transmission 

lines, communication lines, and roads, and mineral development, including construction of well pads, 

pits, and roads, could impact livestock grazing. Land clearing and grading activities necessary for 

construction remove vegetation, resulting in loss of forage resources. Standards for reclamation of linear 

surface disturbances would be adequate to mitigate adverse impacts related to short-term vegetation 

removal. Effects from most mineral development would be short-term because the vegetation conditions 

on most sites would ultimately be reclaimed. Salable mineral activity would not be expected to have 

measurable effects on livestock grazing management because of the limited activity anticipated and the 

limited area of vegetation removal. Any mineral withdrawals would prevent vegetation removal and the 

potential subsequent decrease in the forage base. 

Management actions for special management areas could have both beneficial and adverse impacts on 

livestock grazing activities. Restrictions on mineral development and other surface disturbing activities 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 4-29 
Chapter 4 Final EIS 

would help prevent the removal of forage resources but could also preclude the construction of range 

improvements designed to facilitate livestock grazing. In addition, protections aimed at conserving 

sensitive vegetation communities would affect livestock grazing by enhancing overall vegetation 

conditions and consequently increasing forage production. 

4.4.4.2 No Action Alternative 

Effects from fire management activities on livestock grazing would be similar to the impacts common to 

all alternatives. Implementing full fire suppression for basin big sagebrush/lemon scurfpea vegetation 

associations under this alternative could result in short-term impacts on livestock grazing through 

vegetation removal and loss of plant diversity. This vegetation association stabilizes the sandy soils in 

which it grows and provides habitat and forage, primarily for wildlife. Because of the relatively limited 

extent of these vegetation associations, impacts on livestock grazing would not be significant. 

Effects from watershed management actions would be similar to the impacts common to all alternatives. 

Surface disturbance would be limited within 500 feet of riparian areas and other water resources, 

conserving forage resources within these areas. However, this could preclude the construction of water 

developments and range improvements in these areas (unless any impacts on water quality could be 

mitigated). Riparian exclosures could also affect grazing activities by reducing the amount of available 

forage for livestock because the exclosures would remain closed to grazing. The extent of this effect on 

livestock operators would depend on the number, location, and size of exclosures at any given time. 

Wild horse management activities could affect livestock grazing through competition for forage 

resources. However, maintaining the AML for horses, implementing monitoring and gathering plans, and 

allowing for water developments would all serve to limit and distribute wild horses, consequently 

minimizing effects on livestock grazing. 

Management actions for livestock grazing would directly affect grazing operations. Although livestock 

operators could increase AUM use to the fully permitted amount, anticipated use of AUMs would be 

similar to historic levels under this alternative and would not result in any additional grazing pressure on 

available forage. Requiring that livestock range improvements and water developments improve resource 

conditions and/or enhance livestock distribution could necessitate additional planning in constructing 

such developments but would improve long-term forage production and prevent overuse of vegetation 

resources. Similarly, more planning and effort might be required of livestock operators to comply with 

the requirements for placement of salt and mineral supplements (prohibited within 500 feet of riparian 

habitat, historic trails, and special status species habitat), but long-term benefits would be realized by 

improving livestock distribution and maintaining the Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands. 

Wildlife management effects on livestock grazing would be similar to the impacts common to all 

alternatives. Competition between big game and livestock for forage resources would be the least intense 

under this alternative because the population objective for elk would remain at the current level of 500, 

which could result in slightly less adverse impacts compared with the other alternatives. 

Approximately 9,346 AUMs within the JMH CAP planning area (see Table 4-11 at the end of Chapter 4) 

would be necessary to support the WGFD herd unit population objectives for elk (500), mule deer 

(4,000), antelope (6,000), and wild horses (415–600). Estimates of AUMs were based on animal unit 

equivalents (AUE) specified in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Grazing 

Management Program for the Salt Wells-Pilot Butte Area, 1983. This use, combined with the anticipated 

use of 11,569 AUMs for livestock, could degrade forage resources on some allotments and thus 

jeopardize compliance with the Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands. This could result in the 

need to make grazing adjustments and to implement appropriate actions to comply with the standards. 

4-30 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 4 

Impacts from mineral exploration and development and from other surface disturbances in support of 

these activities (e.g., ROWs) would include removal of vegetation and consequently a reduction in 

available forage for livestock. It is assumed that the amount of mineral development that could occur 

during the planning period would be related to the amount of acreage available for such development. 

Therefore, reducing available acreage (i.e., closing areas to, or withdrawing areas from, mineral 

development) would serve to diminish development activity and consequently reduce impacts on 

livestock grazing. The amount of surface disturbance associated with mineral development would be 

approximately 200 acres in the most active year and approximately 1,800 acres over the planning period 

(Appendix 13, Table A13-7), which would represent an insignificant impact on livestock grazing when 

compared to the size of the planning area. Standards for reclamation of linear surface disturbances would 

help mitigate impacts related to vegetation removal. 

4.4.4.3 Alternative 1 

Impacts on livestock grazing from the fire management program and wild horses would be the same as 

those under the No Action Alternative. 

Watershed management actions would be less restrictive under this alternative, which could create shortterm benefits for and long-term adverse impacts on livestock grazing activities. Reducing the avoidance 

area around riparian areas and floodplains to 250 feet would provide less protection to forage resources 

from surface disturbing activities but would allow for greater flexibility in constructing water 

developments and range improvements. Allowing the removal of riparian exclosures under this 

alternative would increase available forage for livestock but would eliminate related benefits to riparian 

vegetation. 

Livestock grazing management actions under this alternative would generally benefit operators by 

allowing increased flexibility in managing livestock. Less restrictive measures for range improvements, 

water developments, and salt and mineral placement could create short-term benefits for livestock 

operators but would limit protections to forage and surface water resources. The anticipated use of 

livestock AUMs would increase over the planning period to the permitted active use amount, further 

increasing grazing pressure on forage and water resources. Increased grazing and reduced resource 

protections could result in significant impacts on livestock grazing activities if operators were required to 

reduce their AUMs to comply with the Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands. 

Beneficial impacts resulting from wildlife management actions might not be as extensive as under the 

other alternatives because actions to improve wildlife habitat (which would also benefit livestock grazing) 

would be less restrictive. Animal damage control activities under this alternative could directly benefit 

livestock. The control methods would be coordinated with BLM. 

Competition between big game and livestock for forage resources would be the most intense under this 

alternative, primarily because the anticipated use of livestock AUMs would increase over the planning 

period to the fully permitted active use amount. In addition, the elk population objective would be 

increased to 1,200, which could slightly increase the competition between livestock and wildlife for 

forage resources. An additional 1,513 AUMs would be required to support the augmented elk population 

objective, which is insignificant when compared to the available forage of the total planning area. 

Allotments located within the south-central portion of the planning area, including the core area, would be 

disproportionately impacted because of the larger populations of big game that inhabit this area (Map 51). 

Approximately 10,860 AUMs within the JMH CAP planning area (see Table 4-11 at the end of Chapter 

4) would be necessary to support the WGFD herd unit population objectives for elk (1,200), mule deer 

(4,000), antelope (6,000), and wild horses (415–600). Estimates of AUMs were based on AUEs specified 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 4-31 
Chapter 4 Final EIS 

in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Grazing Management Program for the Salt 

Wells-Pilot Butte Area, 1983. Utilizing the 26,830 AUMs permitted for livestock, coupled with wildlife 

use levels, could degrade forage resources on some allotments and thus jeopardize compliance with the 

Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands. This could result in significant impacts on some operators 

if they were required to reduce their AUMs. Implementing appropriate actions for livestock grazing 

management might be necessary. Such actions could include, but would not be limited to, reduction of 

permitted AUMs, modified turnout dates, construction of livestock water developments and range 

improvements, shorter grazing periods, growing season rest, development of riparian pastures and 

exclosures, implementation of forage utilization levels, and livestock conversions. For some allotments, 

reallocation of AUMs among livestock, wildlife, and wild horses could be required to ensure that 

adequate forage would be available for big game. This would likely result in a reduction of AUMs for 

livestock but would not be implemented unless it were the only appropriate action for complying with the 

Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands. 

This alternative provides the greatest opportunity for mineral development and production, which would 

result in greater losses of forage resources. The land area available for lease and mining claims would be 

most extensive under this alternative; thus, the potential for mineral development would likely increase. 

This could result in greater surface disturbance, which could affect livestock grazing by removing 

available forage. The amount of surface disturbance associated with mineral development would be 

approximately 220 acres in the most active year and approximately 2,100 acres over the planning period 

(Appendix 13, Table A13-7), which would represent an insignificant impact on livestock grazing when 

compared to the size of the planning area. Reclamation of linear surface disturbances would help mitigate 

adverse impacts related to vegetation removal. Effects from most mineral development would be 

temporary because the vegetation conditions on most sites would ultimately be reclaimed. However, an 

adverse impact on grazing could result if development outpaced reclamation and replacement of forage. 

Management activities related to special management areas could reduce both beneficial and adverse 

effects on livestock grazing by eliminating management actions associated with the removal of the ACEC 

designation from Steamboat Mountain ACEC and the reduction of the South Pass Historic Landscape 

viewshed. This would reduce the area subject to surface disturbance restrictions and limitations, which 

could reduce protections to forage resources but provide greater flexibility in constructing range 

improvements within these areas. 

4.4.4.4 Alternative 2 

Fire management actions would have effects on livestock grazing similar to those under the No Action 

Alternative. Limited fire suppression for basin big sagebrush/lemon scurfpea vegetation associations 

would be applied, but any effect on grazing would not be significant. 

Watershed management actions would be the most restrictive under this alternative. This would benefit 

forage conditions but could affect some grazing management activities. Although increasing buffers to 

one-quarter mile around riparian areas and increasing the area designated as avoidance or NSO would 

help prevent destruction of vegetation resources, it would also preclude construction of water 

developments and range improvements designed to facilitate livestock grazing operations. Riparian 

exclosures would also impact grazing activities by reducing the amount of available forage for livestock 

because the exclosures would be closed to grazing. The extent of this impact on livestock operators 

would depend on the number, location, and size of exclosures at any given time during the planning 

period. 

This alternative would reestablish the boundaries of the Divide Basin Wild Horse HMA to exclude the 

JMH CAP planning area. A gathering plan would be developed and implemented to remove wild horses 

4-32 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 4 

from the planning area and to maintain the AML within the reestablished boundaries of the HMA outside 

the planning area. This would likely affect livestock grazing by reducing competition with wild horses 

for forage and water resources. Certain allotments would be subdivided by construction of a fence 

designed to limit wild horse movement to the reestablished HMA boundary. Adverse impacts could 

occur from limiting livestock use within allotments affected by wild horse fence construction. 

The increased restrictions on livestock grazing activities under this alternative would likely have greater 

adverse effects on livestock operators than would occur under the other alternatives. Although livestock 

operators could increase AUM use to the fully permitted amount, anticipated use of AUMs would be 

similar to historic levels. Requiring that modified turnout dates be the primary method of complying with 

the Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands could increase costs for livestock operators who would 

be forced to find alternate pastures or feeding areas for their livestock. Increasing the buffer area for salt 

and mineral placement to one-half mile from riparian areas, historic trails, and special status plant species 

would require more planning and effort on the part of livestock operators and could increase related costs. 

Whether the minimum one-half-mile distance would provide greater protection to these areas than would 

some shorter distance would depend on the topography, drainage patterns, and vegetative cover at a 

particular location. Restrictions on water developments and range improvements in sensitive wildlife 

habitats might preclude their construction in some cases, thereby reducing the extent of forage and water 

accessible by livestock. 

Management actions for wildlife under this alternative would likely have greater beneficial effects on 

livestock grazing due to expanded protection and enhancement measures for wildlife resources that would 

limit surface disturbance and human disruption and improve forage conditions. However, these actions 

could also increase wildlife populations, potentially reducing available forage for livestock. Such impacts 

would occur only if WGFD efforts to maintain wildlife population objectives were not successful. 

Adverse impacts could be slightly greater than under the No Action Alternative because the elk 

population objective would be increased to 1,200. This would require an increase of 1,513 AUMs for elk, 

which is insignificant when compared to the available forage of the total planning area. Animal damage 

control for livestock protection would be by nonlethal methods, with lethal methods used only if they 

would benefit wildlife in addition to livestock. This could affect livestock operations if removing animals 

known to have killed livestock proved to be not as efficient as the methods employed under other 

alternatives. 

Approximately 8,742 AUMs within the JMH CAP planning area (see Table 4-11 at the end of Chapter 4) 

would be necessary to support the WGFD herd unit population objectives for elk (1,200), mule deer 

(4,000), and antelope (6,000). Estimates of AUMs were based on AUEs specified in the Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Grazing Management Program for the Salt Wells-Pilot 

Butte Area, 1983. This use, combined with the anticipated use of 11,569 AUMs for livestock, could 

degrade forage resources on some allotments and thus jeopardize compliance with the “Wyoming 

Standards for Healthy Rangelands.” This could result in the need to make grazing adjustments and 

implement appropriate actions to comply with the standards. 

Increased protection would be afforded to heritage resources under this alternative, which could have both 

greater beneficial and adverse impacts on livestock grazing than would occur under the other alternatives. 

Areas within 300 feet of sites eligible for inclusion in the NRHP would be protected from surface 

disturbing activities, which could help protect forage resources. However, this limitation could also 

further restrict the construction of range improvements and water developments within the same area. 

Management prescriptions for recreational activities under this alternative would likely reduce related 

impacts. Camping would be allowed only in designated areas, and parties of five or more would require a 

group camping permit. This would help in monitoring concentration of use, limit camping along streams, 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 4-33 
Chapter 4 Final EIS 

and reduce compaction of vegetation and soils. The amount of area closed to OHV use or subject to OHV 

use restrictions would increase, thereby reducing the potential for damage to forage resources. 

Withdrawing the planning area from recreational mining use would eliminate related surface disturbance 

and forage losses. However, it is not anticipated that this activity would disturb a significant area of 

available forage. 

This alternative provides the least opportunity for mineral exploration and development, which would 

minimize related losses of forage resources. The amount of surface disturbance associated with mineral 

development would be approximately 170 acres in the most active year and approximately 1,300 acres 

over the planning period (Appendix 13, Table A13-7), which would represent an insignificant impact on 

livestock grazing when compared to the size of the planning area. Effects from most mineral 

development would be temporary because the vegetation conditions on most sites would ultimately be 

reclaimed. However, an effect on grazing could result if development outpaced reclamation and 

replacement of forage. 

Impacts on livestock grazing by actions related to special management areas would be greater under this 

alternative than under other alternatives. Management actions associated with expansion of existing 

ACECs and historic viewsheds and designation of new ACECs and research natural areas would increase 

the amount of area subject to surface disturbance restrictions and limitations and thereby increase 

protections to forage resources. However, such expansions and designations would also further limit 

construction of water developments and range improvements, potentially affecting livestock operations. 

4.4.4.5 Alternative 3 

Impacts on livestock grazing from the fire management program would be the same as those under the No 

Action Alternative. 

Watershed management actions under this alternative would have effects on livestock grazing similar to 

those under the No Action Alternative. Surface disturbance would be limited within 500 feet to onequarter mile of riparian areas and other water resources, which could adversely impact livestock grazing 

management by precluding the construction of water developments and range improvements in these 

areas. However, this limitation could also conserve forage resources within these areas. Riparian 

exclosures could also impact grazing activities by reducing the amount of available forage for livestock 

because the exclosures would be closed to grazing. 

This alternative would expand the boundaries of the Divide Basin Wild Horse HMA to include the entire 

JMH CAP planning area and would serve to better distribute wild horses, possibly reducing the 

competition between livestock and wild horses for forage resources. Because wild horses currently 

inhabit areas outside the HMA boundaries, the likelihood of reduced effects would not be realized in the 

short term until herd levels reached and maintained the AML. 

Livestock grazing management actions under this alternative would affect livestock operators in ways 

similar to those under the No Action Alternative. Although livestock operators could increase AUM use 

to the fully permitted amount, anticipated use of AUMs would be similar to historic levels and would not 

result in any additional grazing pressure on available forage. Construction and maintenance of livestock 

range improvements and water developments would be designed to improve resource conditions and/or 

enhance livestock distribution. This would maintain healthy forage conditions and prevent overuse of 

vegetation resources. Prohibiting salt and mineral supplements within one-quarter mile of riparian areas, 

historic trails, and special status plant species would improve livestock distribution and help maintain 

water quality. The effectiveness of the increased distance would depend on the size and type of the 

activity and the topography and drainage patterns of the activity location. 

4-34 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 4 

Under this alternative, management actions for wildlife would have impacts on livestock grazing similar 

to those of Alternative 2 but not as extensive. Expanded protection and enhancement measures for 

wildlife resources would limit surface disturbance and improve forage conditions but could also increase 

wildlife populations, thereby potentially reducing available forage for livestock. WGFD efforts to 

maintain wildlife population objectives should prevent this effect. Overall adverse impacts on livestock 

grazing could be slightly greater than under the No Action Alternative because the elk population 

objective would be increased to 1,200. This would require an increase of 1,513 AUMs for elk, which is 

insignificant when compared to the available forage of the total planning area. Lethal methods would be 

allowed for animal damage control for both livestock and wildlife protection. This could directly benefit 

livestock operations by removing animals known to have killed livestock. 

Approximately 10,860 AUMs within the JMH CAP planning area (see Table 4-11 at the end of Chapter 

4) would be necessary to support the WGFD herd unit population objectives for elk (1,200), mule deer 

(4,000), antelope (6,000), and wild horses (415–600). Estimates of AUMs were based on AUEs specified 

in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Grazing Management Program for the Salt 

Wells-Pilot Butte Area, 1983. This use, combined with the anticipated use of 11,569 AUMs for livestock, 

could degrade forage resources on some allotments and thus jeopardize compliance with the Wyoming 

Standards for Healthy Rangelands. This could result in the need to make grazing adjustments and 

implement appropriate actions to comply with the standards. 

Recreation management actions under this alternative would affect livestock grazing in ways similar to 

those under Alternative 2. Camping would be allowed only in designated areas, and parties of 10 or more 

would require a group camping permit. This would help in monitoring concentration of use, limit 

camping along streams, and reduce compaction of vegetation and soils. Closing some areas OHV use or 

restricting OHV use to designated areas would reduce the potential for damage to forage resources. The 

planning area would be withdrawn from recreational mining use except for a 5-acre site that would be 

designated and managed for recreational mining; thus, surface disturbance or loss of forage from this type 

of activity would be negligible. 

Impacts from mineral exploration and development, and from other surface disturbances in support of 

these activities (e.g., ROWs), would be similar to those discussed under the No Action Alternative. The 

amount of surface disturbance associated with mineral development under this alternative would be 

approximately 190 acres in the most active year and approximately 1,600 acres over the planning period 

(Appendix 13, Table A13-7), which would represent an insignificant impact on livestock grazing when 

compared to the size of the planning area. Standards for reclamation of linear surface disturbances would 

help mitigate impacts on livestock grazing related to vegetation removal. Effects from most mineral 

development would be temporary because the vegetation conditions on most sites would ultimately be 

reclaimed. Effects on grazing could result if development outpaced reclamation and replacement of 

forage. 

Effects related to management actions associated with special management areas would be similar to 

those under Alternative 2 but not as extensive. Management actions associated with fewer expansions 

and designations of special management areas under this alternative would result in fewer actions limiting 

and restricting surface disturbing activities. 

4.4.4.6 Proposed JMH CAP 

Both wildland and prescribed fires would have short-term impacts on livestock grazing due to a loss of 

forage resources. However, over the long term, fire has the potential to improve forage production 

capacity and to convert shrub habitat to grasslands. This would benefit livestock by providing increased 

levels of preferred forage. The requirement to rest a burn area to allow new vegetation to establish could 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 4-35 
Chapter 4 Final EIS 

have a short-term impact on livestock grazing because the amount of available forage would be reduced 

for the localized area of the burn. The level of significance of this effect would depend on the extent of 

the burn area and the season of use. Full fire suppression for basin big sagebrush/lemon scurfpea 

vegetation associations could also result in short-term impacts on livestock grazing through vegetation 

removal and loss of plant diversity. This vegetation association stabilizes the sandy soils in which it 

grows and provides habitat and forage primarily for wildlife. Because of the relatively limited extent of 

these vegetation associations, impacts on livestock grazing would not be significant. 

Watershed management would enhance vegetation resources by reducing erosion and improving water 

quality. Requiring PFC as the minimum acceptable level of ecological condition for riparian areas would 

maintain and improve the health of riparian vegetation, which would have the indirect effect of increasing 

forage levels for livestock. Surface disturbance would be limited within 500 feet of riparian areas and 

other water resources, thereby conserving forage resources within these areas. However, this could also 

preclude the construction of water developments and range improvements in these areas unless any 

impacts on water quality could be mitigated. Riparian exclosures could also adversely affect grazing 

activities by reducing the amount of available forage for livestock because the exclosures would be closed 

to grazing. However, the provision under this alternative that allows exclosures to be removed could 

partially offset these effects. The extent of this effect on livestock operators would depend on the 

number, location, and size of exclosures at any given time during the planning period. 

Wild horse management activities could result in effects on livestock grazing because of competition for 

forage resources. However, maintaining the AML for horses, implementing monitoring and gathering 

plans, and allowing water developments would all serve to effectively distribute and limit the growth of 

wild horse herds, consequently minimizing effects on livestock grazing. 

Implementation of livestock grazing management actions could have both beneficial and adverse impacts 

on livestock operators. Although livestock operators could increase AUM use to the fully permitted 

amount, anticipated use of AUMs would be similar to historic levels and would not result in any 

additional grazing pressure on available forage. Most impacts would occur from adjustments for the 

purposes of complying with the Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands. Such adjustments could 

include modified turnout dates, shorter grazing periods, growing season rest, riparian exclosures, forage 

utilization levels, and livestock conversions. Although these adjustments would benefit long-term forage 

production and consequently livestock growth rates, adverse impacts on livestock operators could occur 

in the short term. The extent of any impact on livestock grazing operations would depend on the 

flexibility of the individual operator to implement and respond to these adjustments. 

Livestock water developments would provide additional watering sites, thereby improving livestock 

distribution and reducing competition with other grazers. Requiring that livestock range improvements 

and water developments improve resource conditions and/or enhance livestock distribution could 

necessitate additional planning in constructing such developments but would improve long-term forage 

production and prevent overuse of vegetation resources. Within sensitive wildlife habitat, livestock water 

developments would be allowed only if resource conditions were improved. This could further improve 

construction planning of such developments. Salt and mineral placement restrictions (placement 

prohibited within 500 feet of riparian habitat, historic trails, and special status species habitat) could 

require additional planning and effort but would help distribute forage use and reduce adverse impacts on 

rangeland resources. Greater distribution of livestock and improvement of vegetation would directly 

benefit livestock operators by facilitating compliance with the Wyoming Standards for Healthy 

Rangelands. 

Vegetation management activities would most likely have beneficial effects on livestock grazing 

management. Any actions designed to enhance vegetative conditions would indirectly benefit livestock 

4-36 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 4 

by enhancing and increasing forage production. Vegetation treatments and manipulation could have 

short-term effects on livestock grazing through vegetation removal, but long-term benefits would be 

realized through enhanced forage production. Preventing and controlling the spread of invasive plant 

species would also benefit livestock by reducing competition with native plants, and consequently 

maintaining or improving forage production. 

Activities associated with wildlife habitat management would generally benefit livestock grazing 

operations through habitat enhancement measures that consequently improve forage production. 

However, adverse effects could also result because of the inherent competition between big game species 

and livestock for forage resources. This competition is more pronounced with elk than with antelope or 

mule deer because of dietary preference. Similar to livestock, elk are considered grazers that prefer 

grasses, while the preference for mule deer and antelope is to browse shrub species. Large concentrations 

of these big game animals can occur within portions of the planning area (Map 51), which could require 

some livestock operators to alter grazing management practices to comply with the Wyoming Standards 

for Healthy Rangelands. Uneven distribution of big game causes some grazing allotments to receive a 

disproportionate amount of the total wildlife grazing within the planning area, thereby putting additional 

strain on the forage resources within those allotments. This is especially true for allotments located either 

entirely or partially within the south-central portion of the planning area, including the core area, which is 

birthing and wintering habitat to a majority of the big game populations that inhabit the planning area. 

Although the population objective for elk would vary between the No Action Alternative (500) and the 

action alternatives (1,200), impacts on allotments located within the south-central portion of the planning 

area would remain approximately the same among the alternatives because of the expectation that the elk 

population in this area would not change considerably. Achieving wildlife population objectives (Section 

4.4.6) and implementing the various management options available to livestock operators would help 

minimize effects. Further effects could occur if management actions resulted in increased wildlife 

populations, which could reduce available forage for livestock. It is unlikely that this would occur, 

because of WGFD efforts to maintain objectives. Overall adverse impacts could be slightly greater under 

this alternative than under the No Action Alternative because the elk population objective would be 

increased to 1,200. This would require an increase of 1,513 AUMs for elk, which is insignificant when 

compared to the available forage of the total planning area. Beneficial impacts would also likely be 

greater than under the No Action Alternative because of expanded protection measures for greater sagegrouse. Placing a controlled surface use stipulation on sage-grouse nesting habitat and increasing the 

amount of sage-grouse winter habitat subject to seasonal limitations would reduce the level of surface 

disturbing activities occurring in these areas, thereby reducing related forage removal and degradation. 

Animal damage control for livestock protection would emphasize nonlethal methods; control techniques 

and methods would be discussed at an annual meeting. The effects on livestock operations would depend 

on control techniques and methods. Impacts would be less than under Alternatives 2 and 3, and slightly 

greater than under the No Action Alternative and Alternative 1. 

Approximately 10,860 AUMs within the JMH CAP planning area (see Table 4-11 at the end of this 

chapter) would be necessary to support the WGFD herd unit population objectives for elk (1,200), mule 

deer (4,000), antelope (6,000), and wild horses (415–600). Estimates of AUMs were based on AUEs 

specified in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Grazing Management Program 

for the Salt Wells-Pilot Butte Area, 1983. This use, combined with the anticipated use of 11,569 AUMs 

for livestock, could degrade forage resources on some allotments and thus jeopardize compliance with the 

“Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands.” This could result in the need to make grazing 

adjustments and to implement appropriate actions to comply with the standards. 

Management of heritage sites would generally be limited to relatively small areas. Even under the most 

intense management (i.e., excavation), the amount of acreage disturbed would be very small. These 

activities are not anticipated to have measurable impacts on livestock forage resources. Impacts could 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 4-37 
Chapter 4 Final EIS 

occur if heritage sites were fenced from livestock use, causing a loss of available forage. However, given 

the size of most heritage sites, this impact would be minimal. Other impacts could occur because of 

restrictions on surface disturbing activities near heritage sites, which might preclude the construction of 

range improvements designed to facilitate livestock grazing. In contrast, such restrictions would provide 

protection to vegetation resources, which in turn could maintain or enhance forage conditions. Effects on 

vegetation resources near the paleosol deposition area would most likely be less extensive than under the 

No Action Alternative because of management of this area as an archeological district. Management 

actions would increase protections from surface disturbing activities, thereby reducing adverse impacts on 

forage resources. 

Recreational activities would likely not impact livestock grazing activities except by limited human 

disturbance. Some impacts might result from the temporary removal of vegetation by campers in 

concentrated areas, but any impact would be negligible. The use of OHVs would not impact livestock if 

this recreational activity stayed within authorized areas. However, unauthorized OHV activity could 

affect livestock grazing by damaging vegetation resources and consequently reducing available forage. 

Surface disturbing activities associated with the construction of linear ROWs for pipelines, transmission 

lines, communication lines, and roads, and oil and gas development, including construction of well pads, 

mud pits, and roads, could impact livestock grazing. Land clearing and grading activities necessary for 

construction remove vegetation and reduce the forage base. Impacts stemming from mineral development 

would be similar to those under Alternative 3, with development of 205 wells and anticipated surface 

disturbance of approximately 1,600 acres over the planning period (Appendix 13, Table A13-7). 

However, the strategy for implementing fluid mineral leasing decisions under this alternative (Appendix 

17) could affect the degree of impact in certain areas. There would be no new oil and gas leasing in the 

majority of Area 3 (Figure A17-1), which could reduce impacts in this area over the long term. However, 

in the short term, this could result in more rapid exploration and development of existing leases in Area 3 

because there would not be any opportunity to renew leases upon expiration. Moreover, given that much 

of this area is within the high development potential area (Map 69), successful well completion rates are 

expected to be high. These factors could result in the removal of a substantial amount of forage over a 

relatively short period of time, potentially increasing short-term impacts on livestock grazing compared 

with Alternative 3. Standards for reclamation of linear surface disturbances would help mitigate potential 

adverse impacts on livestock grazing due to short-term vegetation removal. Effects from most mineral 

development would be short term because the vegetation conditions on most sites are ultimately 

reclaimed. Salable mineral activity is not expected to have any effect on livestock grazing management 

because of the limited activity and the limited area of vegetation removal. Any mineral withdrawals 

would prevent vegetation removal and the potential subsequent decrease in the forage base. 

The protections afforded to special management areas and other management areas would generally 

benefit livestock grazing. Management actions aimed at conserving sensitive vegetation communities and 

limiting surface disturbing activities in these areas would benefit livestock grazing by enhancing overall 

vegetation conditions and consequently increasing forage production. These effects would most likely be 

greater than under the No Action Alternative because of the implementation of management actions 

associated with the expansion of Steamboat Mountain ACEC and management of the West Sand Dunes 

Archaeological District and the Steamboat Mountain Management Area. 

4.4.5 Potential Impacts on Vegetation 

Vegetation management includes all plants, the habitats they create, and watershed stability. Resources 

include species that are protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), identified as Wyoming BLM 

sensitive species, state species of concern, rare plant communities and associations, and noxious weeds. 

Impacts on resources and resource users resulting from implementation of vegetation management actions 

4-38 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 4 

are discussed in those particular resource sections. This section describes potential impact on vegetation 

resources resulting from the implementation of management actions for other resource management 

categories. 

Effects on vegetation would be considered significant if the viability of protected plant species were 

jeopardized, with little likelihood of reestablishment after disturbance, or if actions would result in the 

need to list a species under the ESA. A lesser effect would result if the disturbed population could be 

reestablished to its original state and condition or if the population were sufficiently large or resilient to 

respond to disturbance without a measurable change. An impact would also be significant if there is a 

loss of habitat function or habitat value in BLM sensitive species habitats. An impact would be 

significant if reclaimed areas did not attain adequate vegetation ground cover and species composition to 

stabilize the site within 5 years of disturbance or if there were invasion and establishment of noxious 

weeds that contributed to unsuccessful revegetation. The significance of an impact would also depend on 

the importance of the resource and the proportion of the resource that would be affected relative to its 

occurrence in the vicinity. An increase in population numbers in response to an enhanced habitat or the 

increased viability of a species would be viewed as a beneficial impact. 

For analysis purposes, it is assumed that adequate vegetative ground cover and species composition for 

site stabilization would occur in 3 to 5 years and that brush reestablishment in disturbed areas would not 

create a vegetative landscape similar to adjacent lands for more than 20 years. Adequate forage is 

assumed to be available for current wildlife objective numbers, and it is assumed that all management 

actions associated with the protection of wildlife habitat and cultural resources directly benefit vegetation 

management. All surface disturbing activities would require reclamation according to the Rock Springs 

District Reclamation Monitoring Plan, and new oil and gas leases would have stipulations for protection 

of threatened, endangered, and Wyoming BLM sensitive species. 

4.4.5.1 Common to All Alternatives 

Implementation of the Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands as the minimum acceptable 

conditions for public rangelands would increase the health and diversity of vegetation communities. By 

ensuring that all activities conducted on public lands within the planning area are designed to maintain 

and enhance native vegetation and promote healthy watersheds, negative impacts on plants and their 

habitat would be minimized to an acceptable level. Monitoring and evaluation of rangeland uses and 

effects would occur. Results of these evaluations would determine whether the objectives of this plan are 

being met, and if not, management actions would be undertaken to improve the conditions of native 

vegetation. 

The potential for additional strain on vegetation resources exists within portions of the planning area 

(south-central) from potential concentrations of grazing animals. Heavy concentrations of grazing 

animals could result in overutilization of vegetation. However, monitoring and evaluating habitats for 

compliance with the Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands would provide information on 

vegetation resources before impacts became significant. 

Wildfires usually have more adverse impacts than do prescribed burns because wildfires generally cover 

larger areas and remove more vegetation and, if burning outside established prescription, often burn with 

enough heat to adversely affect soil organisms as well as kill the root system of some plants and the 

existing seed bank. This could result in long-term adverse impacts by compromising future plant 

recruitment and growth rates. Prescribed fire burning within prescription areas would generally have a 

long-term beneficial effect on vegetation by increasing age and species diversity of plant communities, 

increasing plant vigor, and enhancing nutrient cycling. 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 4-39 
Chapter 4 Final EIS 

Watershed management would provide benefits to native vegetation by maintaining or restoring healthy 

and diverse plant communities through the establishment of DPC objectives, placement of buffer zones 

around riparian areas, and restrictions on surface disturbance within riparian areas and floodplains. 

Actions that would maintain or improve watershed conditions would generally benefit vegetation 

communities. 

Valid existing mineral rights (existing fluid mineral leases and mining claims) cover more than half of the 

planning area, which could have adverse impacts on vegetation because of a lack of requirements for 

mitigation that would protect vegetation resources. Adverse effects could be reduced by Conditions of 

Approval (COA) on Applications for Permit to Drill (APD) within these areas, which would be based on 

site-specific analysis and would establish specific, necessary mitigation measures not covered by lease 

stipulations for resource and environmental protection. The severity of effects would depend on the 

amount of activity and the success of reclamation efforts for disturbed areas. 

Reclamation after surface disturbing activities would be conducted in accordance with the Wyoming 

Policy on Reclamation (IM No. WY-90-231) and the Rock Springs District Reclamation Program. 

Achievement of the revegetation objectives under reclamation would restore native plant communities in 

the long term, providing healthy habitat for colonization and expansion of native plant species. 

Monitoring of disturbed sites would enhance reclamation success. Containerized shrub seedlings used in 

reclamation practices would help reestablish shrubs in sensitive areas, decreasing adverse impacts in the 

short term. Significant impacts could occur if adequate revegetation measures were not implemented and 

monitored to ensure successful revegetation. 

The management actions established for special management areas would generally benefit vegetation 

resources. Protections aimed at conserving sensitive vegetation communities, and limitations on mineral 

development and other surface disturbing activities, would benefit vegetation by enhancing overall 

conditions. 

4.4.5.2 No Action Alternative 

Both wildland and prescribed fires could have short-term localized impacts on vegetation; however, the 

long-term effect of fire would be the conversion of shrubs to grasslands. Prescribed burning, the 

preferred method of vegetation treatment, would cause a long-term decrease in sagebrush species, a shortterm increase in annual weeds, and a long-term increase in grass species. Vegetative cover would be 

reduced during the first two growing seasons but would likely improve in the third year following a 

prescribed burn, resulting in beneficial effects. Approximately 5,000 acres within the planning area are 

proposed for prescribed burns during the planning period. 

Wildfires cause a short-term loss of vegetation. They usually occur in the high-density sagebrush, 

juniper, conifer, and aspen communities, which leads to grasses’ and forbs’ replacing shrubs. The surface 

disturbance associated with fire line construction, the use of heavy equipment, and other fire suppression 

activity often damages or destroys vegetation and accelerates natural soil erosion. Fire suppression 

activities within special status plant species habitat would be limited to existing roads and trails to prevent 

any further impact on these species from crushing or removal. 

The effect of fire within the basin big sagebrush/lemon scurfpea community would be adverse because of 

the unlikelihood of reestablishing of this association within a few years after a fire. Additional 

prescriptions for managing fire would include full suppression in the basin big sagebrush/lemon scurfpea 

plant community, providing protection for this unique vegetation association, which stabilizes the sandy 

soils in this part of the planning area and provides habitat and forage for wildlife. 

4-40 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 4 

Watershed management would provide benefits to native vegetation by maintaining or restoring healthy 

and diverse plant communities through the establishment of DPC objectives, placement of buffer zones 

around riparian areas, and restrictions on surface disturbance within riparian areas and floodplains. 

Actions that would maintain or improve watershed conditions would generally benefit vegetation 

communities. 

The vegetation communities likely to be affected by livestock grazing would include the saltbush, lowdensity sagebrush, high-density sagebrush, aspen, riparian, and grassland communities. Livestock AMPs, 

or other activity plans intended to serve as the functional equivalent of an AMP, would address 

achievement of DPC objectives, thereby minimizing impacts on uplands and riparian areas. 

Although livestock operators could increase AUM use to the fully permitted amount, anticipated use of 

AUMs would be similar to historic levels; thus, direct impacts on vegetation would likely be comparable 

to current conditions. Some localized overuse of forage would continue, primarily in riparian zones and 

around watering holes and dunal ponds. When forage is overused, plants cannot provide for their own 

growth, maintenance, and reproduction and are eventually replaced by less desirable species that have 

little or no forage value. Implementation of the Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands and 

Guidelines for Livestock Grazing would ensure the viability of vegetation resources. 

Livestock water developments could adversely affect vegetation. Areas around existing water sources 

receive more use than the adjacent uplands, increasing soil exposure and erosion and weed invasion. This 

would continue in the long term as new water developments were created. 

Fencing would be used to manage livestock grazing to improve forage and habitat condition on upland 

and wetland sites. Range condition should improve in localized areas where fences were used to 

implement grazing management plans or to better distribute livestock. More diverse vegetation would be 

produced, and soil erosion would be reduced. Herding control would be encouraged as an alternative to 

fencing, which could also provide benefits to vegetation. 

Season-long grazing use of range grasses has significant adverse impacts on their physiological health. 

Grasses that are grazed too long, too closely, or too frequently at the same stage of growth display marked 

reductions in vigor and health, becoming more susceptible to drought, injury, and lower production. 

Decline in soil condition, plant cover, and species composition encourages the invasion and growth of 

noxious weeds. Early spring grazing would also have adverse impact on range grass and forb species 

through the trampling of wet soils, uprooting of seedlings, and mechanical injury to both mature plants 

and new seedlings. This adverse impact would be recognized in AMPs, or other activity plans intended to 

serve as the functional equivalent of an AMP and would be minimized through implementation of the 

Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing. 

The management of heritage sites would indirectly benefit vegetation through preservation of rare and 

sensitive plant communities as well as general vegetation characteristics. Disturbance and removal of 

vegetation could occur through activities related to management of heritage resources; however, any 

impact would generally be minor and limited to relatively small areas. Even under the most intense 

management (i.e., excavation), the amount of vegetation disturbed would be very small. 

Recreational management actions could have localized impacts on vegetation, primarily from 

unauthorized OHV use. The greatest loss of vegetation associated with OHV use would result from 

unauthorized use of previously undisturbed areas. All vegetation classifications could be damaged by 

unauthorized OHV use, but such damage would be most common in badlands, low-density sagebrush, 

juniper, saltbush, and sand dune vegetation communities. A long-term loss of native vegetation due to 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 4-41 
Chapter 4 Final EIS 

weed invasions would also be expected with OHV use. However, these effects are anticipated to be 

localized. 

Recreational activities, such as camping and recreational mining, could also damage vegetation through 

concentrated use, trampling, and digging. Camping would be allowed within 200 feet of water sources 

except in areas where it would be necessary to protect water quality and wildlife and livestock watering 

areas. If resource damage occurred, those areas would be closed to camping to minimize long-term 

adverse impacts. Recreation events such as OHV rallies could damage or totally remove vegetation from 

portions of the event route. Special recreation use permits for such events would require timing and 

avoidance of key areas and reclamation of the disturbed area to minimize adverse impacts on vegetation 

resources. Adverse effects of recreational mining would be minimal because of the small amount of area 

disturbed. 

Surface disturbance associated with livestock water developments or mineral activities other than oil and 

gas would account for approximately 119 acres of disturbance to vegetation (oil and gas surface 

disturbance is detailed below). This total would include 23 acres (worst case) disturbed during 

construction of livestock water developments (assuming 1 acre per development), 1 acre for wild horse 

traps, 55 acres for mineral location (with no more than 5 acres disturbed at one time), 15 acres for solid 

mineral development, and 25 acres for mineral material sales. 

Surface disturbing activities associated with the construction of linear ROWs for pipelines, transmission 

lines, communication lines, and roads, and oil and gas development, including construction of well pads, 

mud pits, and roads, could adversely impact vegetation resources. Land clearing and grading activities 

necessary for construction remove vegetation and compact soils, which contributes to noxious weed 

invasion. The amount of surface disturbance associated with fluid mineral development would be 

approximately 200 acres in the most active year and approximately 1,800 acres over the planning period 

(Appendix 13, Table A13-7), representing an insignificant impact on vegetation when compared to the 

size of the planning area. However, this impact could be significant if the vegetation lost were of a type 

that was not abundant within the planning area. Loss of vegetation could be short term or long term 

depending on the success of reclamation efforts for disturbed areas. However, even if reclamation were 

successful, some original plant communities, particularly shrub communities and stabilized sand dunes, 

would not be likely to be reestablished to their predisturbance structure and density for more than 20 

years. The basin big sagebrush/lemon scurfpea community would likely take up to 70 years to reach the 

structure and density of predisturbance conditions. Some of these communities would be provided 

protection by controlled surface use or by NSO requirements, preserving the character of vegetation 

communities. Disturbed sites would be monitored for effective reclamation, and linear ROWs would 

avoid BLM Wyoming sensitive species locations. Effects from most mineral development would be 

temporary because the vegetation conditions on most sites would ultimately be reclaimed. An adverse 

impact on vegetation could result if development outpaced reclamation and reestablishment of vegetation. 

Constructing wells or access roads in stabilized dunes would cause direct loss of anchoring vegetation, 

creating active dunes that might not stabilize with natural vegetation within the planning period (20 

years). One such stabilized dune community, the basin big sagebrush/lemon scurfpea association, is not 

known to exist elsewhere in the country to the quantity and extent it does in the planning area. 

Disturbance of this plant community would likely result in the long-term loss of this unique vegetation 

type for the life of this plan and would therefore result in a significant impact. 

A large portion of the planning area would be withdrawn from locatable mineral exploration and 

development and mineral material sales. Approximately half of the known unique plant communities of 

basin big sagebrush/lemon scurfpea and aspen would be protected from locatable mineral activity through 

the withdrawal of the Greater Sand Dunes ACEC and South Pass Summit. Areas would be closed to 

4-42 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 4 

mineral material sales through the closure of the Greater Sand Dunes ACEC, Steamboat Mountain ACEC, 

and the Sand Dunes Wilderness Study Area (WSA). Some of the rare aspen communities would also be 

closed to mineral material sales through the closure of South Pass Summit. Subjecting areas to mineral 

activity could result in direct removal of shrubs and trees, causing adverse long-term effects on these 

communities through conversion to grassland and nonwoodland-type areas. The majority of basin big 

sagebrush/lemon scurfpea and other mountain shrub communities would be open to coal exploration and 

development, which could have adverse long-term effects because of direct removal of these communities 

and long-term reclamation periods. However, it would be unlikely that any locatable mineral 

development would take place during the planning period because of projected demand. 

Noxious weeds are expected to increase under this alternative as a result of surface disturbing activities. 

Weeds have direct adverse impacts on native vegetation and, once established, are extremely costly and 

time consuming to control and even harder to eradicate. Vehicles, horses, wildlife, livestock, campers 

and hikers, and just about any other mobile conveyance would spread weed seeds from their source into 

disturbed areas. Most adverse impacts due to noxious weeds and other invasive species are expected to 

occur adjacent to roads because they convey high levels of traffic to and from the planning area. 

Although vegetation would be affected by surface disturbing activities within the planning area, specific 

mitigation measures would be implemented to protect certain species. The two federally listed plant 

species potentially occurring within the planning area, Ute ladies’-tresses and blowout penstemon, would 

not likely be adversely affected. Required surveys for threatened and endangered species before surface 

disturbance activities and subsequent protection measures developed by BLM in conjunction with the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) would help mitigate potential impacts. Searches for special status 

species would be required in potential habitats for those species before approval of any project or activity 

in those areas. Known locations of these communities would be protected and closed to or withdrawn 

from OHV use, surface disturbance and disruptive activities, locatable mineral development, mineral 

material sales, and coal and sodium exploration. Wyoming BLM sensitive plant species would also be 

avoidance areas for ROWs. These requirements would reduce adverse impacts to special status plant 

species communities; however, existing fluid mineral leases do not contain lease stipulations protecting 

these species. COAs on APDs within existing lease areas could be applied, which would be based on 

site-specific analysis and would establish specific, necessary mitigation measures not covered by lease 

stipulations for resource and environmental protection, reducing potential adverse effects that would 

occur if habitat were disturbed during development. 

4.4.5.3 Alternative 1 

Impacts resulting from management of heritage resources, the fire program, and vegetation resources 

would be similar to those under the No Action Alternative. 

The effects of watershed management actions would be similar to those under the No Action Alternative, 

except that these beneficial impacts would be greatly reduced because there would be fewer restrictions 

on surface disturbing activities and smaller buffer zones around riparian areas and floodplains. 

Livestock grazing management actions under this alternative could have greater adverse impacts on 

vegetation resources than those under other alternatives. The anticipated use of livestock AUMs would 

increase over the planning period to the permitted active use amount, which is approximately double the 

historic use. Together with forage utilization by big game species, this would further increase grazing 

pressure on vegetation resources, potentially having an adverse impact if the long-term productivity of the 

range were compromised. This additional impact would be realized only on allotments that are not 

currently close to using their fully permitted AUMs. Riparian exclosures would be removed and the area 

made available to livestock grazing. New exclosures would not be considered unless they benefited 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 4-43 
Chapter 4 Final EIS 

commodity uses. This would have the potential to adversely affect vegetation through overuse of 

particular areas. Less restrictive measures for range improvements, water developments, and salt and 

mineral placement could limit the protections afforded to vegetation resources. Full implementation of 

these management actions could present some difficulty for allotments in complying with the Wyoming 

Standards for Healthy Rangelands. 

The effects of OHV use and other recreational activities would be greater and would occur over more of 

the planning area under this alternative than under the No Action Alternative because of fewer restrictions 

on use in the planning area and increased development that would allow for increased access. OHV use 

would be limited to existing roads and trails, rather than limited to designated roads and trails, in more of 

the planning area (Map 19), and more roads would be developed that would allow for increased OHV use 

and associated human activity. 

The effects of surface disturbing activities on vegetation resources are expected to be similar under this 

alternative to those under the No Action Alternative, except these adverse impacts would likely be greater 

because of increased development and decreased restrictions on surface disturbance. More areas would 

be disturbed. Effects to sensitive plant communities would be reduced only by the designation of the 

Greater Sand Dunes ACEC as an avoidance area (Map 16). 

Surface disturbance associated with livestock water developments or mineral activities other than oil and 

gas would be the same as those under the No Action Alternative. 

The planning area would be open for new mineral development. The amount of surface disturbance 

associated with fluid mineral development would be approximately 220 acres in the most active year and 

approximately 2,100 acres over the planning period (Appendix 13, Table A13-7), which would represent 

an insignificant impact on vegetation when compared to the size of the planning area. However, this 

impact could be significant if the vegetation lost were of a type that was not abundant within the planning 

area. The impacts on vegetation would be similar to those under the No Action Alternative. A significant 

adverse impact on vegetation could result if development outpaced reclamation and reestablishment of 

vegetation. 

A large portion of the planning area would be open to locatable mineral exploration and development 

(Map 23) and mineral material sales (Map 24). Adverse effects on all vegetation communities would be 

expected to be greater than under the No Action Alternative because of the increased area available to 

development. The majority of basin big sagebrush/lemon scurfpea and other mountain shrub 

communities would be open to coal exploration and development, as under the No Acton Alternative; 

however, it is unlikely that any development would take place during the planning period because of 

projected demand. 

The potential effects on the two federally listed plant species potentially occurring within the planning 

area, Ute ladies’-tresses and blowout penstemon, would be the same as those discussed under the No 

Action Alternative. 

In any potential habitats for special status species, searches for the species would be required before 

approval of any project or activity in those areas, as under the No Action Alternative. Known locations of 

these communities would be avoidance areas for surface disturbing activities. New leases would contain 

stipulations that protect these communities, and COAs on APDs within existing lease areas could be 

applied, which would be based on site-specific analysis and would establish specific, necessary mitigation 

measures not covered by lease stipulations for resource and environmental protection, reducing potential 

adverse effects that would occur if habitat were disturbed during development. Overall, adverse effects 

4-44 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 4 

on special status plant species could be significant because of the lack of complete protection of these 

communities from the majority of surface disturbing activities within the planning area. 

The beneficial impacts on vegetation resources from management activities related to special 

management areas could be reduced under this alternative compared with the No Action Alternative by 

eliminating certain management actions associated with the removal of the ACEC designation from 

Steamboat Mountain ACEC and the reduction of the viewshed associated with the South Pass Historic 

Landscape. The vegetation communities in the Steamboat Mountain area would be the most affected. 

These changes would allow more surface disturbance, potentially reducing overall benefits to vegetation 

resources. 

4.4.5.4 Alternative 2 

Impacts resulting from management of heritage resources would be the same as those under the No 

Action Alternative. 

The effects of watershed management actions would be the same as those under the No Action 

Alternative; however, these beneficial impacts would be greatest under this alternative because of 

increased restrictions on surface disturbing activities and larger buffer zones around riparian areas and 

floodplains. 

The increased restrictions on livestock grazing activities under this alternative would likely have 

beneficial impacts on vegetation resources. Although livestock operators could increase AUM use to the 

fully permitted amount, anticipated use of AUMs would be similar to historic levels. Using modified 

turnout dates as the primary method for complying with the Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands 

could have beneficial effects on vegetation resources by reducing grazing pressures. Increasing the buffer 

area for salt and mineral placement to one-half mile from special status plant species would require more 

planning and effort on the part of livestock operators and could increase related costs. Whether the onehalf-mile distance would provide greater protection to vegetation than would some shorter distance would 

depend on the topography, drainage patterns, and the amount of vegetative cover at a particular location. 

Riparian exclosures and water developments would be allowed if they preserved sensitive resources or 

improved habitat and resource conditions, having a beneficial impact on vegetation resources. 

Vegetation treatments would be limited to noxious weed control. The benefits associated with improved 

forage production capacity and the conversion of shrub habitat to grasslands through prescribed burns or 

other treatments would not occur under this alternative. Natural succession would be allowed. Limited 

fire suppression (as opposed to full fire suppression) would be applied for basin big sagebrush/lemon 

scurfpea vegetation associations, but this could have an adverse effect on vegetation. This vegetation 

association stabilizes the sandy soils in portions of the planning area, and the reestablishment of the 

association within a few years after a fire would be unlikely, resulting in a long-term loss of this unique 

vegetation type and therefore a significant impact. 

The adverse effects of OHV use and other recreational activities would be less under this alternative than 

under the No Action Alternative because of decreased development and increased restrictions on use in 

the planning area, which would decrease access. More of the planning area would be closed or restricted 

to OHV use, thus reducing access to a large portion of the planning area (Map 30). Camping in groups of 

five or more would be monitored and only allowed in designated areas, decreasing adverse effects on rare 

and sensitive plant communities and riparian areas. 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 4-45 
Chapter 4 Final EIS 

Development of a transportation plan specific to the planning area would further reduce adverse impacts 

on vegetation from ROWs, roads, OHV use, and general access. This plan would provide for appropriate 

access routes that would enable maximum protection of rare plant communities and sensitive resources. 

Surface disturbance associated with livestock water developments or mineral activities other than oil and 

gas would account for approximately 64 acres of disturbance to vegetation (oil and gas surface 

disturbance is detailed below). This total would include 11 acres (worst case) disturbed during 

construction of livestock water developments (assuming 1 acre per development) and 53 acres for mineral 

location on existing claims (with no more than 5 acres disturbed at one time). 

This alternative provides the least opportunity for mineral exploration and development, which would 

minimize related losses of vegetation. The effects of surface disturbing activities for mineral 

development and ROWs are expected to be much less than under the No Action Alternative because of 

increased restrictions (controlled surface use or NSO requirements) and decreased opportunity for 

development. The amount of surface disturbance associated with fluid mineral development would be 

approximately 170 acres in the most active year and approximately 1,300 acres over the planning period 

(Appendix 13, Table A13-7), which would represent an insignificant impact on vegetation when 

compared to the size of the planning area, depending on the vegetation type affected. Adverse impacts on 

sensitive plant communities would be reduced by managing the Greater Sand Dunes ACEC, the 

connectivity area, and the Steamboat Mountain ACEC as avoidance areas (Map 27). Other areas 

important to rare and sensitive plant communities would be ROW exclusion areas, which include WSAs 

and the paleosol deposition area. Effects from most mineral development would be temporary because 

the vegetation conditions on most sites would ultimately be reclaimed. However, an adverse impact on 

vegetation could result if development outpaced reclamation and replacement of forage or if the amount 

of a particular type of vegetation that was disturbed were small in comparison to other vegetation in the 

planning area. 

There would be no effects on vegetation from new locatable mineral development, mineral material sales, 

coal leasing, or coal and sodium exploration because the entire planning area would be withdrawn from or 

closed to these activities. 

Adverse impacts of noxious weed infestations on vegetation resources would be less than under the No 

Action Alternative because of an anticipated decrease in access and activity that would otherwise 

introduce or aid in spreading noxious weed or other invasive species in the planning area. 

Potential effects on the two federally listed plant species potentially occurring within the planning area, 

Ute ladies’-tresses and blowout penstemon, would be the same as those discussed under the No Action 

Alternative. 

Searches for special status species would be required in potential habitats for the species before approval 

of any project or activity in those areas. Known locations of these communities would be designated as 

an ACEC, with measures providing additional protection. Known locations would also be protected and 

closed to OHV use, ROWs, surface disturbance, locatable mineral development, mineral material sales, 

coal and sodium exploration, and geophysical exploration. Effects of existing fluid mineral leases would 

be the same as those described under the No Action Alternative; however, new leases would contain 

stipulations that protect these communities. Overall, impacts on special status plant species could occur 

on existing leases, but effects would be reduced through application of COAs designed to establish 

specific, necessary mitigation measures not covered by lease stipulations for resource and environmental 

protection. 

4-46 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 4 

Actions related to special management areas could have a greater beneficial impact on vegetation 

resources under this alternative. Management actions associated with the expansion of the Greater Sand 

Dunes ACEC and Steamboat Mountain ACEC would benefit rare and sensitive plant communities 

through further restrictions on activities within these sensitive areas (Map 37). The Greater Sand Dunes 

ACEC would be expanded to include the paleosol deposition area, and the Steamboat Mountain ACEC 

would be expanded to include the area of highest concentration and overlap of big game habitat features, 

natural systems, and cultural values, including a portion of the basin big sagebrush/lemon scurfpea plant 

community. Management actions associated with designating special status plant species habitat and the 

cushion plant communities as ACECs, and designation of the Pinnacles Geologic Feature ACEC, would 

also benefit these communities and protect them from disturbance. 

Management actions associated with the designation of the cushion plant community, the flockets area 

within the WSA portion of the Greater Sand Dunes ACEC, and a portion of the basin big 

sagebrush/lemon scurfpea association as research natural areas would further benefit these plant 

communities. 

4.4.5.5 Alternative 3 

Impacts associated with noxious weed and other invasive species infestations resulting from surface 

disturbing activities and impacts from management of heritage resources would be similar to those under 

the No Action Alternative. 

Areas impacted by prescribed burns or wildland fires would be rested for 24 months after treatment to 

allow the vegetation to adequately reestablish before it was grazed. Full fire suppression in the basin big 

sagebrush/lemon scurfpea plant community would be applied to provide protection for this unique 

vegetation association. This vegetation association stabilizes the sandy soils in portions of the planning 

area. Reestablishment of this association in these soil conditions within a few years after a fire would be 

unlikely. 

The effects of watershed management actions would be the same as those under the No Action 

Alternative, except that these beneficial impacts could be greater because of increased restrictions on 

surface disturbing activities and larger buffer zones around riparian areas and floodplains. 

Livestock grazing management actions under this alternative would have impacts on vegetation similar to 

those under the No Action Alternative. Although livestock operators could increase AUM use to the fully 

permitted amount, anticipated use of AUMs would be similar to historic levels and would not result in 

any additional grazing pressure on available forage. Construction and maintenance of livestock range 

improvements and water developments would be designed to improve resource conditions and/or enhance 

livestock distribution. This would maintain healthy forage conditions and prevent overuse of vegetation 

resources. Prohibiting salt and mineral supplements within one-quarter mile of special status plant 

species would ensure that these species would not be adversely impacted. 

Development of a transportation plan specific to the planning area would further reduce adverse impacts 

on vegetation from ROWs, roads, OHV use, and general access. This plan would provide for appropriate 

access routes that enabled maximum protection of rare plant communities and sensitive resources. 

Any adverse effects of OHV use and other recreational activities would be slightly less under this 

alternative than under the No Action Alternative because of restrictions associated with management of 

additional ACECs. OHV use would be limited to designated roads and trails in more areas, further 

reducing access to portions of the planning area (Map 41). Camping would be allowed only in designated 

areas, decreasing adverse effects on rare and sensitive plant communities and riparian areas. Recreational 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 4-47 
Chapter 4 Final EIS 

mining would be limited to a 5-acre site, and a recreation site plan would be prepared and implemented to 

manage the site for recreational purposes. 

The adverse impacts related to surface disturbing activities are expected to be slightly less than those 

described under the No Action Alternative because of additional controlled surface use requirements 

(Map 39) and management actions associated with ACECs. Adverse impacts to sensitive plant 

communities would be reduced by the designation of the WSAs and the southern portion of Steamboat 

Mountain as exclusion areas. 

The entire planning area would be open for consideration for fluid mineral leases. Impacts on vegetation 

from mineral exploration and development and other surface disturbances in support of these activities 

(i.e., ROWs) would be similar to those under the No Action Alternative; however, an adaptive 

management strategy would be implemented under this alternative, which would establish indicators to 

inform BLM of adverse effects of actions within the planning area and prevent them from becoming 

significant through BLM’s ability to control timing of development activities. 

Surface disturbance associated with livestock water developments or mineral activities other than oil and 

gas would be the same as that under the No Action Alternative. 

The extent of surface disturbance associated with fluid mineral development would be approximately 190 

acres in the most active year and approximately 1,600 acres over the planning period (Appendix 13, Table 

A13-7), which would represent an insignificant impact on vegetation when compared to the size of the 

planning area. The level of impact on vegetation types would depend on the location of the development 

and the vegetation type affected. Standards for reclamation of linear surface disturbances would mitigate 

any potential impact on vegetation removal. Effects from most mineral development would be temporary 

because the vegetation conditions on most sites would ultimately be reclaimed. An adverse impact on 

vegetation could result if development outpaced reclamation and replacement of forage. 

A large portion of the planning area would be open to locatable mineral activity (Map 45); however, 

adverse effects on all vegetation communities would be less than those under the No Action Alternative 

because additional areas (such as greater sage-grouse leks) would be withdrawn from all mineral location. 

A portion of the rare plant community of basin big sagebrush/lemon scurfpea would be closed to mineral 

material sales through the closure of the Greater Sand Dunes ACEC and the Sand Dunes WSA (Map 46); 

however, adverse effects would occur on the remainder of the community. Some of the rare aspen 

communities would also be closed to mineral material sales through the closure of South Pass Summit. 

Any impact on these communities would likely be significant because of the species’ limited ability to 

reestablish after disturbance. 

The unique cushion plant community would be closed to coal and sodium exploration (Map 43), but the 

majority of basin big sagebrush/lemon scurfpea and other mountain shrub communities would be open. 

Although any development could have adverse impacts on these vegetative communities, the impact 

would not likely be significant because the demand for this resource in this particular area is negligible. 

Potential effects on the two federally listed plant species potentially occurring within the planning area, 

Ute ladies’-tresses and blowout penstemon, would be the same as those discussed under the No Action 

Alternative. 

Searches for special status species would be required in any potential habitats for such species before 

approval of any project or activity in those areas. Known locations would be protected and closed or 

withdrawn from OHV use, ROWs, surface disturbance, locatable mineral development, mineral material 

4-48 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 4 

sales, coal and sodium exploration, and geophysical exploration. Effects of existing fluid mineral leases 

would be the same as those described under the No Action Alternative; however, new leases would 

contain stipulations that protect special status species communities. 

Management actions associated with the expansion of the Greater Sand Dunes and Steamboat Mountain 

ACECs would benefit rare and sensitive plant communities through further restrictions on activities 

within these sensitive areas (Map 48). The Greater Sand Dunes ACEC would be expanded to include the 

paleosol deposition area, and the Steamboat Mountain ACEC would be expanded to include Indian Gap 

and the face of Steamboat Mountain. Management actions associated with designating special status 

plant species habitat and the cushion plant communities as ACECs would also benefit and protect these 

communities. 

4.4.5.6 Proposed JMH CAP 

Implementation of the Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands as the minimum acceptable 

conditions for public rangelands would increase the health and diversity of planning area vegetation 

communities. By ensuring that all activities conducted on public lands within the planning area were 

designed to maintain and enhance native vegetation and promote healthy watersheds, negative impacts on 

plants and their habitat would be minimized to an acceptable level. Monitoring and evaluation of 

rangeland uses and effects would occur. Results of these evaluations would determine whether the 

objectives of this plan were being met; if not, management actions would be undertaken to improve the 

conditions of native vegetation. 

The potential for additional strain on vegetation resources exists within portions of the planning area 

(south-central) from potential concentrations of grazing animals. Heavy concentrations of grazing 

animals could result in overutilization of vegetation. However, monitoring and evaluation of habitats to 

comply with the Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands would provide information on vegetation 

resources before impacts became significant. 

Both wildland and prescribed fires could have short-term localized impacts on vegetation; however, the 

long-term effect of fire would be the conversion of shrub habitat to grasslands. Prescribed burning, the 

preferred method of vegetation treatment, would cause a long-term decrease in sagebrush species, a shortterm increase in annual weeds, and a long-term increase in grass species. Vegetative cover would be 

reduced during the first two growing seasons but would likely improve in the third year following a 

prescribed burn, resulting in beneficial effects. Approximately 5,000 acres within the planning area are 

proposed for prescribed burns during the planning period. 

Wildfires cause a short-term loss of vegetation. Wildfires usually occur in the high-density sagebrush, 

juniper, conifer, and aspen communities, which leads to grasses’ and forbs’ replacing shrubs. The surface 

disturbance associated with fire line construction, the use of heavy equipment, and other fire suppression 

activity often damage or destroy vegetation and accelerate natural soil erosion. Fire suppression activities 

within special status plant species habitat would be limited to existing roads and trails to prevent any 

further impact on these species from crushing or removal. 

Wildfires usually have more adverse impacts than do prescribed burns because wildfires generally cover 

larger areas and remove more vegetation and, if burning outside established prescription, often burn with 

enough heat to adversely affect soil organisms and kill the root system of some plants and the existing 

seed bank. This could result in long-term adverse impacts by compromising future plant recruitment and 

growth rates. Prescribed fire burning within prescription areas would generally have a long-term 

beneficial effect on vegetation by increasing age and species diversity of plant communities, increasing 

plant vigor, and enhancing nutrient cycling. 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 4-49 
Chapter 4 Final EIS 

Fire within the basin big sagebrush/lemon scurfpea community would have an adverse effect because of 

the unlikelihood of reestablishing this association within a few years after a fire. Additional prescriptions 

for managing fire would include full suppression in the basin big sagebrush/lemon scurfpea plant 

community, providing protection for this unique vegetation association, which stabilizes sandy soils in 

portions of the planning area and provides habitat and forage, primarily for wildlife. 

Watershed management would provide benefits to native vegetation by maintaining or restoring healthy 

and diverse plant communities through the establishment of DPC objectives, placement of buffer zones 

around riparian areas, and restrictions on surface disturbance within riparian areas and floodplains. 

Actions that would maintain or improve watershed conditions would generally benefit vegetation 

communities. 

The vegetation communities that would likely be affected by livestock grazing would include saltbush, 

low-density sagebrush, high-density sagebrush, aspen, riparian, and grassland communities. Livestock 

AMPs, or other activity plans intended to serve as the functional equivalent of an AMP, would address 

achieving DPC objectives, thereby minimizing impacts on uplands and riparian areas. 

Although livestock operators could increase AUM use to the fully permitted amount, anticipated use of 

AUMs would be similar to historic levels; thus, direct impacts on vegetation would likely be comparable 

to current conditions. Some localized overuse of forage would continue, primarily in riparian zones, and 

around watering holes and dunal ponds. When forage is overused, plants cannot provide for their own 

growth, maintenance, and reproduction and are eventually replaced by less desirable species that have 

little or no forage value. Implementation of the Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands and 

Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management would ensure the viability of vegetation resources. 

Livestock water developments could negatively affect vegetation. Areas around existing water sources 

receive more use than the adjacent uplands, increasing soil exposure and erosion and weed invasion. This 

would continue in the long term as new water developments were created. However, effects on certain 

areas of sensitive habitat would be reduced because water developments would be considered only if 

resource conditions were maintained or improved. 

Fencing would be used to manage livestock grazing to improve forage and habitat condition on upland 

and wetland sites. Range condition should improve in localized areas where fences were used to 

implement grazing management plans or to better distribute livestock. More diverse vegetation would be 

produced, and soil erosion would be reduced. Herding control would be considered as an alternative to 

fencing, which could also provide benefits to vegetation. 

Season-long grazing use of range grasses has significant adverse impacts on their physiological health. 

Grasses that are grazed too long, too closely, or too frequently at the same stage of growth display marked 

reductions in vigor and health, becoming more susceptible to drought, injury, and lower production. 

Decline in soil condition, plant cover, and species composition encourages the invasion and growth of 

noxious weeds and other invasive species. Early spring grazing would also have adverse impacts on 

range grass and forb species through trampling of wet soils, uprooting seedlings, and mechanical injury to 

both mature plants and new seedlings. This adverse impact would be recognized in AMPs, or other 

activity plans intended to serve as the functional equivalent of an AMP, and would be minimized through 

implementation of the Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing 

Management. 

Reclamation of surface disturbing activities would be conducted in accordance with the Wyoming Policy 

on Reclamation (IM No. WY-90-231) and the Rock Springs District Reclamation Program. Achievement 

of the revegetation objectives under reclamation would replace native plant communities in the long term, 

4-50 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 4 

providing healthy habitats for colonization and expansion of native plant species. Monitoring of 

disturbed sites would enhance reclamation success. Containerized shrub seedlings used in reclamation 

practices would help reestablish shrubs in sensitive areas, decreasing adverse impacts in the short term. 

The management of heritage sites would indirectly benefit vegetation through preservation of rare and 

sensitive plant communities as well as general vegetation characteristics. Disturbance and removal of 

vegetation could occur through activities related to management of heritage resources; however, any 

impact would generally be minor and limited to relatively small areas. Even under the most intense 

management (i.e., excavation), the amount of vegetation disturbed would be very small. 

Recreational management actions could have localized impacts on vegetation, primarily from 

unauthorized OHV use. The greatest loss of vegetation associated with OHV use would result from 

unauthorized use of previously undisturbed areas. All vegetation classifications could be damaged by 

unauthorized OHV use, but such damage would be most common in badlands, low-density sagebrush, 

juniper, saltbush, and sand dune vegetation communities. A long-term loss of native vegetation due to 

weed invasions would also be expected with OHV use. However, these effects are anticipated to be 

localized. 

Recreational activities, such as camping and recreational mining, could also damage vegetation through 

concentrated use, trampling, and digging. Camping would be allowed within 200 feet of water sources 

except in areas where it would be necessary to protect water quality and wildlife. If resource damage 

occurred, these areas would be closed to camping throughout the planning area to minimize long-term 

adverse impacts. Adverse effects of recreational mining would be minimal because of the small area 

disturbed. 

Recreation events such as OHV rallies could damage or totally remove vegetation from portions of the 

event route. Special recreation use permits for such events would require timing and avoidance of key 

areas, and reclamation of the disturbed area, to minimize adverse impacts on vegetation resources. 

Surface disturbance associated with livestock water developments or mineral activities other than oil and 

gas would be the same as that under the No Action Alternative. 

Surface disturbing activities associated with the construction of linear ROWs for pipelines, transmission 

lines, communication lines, and roads, and oil and gas development, including construction of well pads, 

mud pits, and roads, could adversely affect vegetation resources. Land clearing and grading activities 

necessary for construction remove vegetation and compact soils, which contributes to noxious weeds and 

other invasive species. Loss of vegetation could be short-term or long-term, depending on the success of 

reclamation efforts for disturbed areas. However, even with successful reclamation, some original plant 

communities, particularly shrub communities and stabilized sand dunes, would not likely be reestablished 

to their predisturbance structure and density for more than 20 years. The basin big sagebrush/lemon 

scurfpea community likely would take up to 70 years to reach the structure and density of predisturbance 

conditions. Some of these communities would be provided protection by controlled surface use or NSO 

requirements, thereby preserving the character of vegetation communities. 

The extent of surface disturbance associated with fluid mineral development would be approximately 190 

acres in the most active year and approximately 1,600 acres over the planning period (Appendix 13, Table 

A13-7), which would represent a minimal impact on vegetation overall when compared to the size of the 

planning area, particularly given the reclamation activities associated with each drilled well. The majority 

of special status plant species and unique plant communities (i.e., cushion plants) are located within Area 

3 of the JMH CAP fluid mineral leasing implementation strategy (Appendix 17). Area 3 would retain a 

“no lease” management prescription or be subject to leasing with an NSO stipulation that would ensure 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 4-51 
Chapter 4 Final EIS 

protection of special status plant species and unique plant communities in these areas, resulting in less 

impacts on these resources than under the No Action Alternative. A large portion of special status plant 

species and unique plant communities within Area 3, however, are in areas that have already been leased. 

These existing leases have a variety of stipulations for resource protection, some of which might not offer 

any protection to sensitive vegetative resources, possibly allowing significant impacts on these resources. 

In these cases, COAs for APDs could be applied. These would be based on site-specific analysis and 

would establish specific, necessary mitigation measures not covered by stipulations for resource and 

environmental protection. BLM specialists would review sensitive resources with lease operators to 

develop and implement protective measures to allow effective development operations where impacts 

could be avoided or mitigated. As part of the “no lease” prescription in Area 3, existing leases that 

expired before they were developed or were held by production would not be reoffered for lease, further 

protecting vegetative resources. 

Management prescriptions for special status plant species and unique plant communities and possible use 

of COAs on leases without protection for these species would reduce adverse impacts; however, overall 

significant adverse effects could occur if development without protective COAs (due to economic effects 

on developers) could continue in these areas. 

Construction of wells or access roads in stabilized dunes would cause direct loss of anchoring vegetation, 

creating active dunes that might not stabilize with natural vegetation within the planning period (20 

years). One such stabilized dune community, the basin big sagebrush/lemon scurfpea association, is not 

known to exist elsewhere in the country to the quantity and extent that it does in the planning area. Any 

disturbance of this plant community would likely result in the long-term loss of this unique vegetation 

type for the life of this plan and would therefore produce a significant impact. 

A portion of the planning area would be withdrawn from locatable mineral exploration and development 

(Map 53), and mineral material sales (Map 58). Approximately half of the known unique plant 

communities of basin big sagebrush/lemon scurfpea would be protected from locatable mineral activity 

through the withdrawal of the western portion of the Greater Sand Dunes ACEC. The larger aspen 

communities would also be protected by the withdrawal of South Pass Summit and the northern elk 

birthing areas. The basin big sagebrush/lemon scurfpea community would also be closed to mineral 

material sales through the closure of the Greater Sand Dunes ACEC, the Steamboat Mountain ACEC, and 

the Sand Dunes WSA. Parts of the aspen communities would also be closed to mineral material sales 

through the closure of South Pass Summit. Special status plant species would be withdrawn from mineral 

location and closed to mineral material sales. Subjecting areas to mineral activity could result in direct 

removal of shrubs and trees, causing adverse long-term effects on these communities through conversion 

to grassland and nonwoodland-type areas. 

The majority of the basin big sagebrush/lemon scurfpea and other mountain shrub communities would be 

open to coal exploration and development, which could cause adverse long-term effects because of direct 

removal of these communities and lengthy reclamation periods. However, it would be unlikely that any 

development would take place during the planning period because of projected demand. 

Noxious weeds and other invasive species are expected to increase under this alternative as a result of 

surface disturbing activities. Weeds have direct adverse impacts on native vegetation and, once 

established, are extremely costly and time consuming to control, and even harder to eradicate. Vehicles, 

horses, wildlife, livestock, campers and hikers, and just about any other mobile conveyance would spread 

weed seeds from their source into disturbed areas. Most adverse impacts due to noxious weeds are 

expected to occur adjacent to roads because they convey high levels of traffic to and from the planning 

area. 

4-52 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 4 

Although vegetation would be affected by surface disturbing activities within the planning area, specific 

mitigation measures would be implemented to protect certain species. The two federally listed plant 

species potentially occurring within the planning area, Ute ladies’-tresses and blowout penstemon, would 

not likely be adversely affected. Required surveys for threatened and endangered species before surface 

disturbing activities and subsequent protective measures developed by BLM in conjunction with USFWS 

would help mitigate potential impacts. Searches for special status species would be required in potential 

habitats for those species before approval of any project or activity in those areas. Known locations of 

these communities would be protected and closed to or withdrawn from OHV use, locatable mineral 

development, mineral material sales, and coal and sodium exploration. BLM Wyoming sensitive plant 

species would also be avoidance areas for ROWs. A portion of the habitat would be closed to surface 

disturbance and disruptive activities through either a closed-to-leasing or an NSO designation. 

The management actions established for special management areas would generally benefit vegetation 

resources. The expansion of Steamboat Mountain ACEC to include a portion of the basin big 

sagebrush/lemon scurfpea plant community would provide protection of this unique community through 

limitations on mineral development and other surface disturbing activities. The addition of the West Sand 

Dunes Archaeological District would also likely reduce adverse effects on vegetation through 

management prescriptions limiting surface disturbing and disruptive activities within special management 

areas. 

4.4.6 Potential Impacts on Wildlife 

Wildlife includes all terrestrial, avian, and aquatic animals and their habitats. Resources include species 

that are protected under the ESA, identified as Wyoming BLM sensitive species, and state species of 

concern. Impacts on resources and resource users resulting from implementation of the wildlife 

management actions are discussed in those particular resource sections. This section describes potential 

impacts on wildlife resulting from the implementation of management actions for other resource 

management categories. 

Impacts on wildlife would be considered significant if the viability of a federally protected species were 

jeopardized or if actions would result in the need to list a species under the ESA. A lesser impact would 

result if the disturbed population could be reestablished to its original state and condition or if the 

population were sufficiently large or resilient to respond to disturbance without a measurable change. 

The significance of an impact also would depend on the importance of the resource and the proportion of 

the resource that would be affected relative to its occurrence in the vicinity. An increase in population 

numbers in response to an enhanced habitat or the increased viability of a species would be viewed as 

beneficial impacts. Impacts on wildlife would also be considered significant if BLM sensitive species or 

native wildlife species considered as vital, high, or moderate by the WGFD Mitigation Policy showed 

increased mortality or decreased survival rates. The WGFD Mitigation Policy also classifies habitats as 

vital or high. Any loss of habitat function or habitat value in these vital, high, or BLM sensitive species 

habitats would also indicate significant impacts on wildlife. Long-term displacement of elk, mule deer, or 

pronghorn antelope from crucial habitat or parturition areas within the planning area would be considered 

significant. 

For analysis purposes, it is assumed that the WGFD herd management objective for the Steamboat elk 

herd unit would remain at 500 under the No Action Alternative and would increase to the current 

objective of 1,200 under Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and the Proposed JMH CAP. It is also assumed that 

sufficient habitat exists to maintain WGFD big game objectives. 

It is assumed that a portion of key habitats within the planning area would have year-round activity and 

that the level of activity within the planning area would increase and additional activity would occur 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 4-53 
Chapter 4 Final EIS 

within portions of these key habitats. Some wildlife adaptation to activities would occur within the 

planning area; however, this would not outweigh the effects of disturbance due to the lack of topographic 

escape and cover for elk and mule deer. It is also assumed that as development and recreational activities 

increased throughout the planning area, increased fragmentation of habitats would occur. Disruptive 

activities in key habitats are assumed to cause displacement of wildlife. 

It is assumed that elk and mule deer compete for parturition and crucial winter range habitat use. 

It is assumed that greater sage-grouse populations would continue to decline in the planning area under 

the No Action Alternative and Alternatives 1 and 3 and that greater sage-grouse population declines in the 

planning area would slow under Alternative 2 and the Proposed JMH CAP because of maintenance and/or 

improvement of habitat. It is also assumed that only 50 percent of the greater sage-grouse nesting habitat 

identified is expected to be suitable for nesting and that only sagebrush vegetation within the greater-sage 

grouse winter range is expected to be suitable for winter habitat. 

Actions implemented to improve watershed quality are assumed to directly improve wildlife habitat in 

riparian areas. It is assumed that any actions resulting in substantial disturbances to the soils or changes 

in vegetative cover would have an adverse effect on watershed health and water quality and would 

therefore have an adverse effect on associated fisheries. 

It is also assumed that the majority of oil and gas leases contain stipulations for a minimum of seasonal 

protection in sensitive wildlife habitats and that new oil and gas leases would have stipulations for 

protection of threatened and endangered and Wyoming BLM sensitive species. 

It is assumed that each water development within the Colorado or the Platte River Basin in the planning 

area causes a depletion to the respective systems because all water used for livestock pits, ponds, and 

water wells and/or water used for drilling and completion of wells within the Green River and the 

Sweetwater River Basins contributes to the surface flows of the Colorado River or Platte River or their 

tributaries. Livestock water development depletion calculations under each alternative are based on the 

following assumptions: (1) all developments are installed in year one of the 20-year planning period; (2) 

ponds average one-quarter acre in surface area; (3) the evaporation rate from surface water equals the 

summertime peak rate of one-quarter inch per day; (4) water would remain in the pond for 48 days. 

4.4.6.1 Common to All Alternatives 

Two types of adverse impacts on wildlife are common to all alternatives: displacement and habitat 

fragmentation. However, these two adverse impacts vary in degree by alternative. Displacement from 

surface disturbing or disruptive activities moves animals into less desirable habitat and creates 

competition for available resources with other species and uses. Wildlife displacement can be either 

direct or indirect, depending on the amount and type of activity. 

The amount of land used for road surfaces, well pads, stock tanks, and any recreation facilities represents 

a direct loss of wildlife habitat. The actual effect from surface disturbing and disruptive activities in 

desert areas void of tall stands of vegetation or dramatic topographic relief is greater than the direct loss 

of acreage indicates. Wildlife habitat loss results from road construction and road use, facility 

construction and placement, pipeline construction, field facility maintenance, ROW construction, range 

improvement construction, and disturbance zones around these areas. All disturbed acreages would not 

be fully reclaimed to their predisturbance structure and density, and portions, particularly in shrub 

communities and stabilized sand dunes, would remain unavailable as habitat for wildlife for more than 20 

years. The basin big sagebrush/lemon scurfpea community habitat would likely take up to 70 years to 

reach the structure and density of predisturbance conditions. Limited rainfall, poor soils, and severe 

4-54 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 4 

winter conditions make reclamation difficult, increasing the time required to reestablish suitable 

vegetation to predisturbance composition and density. 

Activities in desert-type terrain tend to displace wildlife, particularly big game species by distances of 

more than 3 miles because of extended sight distances and lack of security cover. The loss of adjacent 

habitats because of disturbance or habitat degradation is much more subtle but has been observed and 

documented. 

Elk have been shown to avoid disturbance by distances of upwards of 1.25 miles from active oil and gas 

wells (Gussey 1986; Powell 2003; WGFD 2000), upwards of 2.4 miles from construction of drill sites 

(Hayden-Wing Associates 1990), and upwards of 1.25 miles from major roads (Powell 2003). 

Disturbance was also avoided or reduced by topographic visual barriers between the source of disturbance 

and the elk (Irwin and Gillin 1984; Ward 1986; Olson 1981; Kuck et al. 1985; Van Dyke and Klein 

1996). This disturbance is usually temporary in nature, however, and some studies have shown that elk 

returned to the area of disturbance once the source of disturbance and human presence was gone (Gussey 

1986; WGFD 2000), albeit at 50 percent of previous levels in forested environments (Hayden-Wing 

Associates 1990). Studies particular to oil and gas activities have shown that elk tolerate some level of 

operating wells and associated facilities as long as human presence is absent or cover is available in the 

vicinity of the well site (Gusey 1986; Beak Consultants 1979; Bennington et al. 1982; Hayden-Wing 

Associates 1990). 

Van Dyke and Klein (1996) found that elk showed no shift in home range between the pre and post 

drilling of a single oil well with all roads closed to other traffic and remote monitoring during sensitive 

periods (winter and parturition). However, they shifted their use of core areas out of view of the drill pad 

during both periods, there was increased intensity of use in core areas after drilling, and there was a 

slightly reduced use of total home range. Van Dyke and Klein concluded that if drilling occupied a 

relatively small amount of home range, elk were able to compensate by shifting areas of use. 

Kuck et al. (1985) showed that persistent disturbance weakened the tendency of elk to return to the 

disturbed area and that selection of lesser quality habitat occurred. However, abandonment of the 

traditional calf-rearing habitat did not result in abandonment of calves or a difference in survival rates 

between disturbed and control groups. The study also found that there were no data to suggest that elk 

habituated to mining noises. Johnson and Wollrab (1987) found that elk distribution changed during gas 

exploration and field development through the abandonment of winter and calving habitat and changes in 

range. They discovered that although elk returned to disturbed sites, populations were lower (sometimes 

less than half), and the use of the habitat was unpredictable. 

When studying elk response to roads, Lyon and Ward (1982) found that elk (in a forested environment) 

moved from 0.24 to 1.8 miles, depending on the amount and type of traffic, road quality, and adjacent 

cover density. Generally, road avoidance has been reported to be greater in areas of open vegetation with 

less adjacent cover (Perry and Overly 1976; Lyon 1979), in shrub lands rather than in pine forests and 

juniper woodlands (Rost and Bailey 1979), and in areas with increased density of high-quality roads 

(Hershey and Leege 1976). 

A JMH Desert Elk Study was initiated in 1999 to better understand the effects of human disturbance on 

elk behavior and habitat use within the planning area. The findings of this study are outlined in Section 

3.1.6.1.3 and include the following: Elk typically avoided habitats offering little security cover; 

topography and screening cover by vegetation are important during daylight hours for providing security 

cover; habitat use patterns within the planning area are strongly influenced by roads, which cause habitat 

loss much greater than the actual road “footprint”; human disturbance leads to increased daily movements 

of disturbed elk and reduced elk use in traditional calving areas (Powell 2003). 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 4-55 
Chapter 4 Final EIS 

Significantly fewer studies have been conducted on the effects of human disturbance, particularly from 

roads and/or oil and gas development, on mule deer and pronghorn antelope. Because of this, possible 

effects on these species are not well understood. Rost and Bailey (1979) found that mule deer avoid roads 

by up to 200 meters (0.12 miles) and that road avoidance was greater where roads were more traveled and 

in shrub versus forested habitats. There are no known published studies on pronghorn antelopes’ 

reactions to roads; however, it has been documented that woven wire ROW fences along roads impede or 

block antelope movement, resulting in fragmentation of habitat (Deblinger 1988; Bruns 1977) and 

pronghorn deaths due to reduction or elimination of access to severe winter relief range. 

Hiatt and Baker (1981) examined the effects of a single well installation on winter distributions of elk and 

mule deer. They found that both species avoided the drilling site during drilling but did not avoid the 

access road. They also examined vegetation present at the well location and concluded that shifts in 

usage were not the result of differences in vegetation. Easterly et al. (1991) examined winter distribution 

of and habitat use by pronghorn and mule deer within a petroleum production complex and found that 

pronghorn used four of six oil fields in proportion to their availability and that mule deer used five of six 

oil fields in proportion with their availability. Two of the most active oil fields were used less than 

expected by pronghorn given their availability, and no mule deer were observed within one of the most 

active oil fields. Easterly et al. concluded that there was continued use of winter range by pronghorn and 

mule deer after construction of an oil and gas field. 

It is generally agreed that once disturbance reaches a certain threshold, impacts become significant. 

Further study and monitoring are needed to determine the threshold for the planning area. 

Habitat fragmentation occurs when a contiguous habitat is broken up (fragmented) by disturbing 

activities, causing a reduction in usable ranges and the isolation of smaller, less mobile species; a loss of 

genetic integrity within species or populations; and an increase in the abundance of habitat generalists that 

are characteristic of disturbed environments (i.e., competitors, predators, and parasites) (Harris 1998). 

The primary factor affecting wildlife species (especially big game) within the planning area is the 

reduction in usable habitat and the disruption of migration corridors that link crucial habitat (winter 

range) and parturition areas. This would occur particularly in areas with many access roads and surface 

disturbances. Transportation routes tend to fragment habitats and can act as barriers to some species, 

especially in severe winter conditions. This could also increase public access to areas that previously had 

been relatively inaccessible to vehicles during the winter and spring. This would become more important 

and would increase adverse effects on wildlife as demands for use of public lands increased. Migration 

routes could be altered or eliminated, changing some traditional use patterns on a local level. Seclusion 

areas for wildlife would become smaller and more dispersed in some areas. Increased oil and gas activity, 

especially in areas with reduced well spacing (40- and 80-acre spacing), would preclude use of some of 

these areas by wildlife species, especially deer and elk. Existing leases within the planning area might not 

provide the specific mitigation measures needed to protect important wildlife habitats. In specific cases in 

which stipulations would not be adequate to protect habitat, COAs for APDs could be applied. These 

would be based on site-specific analysis and would establish specific necessary mitigation measures not 

covered by stipulations for resource and environmental protection. BLM specialists would review 

sensitive resources with lease operators to develop and implement protection measures to allow for 

effective development operations where impacts could be avoided or mitigated. Depending on the 

economics of the industry at the time, it is possible that developers could claim an economic hardship and 

therefore not have to implement recommended mitigation measures. Greater sage-grouse populations 

have been declining over the last half of the century due to such factors as habitat degradation, 

fragmentation, and loss (see Chapter 3). As oil and gas development has increased in Wyoming, so has 

the concern over how this type of development might affect greater sage-grouse populations. Potential 

impacts of fluid mineral development on greater sage-grouse populations include direct habitat loss from 

well, road, pipeline, and transmission line construction; increased human activity and associated pumping 

4-56 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 4 

noise causing displacement; increased legal and illegal harvest; and direct mortality associated with 

evaporation ponds and increased exposure to predation (Braun 1986; TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 1997). 

A study of greater sage-grouse of the Pinedale Mesa near Pinedale, Wyoming, was conducted by Lyon in 

May 2002 to examine the effects of natural gas and oil development on the productivity, general 

movements, and habitat use of greater sage-grouse. The results of the study indicated that hens captured 

on disturbed leks demonstrated lower nest initiation rates; traveled twice as far to nest sites; and selected, 

for height, greater total shrub canopy cover and live sagebrush canopy cover than did hens captured from 

undisturbed leks. Lyons concluded that extreme early brood survival appears to be the limiting factor in 

greater sage-grouse population stability on the Pinedale Mesa and suggested that disturbances (i.e., noise 

and predation) associated with well drilling and road traffic during breeding might result in reduced nest 

initiation rates and could be causing lower brood survival. 

Other studies conducted on greater sage-grouse indicate that noise might be adversely affecting strutting 

and nesting grouse; however, the degree of impact is unknown at this time (LaGory et al. 2001; Dantzker 

et al. 1999). 

As documented in Chapter 3, greater sage-grouse nesting and wintering habitat requirements are quite 

specific. If this habitat were disturbed, it could require in excess of 20 years to restore affected habitat to 

predisturbance conditions. During this time, however, opportunities might exist to enhance remaining 

vegetation and habitat characteristics to provide more suitable habitat than currently exists. If that could 

not be accomplished, there would be a net loss of habitat function and adverse impacts on greater sagegrouse habitat during the planning period. 

The health of fisheries within the planning area is directly related to the overall health and functional 

capabilities of riparian resources, which in turn are a reflection of watershed health. Any activities that 

affected the ecological condition of the watershed and its vegetative cover would directly affect the 

aquatic environment. It is assumed that any substantial disturbance to the soils or changes in vegetative 

cover would have an adverse effect on watershed health and water quality and would therefore have an 

adverse effect on associated fisheries. The degree of impact attributed to any one disturbance or series of 

disturbances would be influenced by location within the watershed, time and degree of disturbance, 

existing vegetation, and precipitation. Surface disturbances result in accelerated erosion and runoff, 

increasing stream flow and sediment and nutrient loads to local channels. Sedimentation of a given 

channel can impact fisheries by reducing habitat complexity, which results in a lower diversity of prey 

organisms. Increased turbidity also results from increased sediment input, which decreases light 

penetration and inhibits visual predation by fish. Surface disturbance near streams that results in 

substantial removal of riparian vegetation can increase current velocity, which puts additional strain on 

fish and reduces nutrient cycling. In addition to increased sediment input, streambank disturbance can 

impact fisheries by creating bank instability, which can alter flow and destroy pool-riffle formations 

necessary for fish survival. Increased nutrient loading of streams can impact fisheries by increasing 

primary production above natural levels, which degrades habitat and decreases oxygen levels. Because 

any impact on natural water resources is also an impact on fisheries, impacts to fisheries can be inferred 

from Section 4.4.2, which discusses impacts on riparian areas and water quality. 

Oil and natural gas production could result in the use of pits to separate oil from produced water or to 

evaporate large volumes of water with high levels of total dissolved solids (TDS). Birds are attracted to 

these pits because they mistake them for natural bodies of water. The sticky oil then entraps the birds in 

the pits and they die from exposure and exhaustion. Birds that do manage to escape can die from 

starvation or experience impaired reproduction caused by the toxic effects of oil ingested during preening. 

Scavengers and predators can also suffer adverse effects from consuming oiled birds. Pits or ponds 

containing hypersaline water can pose a mortality threat to migratory birds through ingestion of toxic 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 4-57 
Chapter 4 Final EIS 

brine, susceptibility to avian botulism, and sodium crystallization on feathers, which destroys 

thermoregulatory and buoyancy functions. A study of bird mortality in oil pits in Wyoming conducted by 

Brent J. Esmoil for the University of Wyoming demonstrated that deterrents such as flagging, strobe 

lights, metal reflectors, and noisemakers were not effective at preventing bird mortalities in these pits. 

Esmoil did not find any mortality in pits completely covered by netting or by wire mesh sufficiently small 

enough to prevent songbirds from falling through the wire (USFWS 2003). It is BLM standard practice 

that pits containing harmful fluids be maintained in a manner that prevents migratory bird mortality, thus 

eliminating potential effects. 

There is a potential for additional strain on forage resources within portions of the planning area (southcentral) from concentrations of grazing animals. Heavy concentrations of grazing animals could result in 

overutilization of vegetation. However, monitoring and evaluation of habitat to comply with the 

Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands should provide information on vegetation resources before 

impacts became significant. 

The management of heritage sites would indirectly benefit wildlife through preservation of potential 

habitat and general habitat characteristics. Disturbance and removal of vegetation could occur through 

activities related to management of heritage resources; however, any impact would generally be limited to 

relatively small areas. Even under the most intense management (i.e., excavation), the amount of habitat 

disturbed would be very small, but this still could have significant impacts on small animals (e.g., pygmy 

rabbits, a BLM sensitive species) occupying those areas. 

Watershed management would provide benefits to wildlife by maintaining or restoring habitat conditions 

through the establishment of DPC objectives, placement of buffer zones around riparian areas, and 

restrictions on surface disturbance within riparian areas and floodplains. Actions that would maintain or 

improve watershed conditions would generally benefit the ecological condition of wildlife habitat. 

The management protections afforded to special management areas would generally result in beneficial 

impacts on wildlife. Protections aimed at conserving vegetation, and limitations on surface disturbing 

activities, would benefit wildlife by enhancing overall habitat conditions. 

4.4.6.2 No Action Alternative 

Prescribed fire as a vegetation treatment in the planning area could benefit many wildlife habitats because 

it aids in regeneration of some tree and shrub species and allows for additional wildlife forage. Adverse 

effects of prescribed fire on wildlife habitat include forage overutilization by big game species after 

treatment of aspen stands. Conversions of shrubs to grassland using prescribed fire also would result in a 

direct loss of cover and food for many species (such as small mammals, greater sage-grouse, and big 

game). The effects of loss of cover could be long-term, particularly since sagebrush can take more than 

20 years to reach the appropriate canopy cover height and spacing needed for some sagebrush-dependent 

species. Greater sage-grouse are particularly susceptible to loss of cover from fire activities because of 

the relationship between their breeding, brood-rearing, and wintering habitat and sagebrush. Significant 

long-term adverse impacts on greater sage-grouse habitat could occur if large acreages were burned. No 

prescribed fires would be allowed within the basin big sagebrush/lemon scurfpea vegetation association 

under this alternative; therefore, effects on wildlife dependent on this association would not occur. 

Watershed management would provide benefits to wildlife by maintaining or restoring habitat conditions 

through the establishment of DPC objectives, placement of buffer zones around riparian areas, and 

restrictions on surface disturbance within riparian areas and floodplains. Actions that would maintain or 

improve watershed conditions would generally benefit the ecological condition of wildlife habitat. 

4-58 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 4 

Wild horses currently occur in the planning area outside the identified HMAs, which will continue despite 

gathering efforts. This compounds problems associated with limited water sources and big game crucial 

habitat (winter range). Wild horses concentrate in the core area during the summer months and compete 

with big game for available forage during winter months (November through March). With livestock 

competition for available water and forage added to wild horse competition, adverse impacts on big game 

would be expected. All water developments within sensitive wildlife habitats would be in conformance 

with wildlife objectives. Adverse impacts in the planning area due to wild horses would also be minimal 

provided that the numbers of horses were kept at plan objective levels and that the herd was maintained 

within the HMA. 

The effects of livestock grazing on wildlife would be minimal because actions undertaken to improve 

rangeland and riparian habitat (livestock water developments, exclosures, fencing, and conversions) must 

meet the Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands (Appendix 10). Forage utilization levels would be 

evaluated on a case-by-case basis and would consider habitat conditions and forage for livestock, 

wildlife, and wild horses. Water developments could benefit wildlife by providing additional sources of 

water but could also adversely impact wildlife habitat, particularly in sensitive habitats, through possible 

reductions in forage and cover due to increased distribution of animals. However, implementation of the 

Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands would ensure that impacts were not significant. Adverse 

impacts of fences on wildlife within the planning area would be minimal because of requirements that 

they be located so as not to impede wildlife movement and that they be removed, modified, or 

reconstructed where documented conflicts with wildlife occurred. Future livestock conversions (sheep to 

cattle or vice versa) would be carefully analyzed. Sustainability reviews would be required before 

conversions, which would benefit range. 

It is estimated that 23 livestock pits, ponds, and water wells might be created or rebuilt in the planning 

area. Each one of these water developments would be assumed to cause a depletion to the Colorado and 

Platte River systems. Water depletions are important because the water from portions of the planning 

area is part of the habitat for endangered fish, wildlife, and/or plant species downstream from the project 

area in the Colorado and Platte River systems. It is assumed for analysis purposes that all water used for 

livestock pits, ponds, and water wells within the Green River and Sweetwater River Basins would have 

contributed to the surface flows of the Colorado or Platte Rivers or their tributaries. In addition, of the 23 

water developments to be constructed, 19 would be in the Green River Basin (Colorado River) and 4 

would be in the Sweetwater River Basin (Platte River). Using 5 acre-feet per water development over the 

20-year planning period, average annual depletions anticipated by these actions would not exceed 4.75 

acre-feet for the Colorado River system and 1 acre-foot for the Platte River system after all developments 

were installed. 

Protection of special status plant species would benefit wildlife habitat through restrictions on surface 

disturbing and disruptive activities. Reduction of invasive species, achieved by requiring provisions to 

reduce and control such species, would also benefit wildlife by maintaining the quality of habitat. 

OHV use is expected to increase because of improvements in the facilities near the Greater Sand Dunes 

Recreation Area, increased interest in the planning area, and increased access due to development 

activities. Estimated recreation activity is discussed in detail in Section 4.7. The majority of OHV use 

would occur within the Greater Sand Dunes Recreation Area; however, activity is also expected 

throughout the planning area. No significant impacts on wildlife (specifically, elk, mule deer, antelope, 

greater sage-grouse, and raptors) are expected from OHV use because of the ability to place seasonal 

restrictions on OHV users (Map 9) at crucial times in sensitive habitats; seasonal closure of Steamboat 

Mountain; limitation of access to designated roads and trails in the Steamboat Mountain ACEC; and the 

fact that the majority of OHV use in the planning area would occur in the summer and fall (June through 

October), a time when wildlife would be the least sensitive to human disturbance. However, OHVs 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 4-59 
Chapter 4 Final EIS 

would have localized adverse impacts on wildlife through disturbance caused by human presence, a small 

amount of surface disturbance, and noise. Additional areas of seasonal restrictions could be implemented 

as needed to reduce adverse impacts. Geophysical exploration activities could have similar effects. 

However, effects would be reduced by implementing seasonal restrictions and by conforming to OHV 

designations. 

Recreation activities (camping, hiking/biking, recreational mining) in the planning area would be 

expected to increase steadily throughout the planning period. Impacts on wildlife from recreation 

activities would have localized adverse impacts on wildlife through disturbance caused by human 

presence, and a small amount of surface disturbance. It is unknown whether these impacts would be short 

or long term. 

Hunting activity in the planning area has been shown to have short-term adverse effects on big game, and 

most likely all wildlife, in the planning area because of an increase in human activities and disturbance 

(Powell 2003). Hunting is expected to remain constant under this alternative; therefore, the level of shortterm disturbance from increased human activity would remain the same. 

Wildlife could experience adverse impacts from development in the form of surface disturbance. Greater 

sage-grouse leks, wetlands, riparian areas, and floodplains are within the controlled surface use category; 

this limits most surface disturbing activities within one-quarter mile of a lek and within 500 feet of 

wetlands, riparian areas, or floodplains (Map 7). Raptor nesting sites are within the NSO category, which 

limits all surface disturbance to that site and limits permanent or high-profile structures within a specified 

distance. Seasonal limitations for reduction of disturbance are applied within one-half mile to 1 mile of 

the nesting site, depending on the species of raptor. Such limitations are also applied within greater sagegrouse winter concentration areas, within 2 miles of greater sage-grouse leks, and within big game crucial 

habitat and parturition areas. These restrictions would reduce adverse impacts on these species during 

important times of their life cycle; however, they would not prevent further habitat destruction from 

occurring, which might result in the selection of suboptimal habitats. It is assumed that greater sagegrouse populations would continue to decline under this alternative because the management of their 

habitat would be insufficient for recovery or stabilization of populations in the planning area. It is 

unknown whether the continued population decline of greater sage-grouse in the JMH CAP planning area 

would lead to a need to list the species and, therefore, result in a significant impact. ROWs (such as 

pipelines and power lines) could adversely affect wildlife habitat because of the disturbance of associated 

roads, increased access, and associated displacement caused by human presence. Many of these 

alterations of habitat favor predators, thereby increasing predation of species such as the greater sagegrouse. Although companies might not need to travel pipeline routes, removal or crushing of vegetation 

would allow increased access for recreationists, causing further intrusion into wildlife habitat and 

increased disturbance. Currently, numerous two-track-type roads access almost all parts of the planning 

area, although they are used primarily seasonally during hunting (Powell 2003). Aboveground pipelines 

would have less adverse impact on crucial wildlife habitats (big sagebrush, mountain shrubs, woodland 

habitats, stabilized sand dunes); however, they would pose a threat to public safety, primarily to OHV 

users. ROW impacts on greater sage-grouse leks and other sensitive wildlife habitat in the South Pass, 

Greater Sand Dunes, and Steamboat Mountain ACECs would be reduced because of these areas’ 

designation as avoidance areas (Map 8). All other wildlife habitats would be subject to ROW designation 

and associated impacts. Adequate mitigation (barriers, culverts, revegetation, etc.) would be implemented 

to reduce impacts. 

Communication sites and related access, when located in sensitive habitat, would have significant impacts 

on species occupying those habitats. Access to these sites occurs year-round. Year-round access could 

result in plowing of roads that would displace wintering wildlife, which would add to the stress caused by 

winter conditions and would disrupt parturition and nesting. Plowing of these roads would also allow 

4-60 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 4 

more recreational traffic to use these areas during times when they previously would not have been 

accessible. The Steamboat Mountain ACEC would be closed to communication sites, which would 

minimize adverse impacts on sensitive habitats in that area. 

New road development increases use by recreationists and other public land users, increasing the amount 

of human presence and the potential for harassment and illegal taking of wildlife in the area. Very limited 

activity currently occurs in the area from November to June because of the lack of access and lack of 

snow removal. Closing roads during crucial winter periods would help limit disturbance to wildlife and 

retain a limited level of activity. 

Closing the core area to leasing of fluid minerals would protect approximately half of the most sensitive 

habitat of wildlife species, particularly big game (elk and mule deer), that inhabit the planning area (Map 

51). The other half of the core area consists of existing leases that would be reinstated, allowing fluid 

mineral leaseholders to drill (see Common to All Alternatives section above for existing lease discussion). 

Leases outside the core area would also be reinstated, and new leases would be offered in the remainder 

of the planning area subject to stipulations such as surface disturbance limitations, timing and access 

restrictions, protection of special resources, and NSO designations. 

Approximately 221 oil and gas wells (exploration, discovery, production) would be drilled over the 

planning period: 19 wells per year for the first 4 years, with drilling steadily decreasing through the rest of 

the planning period to 8 wells per year as producing wells played out. All drilling could occur throughout 

the planning area, except in nonleased portions of the core area and WSAs; however, it is likely that 

drilling would occur mostly on existing leases for the first few years of development. The phase of fluid 

mineral activity most disturbing to wildlife is drilling because of the large amount of human disturbance 

from the creation of access roads, surface disturbance from the well pads (approximately 3 acres), noise 

from the rig during drilling, and overall human presence. This phase of activity lasts approximately 1 to 4 

months per well depending on the depth of the well. All wells not put into production would be 

reclaimed through implementation of a reclamation plan. Production wells that played out after an 

estimated 30 years would also be reclaimed. However, full restoration of some habitats would not occur 

for more than 20 years (as described in Section 4.4.6.1). 

Big game would experience adverse effects from fluid mineral development, resulting in possible 

avoidance (up to 1.25 miles) of areas disturbed by drilling, including roads. Possible disruption of 

migratory corridors could also occur. The level of adverse effects, however, would depend on where the 

activity occurred within the planning area. Existing leases within the planning area are spread throughout 

the majority of the area. If development of 19 wells per year for the first 4 years of development were 

dispersed throughout the planning area, adverse effects on big game could be minimal if suitable, 

sufficiently large alternative habitats existed. If development were concentrated within the high 

development potential area, which includes the core area, adverse effects on big game would be 

significant because any loss of function or value of habitats considered as vital and high by the WGFD is 

considered a significant impact. Concentrated development in this area would reduce available habitat 

and would likely disrupt migratory corridors. As development declined throughout the planning period 

after the first 4 years, adverse effects on big game would slowly be reduced and gradual replacement of 

habitat from restoration activities would occur. 

Mountain plover and greater sage-grouse could also experience adverse impacts from fluid mineral 

development because of the creation of perches for raptors that prey on each species. Minimization 

measures for these impacts could include adding pointed conical covers on smoke stacks and plugged 

well markers; burying power lines; using the lowest possible structures for fences, condensate storage, 

and other elevated structures; and incorporating perch inhibitors into these structures’ design. 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 4-61 
Chapter 4 Final EIS 

It is estimated that two coalbed gas exploration projects, with a total of 50 wells, would be drilled within 

the planning area (but outside of the core area) during the planning period. Impacts on wildlife, 

particularly on big game, are expected to be similar to those for oil and gas wells. Because coalbed gas 

wells are drilled in a “pod” formation for dewatering purposes, with approximately 25 wells per pod, 

impacts are expected to be significant (depending on the location of the development and the wildlife 

species and/or habitats occurring in the area) and localized but might not affect as much acreage as 

traditional oil and gas well development. 

Drilling and completion activities for oil, gas, and coalbed gas wells would use local water sources and 

would therefore deplete water in portions of the planning area that are part of the habitat for threatened 

and endangered species downstream from the project area in the Colorado River and Platte River systems. 

It is assumed for analysis purposes that all water used for drilling and completion of wells within the 

Green River and Sweetwater River Basins would have contributed to the surface flows of the Colorado or 

the Platte River or their tributaries. In addition, of the 221 oil and gas wells to be drilled, 95 percent 

would be in the Green River Basin (Colorado River), and 5 percent in the Sweetwater River Basin (Platte 

River). All coalbed gas wells (50) would be in the Green River Basin. 

Using 1.5 acre-feet of water per well, depletions from these actions would total approximately 390 acrefeet in the Colorado River system and 16.5 acre-feet in the Platte River system. Based on a 20-year time 

span, the average annual depletion for the two systems would be 19.5 acre-feet and 0.83 acre-feet, 

respectively. The depletion of water from the Colorado and Platte River systems and its effect on 

threatened and endangered species downstream are described in the Biological Assessment (Appendix 3) 

for this document. 

Locatable mineral activity on existing active claims in and around northern parturition areas has the 

potential to decrease the usability of these areas for calving and fawning. This particularly applies to 

activities that might occur in or near aspen stands associated with deer and elk parturition areas, although 

some of the aspen stands would be withdrawn as part of the South Pass Summit. These areas are also 

important to a variety of birds and other wildlife and are rare habitat types in the planning area. Although 

current exploration activities are seasonal, with little or no activity during the winter, mining activities 

could continue at the current rate, or even increase during the fawning and calving periods, causing 

displacement of animals. There is limited information available on the likelihood of other locatable 

mineral development (such as commercial diamond or gold mining) in the planning area. If exploration 

activities found there was potential for this development, a plan of operation would have to be filed that 

specified how mining would be conducted without permanently impacting other resources. Reclamation 

plans would also have to be developed, and bonds posted to ensure that mined lands were reclaimed. 

The planning area would be open for consideration of mineral material sales except in raptor nesting sites, 

South Pass Summit, WSAs, the Greater Sand Dunes ACEC, and the Steamboat Mountain ACEC (Map 

12). Closing these areas to mineral material sales would benefit a portion of wildlife habitat; however, a 

large portion of crucial habitat (winter range) and parturition areas for big game are outside these areas. 

These provisions also would not protect greater sage-grouse nesting habitat. This activity is therefore 

likely to cause localized adverse impacts on wildlife through the disturbance of habitat. Reclamation 

would occur, but full restoration of some habitats would not occur for more than 20 years (Section 

4.4.6.1). 

Coal and sodium exploration would be allowed within the planning area on a case-by-case basis (with 

mitigation for protection of sensitive resources) except in wetlands, riparian areas, floodplains, raptor 

nesting sites, the Steamboat Mountain ACEC, and within one-quarter mile of greater sage-grouse leks 

(Map 11). Effects of this exploration on wildlife habitat are expected to be minimal because of the small 

amount of surface disturbance associated with exploration and because of the mitigation included in 

4-62 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 4 

proposals, which could include seasonal limitations, restricted access to existing roads and trails, and full 

reclamation. 

Only federal coal lands within the Coal and Sodium Occurrence and Development Potential Area would 

be open to consideration of leasing (Map 6). Overall, this would reduce adverse effects on wildlife 

habitat from coal leasing. In addition, a portion of the Greater Sand Dunes ACEC would be closed to 

leasing within this area. Raptor nesting sites (with a one-half- to 1-mile buffer) and the Steamboat 

Mountain ACEC would be open to coal leasing with subsurface mining and controls on surface facilities, 

further minimizing adverse impacts on wildlife. Additional measures would be implemented for 

maintenance of adequate big game habitat. Overall, coal leasing is expected to have negligible impacts 

on wildlife because the projected demand for developing this resource in the planning area is minimal. 

The federally listed black-footed ferret may occur within the planning area and could be affected by 

management actions, but would likely not be adversely affected. The species could be affected because 

of the amount of surface disturbance and human activity associated with management of the planning 

area. However, no adverse effects are expected to occur, because of required surveys for these species 

before any surface disturbance activities and subsequent protection measures developed by BLM in 

conjunction with FWS should a ferret be found. There are no expected effects on the bald eagle, gray 

wolf, grizzly bear, or the western population of the yellow-billed cuckoo from management of the 

planning area, because of a lack of suitable habitat or their occurrence as a casual migrant. 

Potential effects on the Wyoming BLM sensitive species mountain plover and greater sage-grouse are 

discussed above. It is unknown whether adverse impacts on other Wyoming BLM sensitive species 

would occur because of a lack of information on habitat locations and requirements within the planning 

area. Searches for these species would be required in any potential habitats for the species before 

approval of any project or activity in those areas. If any of these species were found, mitigation measures 

would be species-specific and determined on a case-by-case basis. 

4.4.6.3 Alternative 1 

Effects of prescribed fire (vegetation treatment) would be the same as those under the No Action 

Alternative, except that use would be decided on a case-by-case basis, which could cause greater or lesser 

effects than those described for the No Action Alternative. Impacts of wild horses on wildlife habitat 

would be the same as those under the No Action Alternative. 

Effects of watershed management actions would be the same as those under the No Action Alternative, 

except that these beneficial impacts would be greatly reduced under this alternative because there would 

be fewer restrictions on surface disturbing activities and smaller buffer zones around riparian areas and 

floodplains. 

The anticipated use of livestock AUMs would increase over the planning period to the full permitted 

active use amount, which is approximately double the historic use. This would increase grazing pressure 

on forage resources, potentially having an adverse impact if the long-term productivity of the range were 

compromised. This additional impact would be realized only on allotments that were not currently close 

to fully utilizing their permitted AUMs. Other impacts of livestock grazing on wildlife habitat under this 

alternative would be similar to those under the No Action Alternative, except that fences would only be 

modified or reconstructed (not removed) where documented wildlife conflicts with fencing occurred. 

Existing exclosures could be removed and made available for livestock grazing. New exclosures would 

not be considered unless they benefited commodity uses. This has the potential to adversely affect 

wildlife through potential loss of habitat from overgrazing of particular areas. Effects on the habitat of 

endangered fish, wildlife, and/or plant species in the Colorado and Platte River systems from water 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 4-63 
Chapter 4 Final EIS 

depletions resulting from construction of livestock water developments would be the same as those under 

the No Action Alternative. 

Designating special status plant species communities (primarily Wyoming BLM sensitive species) as 

avoidance areas rather than exclusion areas could reduce the benefit of protection of wildlife habitat 

described under the No Action Alternative. The effects of reduction of invasive species on wildlife 

habitat would be the same as under those the No Action Alternative. 

OHV use is expected to increase because of increased interest in the planning area and increased access 

due to development activities; however, use would be slightly less than under the No Action Alternative 

(Section 4.7, Recreation Resources). The majority of OHV use would occur within the Greater Sand 

Dunes Recreation Area; however, activity is also expected throughout the planning area. Although OHV 

use is expected to be less than under the No Action Alternative, adverse effects on wildlife habitat are 

expected to be greater because of a lack of seasonal restrictions on the majority of habitats (big game, 

greater sage-grouse winter range). Although raptors still would have seasonal restrictions associated with 

nesting sites, the seasonal buffer around the site would be reduced to one-quarter mile instead of the onehalf to 1 mile discussed in the No Action Alternative. Mountain plover would be afforded increased 

protection under this alternative compared with the No Action Alternative because of seasonal limitations 

on mountain plover aggregation areas. Greater sage-grouse seasonal protection would be reduced to 

potential nesting habitat within 1 mile of leks, increasing possible disturbance to nesting activities from 

OHV use. 

Hunting activity is expected to be greater than under the No Action Alternative over the planning period 

because of increased development and resulting animal dispersion. Adverse effects on wildlife would be 

short term, as described in the No Action Alternative. 

The overall adverse effects of surface disturbing activities on wildlife habitat would be much greater than 

under the No Action Alternative because of a lack of seasonal restrictions on sensitive wildlife habitat 

except for greater sage-grouse nesting habitat buffers (1 mile), raptor nest sites buffers (one-quarter mile), 

and mountain plover aggregation areas (Map 16). Depending on the location and timing of activities, it is 

likely that lack of seasonal restrictions on big game habitat would cause long-term displacement from 

crucial habitat and parturition areas, resulting in a potentially significant effect. It is assumed that greater 

sage-grouse populations would continue to decline under this alternative because the management of their 

habitat would be insufficient for recovery or stabilization of populations in the planning area. Because 

the greater sage-grouse is a BLM sensitive species, any loss of habitat function or value constitutes a 

significant impact. Also, the birds are classified by the WGFD as “vital,” and any increased mortality or 

decreased survival would be considered a significant impact. This alternative would result in significant 

impacts on the birds. 

Effects of ROWs on wildlife habitat would be greater under this alternative than under the No Action 

Alternative because of the removal of Steamboat Mountain ACEC as a ROW avoidance area (Map 18). 

The only protection given to wildlife from ROWs would be the designation of greater sage-grouse leks 

with one-quarter-mile buffers as ROW avoidance areas. All other wildlife habitat would be open to 

ROWs. A lack of transportation planning under this alternative would also increase adverse effects on 

wildlife habitat, particularly big game, because of lack of control over access at all times of the year. This 

would result in significant impacts on greater sage-grouse, elk, and mule deer. 

Geophysical exploration and detonation, and coal and sodium exploration activities (Map 21), under this 

alternative could have significant adverse effects on wildlife habitat, except in WSAs, because of a lack of 

seasonal restrictions protecting big game crucial habitat (winter range) and parturition areas. Powell’s 

study showed very limited use of the WSAs by elk except as hiding cover during the hunting season. 

4-64 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 4 

Effects could include displacement due to the noise associated with disruptive activities, surface 

disturbance, possible abandonment of habitat during parturition periods, and additional stress on big game 

populations during winter periods. 

Effects of communication sites would be the same as those described under the No Action Alternative; 

however, the Steamboat Mountain ACEC would be open to consideration for communication sites, which 

would increase adverse effects on wildlife habitat. Such activity could cause elk and mule deer to 

abandon the majority of their crucial winter range and parturition habitat, therefore resulting in significant 

impacts. 

The entire planning area, except WSAs, would be open to fluid mineral leasing (Map 20). The 

Hydrocarbon Occurrence and Development Potential Report (Appendix 13) assumes that a total of 264 oil 

and gas wells would be drilled over the planning period: 21 wells per year for the first 4 years, with 

drilling steadily decreasing thereafter to 10 wells per year as producing wells played out. Depending on 

the timing and location of oil and gas development, this expected level of development would have 

significant impacts on wildlife. Effects under this alternative would be significant because of lack of 

protection from leasing in the core area and lack of stipulations on new leases that would protect big game 

and other sensitive wildlife through minimal seasonal limitations. 

Mountain plover and greater sage-grouse are expected to experience adverse impacts from fluid mineral 

development because of the creation of perches for raptors that prey on these species. Mitigation of this 

effect would include the following measures: constructing pointed conical covers on smoke stacks and 

plugged well markers; burying power lines or including perch-inhibitors in their design; using the lowest 

possible structures for fences, condensate storage, and other elevated structures; and incorporating perch 

inhibitors into such structures’ design. 

Effects of coalbed gas and locatable mineral development on wildlife habitat would be the same as those 

described under the No Action Alternative, except that the Greater Sand Dunes ACEC would not be 

withdrawn from mineral location under this alternative. 

Assuming a total of 264 oil and gas wells, with the remaining assumptions being the same as those for the 

No Action Alternative, water depletions from oil, gas, and coalbed gas wells under this alternative would 

total approximately 451.5 acre-feet in the Colorado River system and 19.5 acre-feet in the Platte River 

system. Based on a 20-year time span, the average annual depletion for the Colorado River system and 

the Platte River system would be 22.5 acre-feet and 0.98 acre-feet, respectively. The depletion of water 

from the Colorado and Platte River systems and its effect on threatened and endangered species 

downstream is described in the Biological Assessment (Appendix 3) for this document. 

Effects of mineral material sales on wildlife habitat under this alternative would be greater than those 

under the No Action Alternative because of increased demand from activities and decreased restrictions. 

Greater sage-grouse winter range and nesting habitat, mountain plover aggregation areas, and large 

portions of big game crucial winter range and parturition areas would be subject to mineral material sales; 

therefore, adverse impacts on these habitats are expected, even with implementation of reclamation 

practices, because of the sensitivity of these habitats. 

Effects on wildlife habitat from federal coal lands within the Coal and Sodium Occurrence and 

Development Potential Area would be greater than those under the No Action Alternative because of a 

lack of protection for wetlands, riparian areas (considered “vital” and “high” by WGFD), and floodplains, 

and the removal of the ACEC designation from Steamboat Mountain. This would result in a significant 

impact. 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 4-65 
Chapter 4 Final EIS 

Impacts on federally listed and candidate species would be the same as those described under the No 

Action Alternative. Impacts on Wyoming BLM sensitive species would be greater than under the No 

Action Alternative because of a lack of nondiscretionary protection measures specific to these species. 

This would result in a significant impact. 

Of the five alternatives, this alternative would likely have the greatest adverse impacts on wildlife. Many 

of these impacts would be significant. 

4.4.6.4 Alternative 2 

Impacts on wildlife habitat from the management of special status plant species and hunting activities 

would be the same as those under the No Action Alternative. Impacts on Wyoming BLM sensitive 

species would also be the same as those under the No Action Alternative; however, additional protection 

would be provided for mountain plover aggregation areas, with one-quarter-mile buffers, and for greater 

sage-grouse winter range, through their designation as NSO areas. 

Prescribed fire (vegetation treatment) would have less adverse impact on wildlife cover under this 

alternative than under the No Action Alternative because prescribed burns would not be considered. 

Benefits to wildlife forage, other than treatment of noxious weeds, from prescribed fire would not occur 

under this alternative. Effects of wildfire on the basin big sagebrush/lemon scurfpea association would be 

greater than under the No Action Alternative because of limited fire suppression activities, possibly 

resulting in adverse effects on big game because of this association’s role as a crucial habitat and 

parturition area. 

The effects of watershed management actions would be the same as those under the No Action 

Alternative, although these beneficial impacts would be greater under this alternative because of increased 

restrictions on surface disturbing activities and larger buffer zones around riparian areas and floodplains. 

This alternative would reestablish the boundaries of the Divide Basin Wild Horse HMA to exclude the 

JMH CAP planning area. A gathering plan would be developed and implemented to remove wild horses 

from the planning area and to maintain the AML within the reestablished boundaries of the HMA outside 

the planning area. Until reestablishment of the HMA boundaries and gathering of excess wild horses, 

impacts on wildlife habitat would be similar to those under the No Action Alternative. Constructing a 

fence to exclude wild horses from the planning area could affect migrating wildlife because of habitat 

fragmentation; however, adhering to BLM design standards for fence construction should minimize this 

effect. Removal of wild horses from the planning area would also increase forage and water sources for 

wildlife because of less competition among wild horses, livestock, and wildlife. 

Although livestock operators could increase AUM use to the fully permitted amount, anticipated use of 

AUMs would be similar to historic levels. Effects of livestock grazing on wildlife habitat under this 

alternative would be similar to those under the No Action Alternative, except that exclosures and water 

developments would be allowed in sensitive wildlife habitat only if they preserved sensitive resources or 

improved habitat and resource conditions. 

It is estimated that 11 livestock pits, ponds, and water wells might be created or rebuilt in the planning 

area under this alternative. Of these 11 water developments, 9 would be in the Green River Basin 

(Colorado River) and 2 would be in the Sweetwater River Basin (Platte River). Using 5 acre-feet per 

water development over the 20-year planning period, the average annual depletions anticipated to result 

from these actions would not exceed 2.3 acre-feet for the Colorado River system and 0.5 acre-feet for the 

Platte River system after all the developments were installed. 

4-66 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 4 

OHV use is expected to decrease under this alternative because of access limitations and lack of 

improvements in facilities near the Greater Sand Dunes Recreation Area. Estimated levels of recreation 

are discussed in detail in Section 4.7, Recreation Resources. The majority of OHV use would occur 

within the Greater Sand Dunes Recreation Area; however, some activity would also be expected 

throughout the planning area. Adverse impacts on wildlife habitat would be significantly less than under 

the No Action alternative because of the combination of a reduction in use and, most important, closure of 

sensitive wildlife habitats to OHV use. Seasonal limitations on OHV use in big game crucial habitat and 

limiting use in the remainder of the planning area to designated roads and trails would also contribute to 

the reduction of adverse impacts on wildlife habitat under this alternative. 

Hunting activity is expected to be greater than under the No Action Alternative over the planning period 

because of decreased development and therefore limited access to the planning area. Adverse effects on 

wildlife would be short term as described under the No Action Alternative. 

Overall adverse impacts of surface disturbance on wildlife habitat would be greatly reduced compared 

with the No Action Alternative because of designations that controlled, excluded, or seasonally limited 

surface disturbance in sensitive wildlife habitats (Map 28). Steamboat Mountain crucial overlap, 

wetlands, riparian areas, and floodplains and the Steamboat Mountain ACEC would be designated areas 

with controlled surface use under this alternative. Greater sage-grouse nesting concentration areas, 

greater sage-grouse winter range, elk and mule deer parturition areas, mountain plover aggregation areas 

(with a one-quarter-mile buffer), the Greater Sand Dunes ACEC, and raptor nesting sites (with a one-halfto 1-mile buffer) would be designated NSO areas under this alternative. Big game crucial habitat (winter 

range) would be seasonally limited. Adverse effects of ROWs on wildlife habitat under this alternative 

would be less than under the No Action Alternative because of designation of sensitive wildlife habitats 

as either ROW avoidance or exclusion areas (Map 27). Designation of these areas would provide 

adequate protection of wildlife habitat from ROWs so that only minimal adverse impacts from adjacent 

disturbances or areas that could not be avoided would occur. 

Development of a transportation plan specific to the planning area would further reduce adverse impacts 

on wildlife habitat from ROWs, roads, OHV use, and general access. This plan would provide for 

appropriate access routes that enabled maximum protection of crucial habitats and sensitive resources. 

Adverse effects on wildlife habitat from geophysical activities would be minimal because of provisions 

that exclude exploration in areas with NSO requirements, WSAs, ACECs, and other sensitive resource 

areas. Seasonal limitations would also apply, further reducing the impact on wildlife habitat. 

Adverse effects on wildlife habitat from communication sites would be slightly less than under the No 

Action Alternative because sites would not be allowed within ACECs. 

The majority of the planning area would be closed to new fluid mineral leasing because of closures of 

sensitive resource areas, which include all sensitive wildlife habitats (Map 31). Existing leases within the 

planning area would still be valid; however, purchase or exchange of those leases would be pursued with 

willing leaseholders. Approximately 163 oil and gas wells would be drilled over the planning period: 16 

wells in the first 4 years with drilling steadily decreasing thereafter to 5 wells per year as producing wells 

played out. Adverse effects on wildlife habitat from fluid mineral development are expected to be much 

less than those under the No Action Alternative because of a reduction in the number of wells assumed 

for the planning period, closure of sensitive wildlife areas, and the purchase or exchange of existing 

leases. Because of uncertainty surrounding the number of leaseholders who would participate in the 

purchase or exchange of their leases, and the amount of funds available to BLM for this activity, it is 

unknown whether adverse impacts on wildlife habitat would occur and how great these impacts would be. 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 4-67 
Chapter 4 Final EIS 

The effects of coalbed gas development would be approximately half of those described under the No 

Action Alternative because approximately half the number of wells would be drilled. 

Assuming a total of 163 oil and gas wells and 25 coalbed gas wells, water depletions from oil, gas, and 

coalbed gas wells would total approximately 270 acre-feet from the Colorado River system and 12 acrefeet from the Platte River system. Based on a 20-year time span, the average annual depletion for the 

Colorado River and the Platte River systems would be 13.5 acre-feet and 0.6 acre-feet, respectively. 

Depletion of water from the Colorado and Platte River systems and its effect on threatened and 

endangered species downstream are described in the Biological Assessment (Appendix 3) for this 

document. 

There would be no adverse effects from locatable mineral development, mineral material sales, coal 

leasing, or coal and sodium exploration because the entire planning area would be withdrawn from or 

closed to these activities (Maps 32–35). 

Management actions associated with the addition of the paleosol deposition area to the Greater Sand 

Dunes ACEC and the addition of the area of highest concentration and overlap of big game habitat 

features, natural systems, and cultural values to the Steamboat Mountain ACEC would benefit wildlife 

habitat through further restrictions on activities within these sensitive areas. Management actions 

associated with designating special status plant species habitat, the cushion plant community, and the 

Pinnacles Geologic Feature as ACECs would also benefit wildlife habitat as described above. 

Impacts on federally listed and candidate species would be the same as those described under the No 

Action Alternative. 

This alternative would most likely have the least amount of adverse impacts on wildlife. 

4.4.6.5 Alternative 3 

Effects of prescribed fire (vegetation treatment) under this alternative would be similar to those under the 

No Action Alternative, except that treatments in aspen communities (big game parturition habitat) would 

be fenced on a case-by-case basis to reduce excess foraging by big game and livestock after prescribed 

burns, further protecting this habitat for future use by wildlife. 

The effects of watershed management actions would be the same as those under the No Action 

Alternative, except that these beneficial impacts would be greatest under this alternative because of 

increased restrictions on surface disturbing activities and larger buffer zones around riparian areas and 

floodplains. 

Because of the expansion of the Divide Basin Wild Horse HMA to include the entire planning area, 

adverse effects of wild horses on wildlife habitat are expected to be slightly less than those under the No 

Action Alternative because of an increase in forage area and water sources. Impacts would be only 

slightly less because a maximum of 100 horses of the 415–600 AML would be allowed in the expanded 

area. 

Although livestock operators could increase AUM use to the fully permitted amount, anticipated use of 

AUMs would be similar to historic levels. Effects of livestock grazing on wildlife habitat under this 

alternative would be the same as that under the No Action Alternative, except that water developments 

would be allowed in sensitive wildlife habitat only if they maintained or improved habitat and resource 

conditions. 

4-68 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 4 

Effects on the habitat of endangered fish, wildlife, and/or plant species in the Colorado and Platte River 

systems from water depletions caused by construction of livestock water developments would be the same 

as those under the No Action Alternative. 

Impacts on wildlife habitat from the management of special status plant species would be the same as 

those under the No Action Alternative. Impacts on Wyoming BLM sensitive species would be the same 

as those under the No Action Alternative, except that additional area (greater sage-grouse winter range) 

would be seasonally limited, greater sage-grouse nesting habitat within 2 miles of the lek would be under 

seasonal limitations, and mountain plover aggregation areas (with a one-quarter-mile buffer) would be 

avoidance areas for surface disturbance activities. 

OHV use is expected to remain constant because the facilities near the Greater Sand Dunes Recreation 

Area would not be improved and access limitations would remain in place. Estimated levels of recreation 

activity are discussed in detail in Section 4.7, Recreation Resources. The majority of OHV use would 

occur within the Greater Sand Dunes Recreation Area; however, activity is also expected throughout the 

planning area. Adverse impacts on wildlife habitat would be less than under the No Action Alternative 

because of the combination of a reduction in use and restrictions on wildlife habitat such as closure of 

raptor nesting sites (with one-half- to 1-mile buffers) and greater sage-grouse leks (with one-half-mile 

buffers). Seasonal limitations would remain the same as under the No Action Alternative, except that 

raptor nesting sites would be closed and mountain plover aggregation areas (with one-quarter-mile 

buffers) would be added. 

Hunting activity in the planning area would be the same as under the No Action Alternative. 

Recreation activities other than OHV use (camping, hiking/biking, recreational mining) would be 

expected to increase steadily throughout the planning period; however, camping would be allowed only in 

designated areas, and recreational mining would occur only on a 5-acre site, reducing the impacts from 

these activities compared with the No Action Alternative. 

Adverse effects of surface disturbance on wildlife habitat would be reduced compared with the No Action 

Alternative because of designations that controlled, excluded, or seasonally limited surface disturbance on 

sensitive wildlife habitats (Map 39). Wetlands, riparian areas, and floodplains, as well as all ACECs, are 

designated areas with controlled surface use under this alternative. Greater sage-grouse leks (with onehalf-mile buffers) and raptor nesting sites are designated NSO areas under this alternative. Permanent or 

high-profile structures would also be limited within a specified distance of these areas. Big game crucial 

habitat (winter range) and parturition areas, mountain plover aggregation areas (with one-quarter-mile 

buffers), greater sage-grouse nesting habitat within 2 miles of leks, greater sage-grouse winter range, and 

raptor nest sites (with one-half- to 1-mile buffers) would be seasonally limited. These restrictions would 

reduce adverse impacts on these species during important times of their life cycle; however, they would 

not prevent further habitat destruction from occurring, which might result in the selection of alternative 

habitats. The option to time and sequence activities if adverse effects occurred would allow possible 

adjustment of habitat use. It is assumed that even with the additional protections for greater sage-grouse 

under this alternative, populations would continue to decline because the management of these birds’ 

habitat would be insufficient for recovery or stabilization of populations in the planning area. Because 

the greater sage-grouse is a BLM sensitive species, any loss of habitat function or value would constitute 

a significant impact. Also, these birds are classified by the WGFD as “vital,” and any increased mortality 

or decreased survival would be considered a significant impact. This alternative might result in 

significant impacts on the birds, depending on the location and sequencing of disturbances. 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 4-69 
Chapter 4 Final EIS 

Adverse effects of ROWs on wildlife habitat under this alternative would be slightly less than under the 

No Action Alternative because of changes in sensitive wildlife habitat designation as either ROW 

avoidance or exclusion areas (Map 40). 

Development of a transportation plan specific to the planning area would further reduce adverse impacts 

on wildlife habitat from ROWs, roads, OHV use, and general access. This plan would provide for 

appropriate access routes that enabled maximum protection of crucial habitats and sensitive resources. 

Adverse effects on wildlife habitat from geophysical activities would be minimal because of provisions 

that exclude exploration from areas with NSO requirements, WSAs, ACECs, and other sensitive resource 

areas. Seasonal limitations would also apply, further reducing the adverse impact on wildlife habitat. 

Adverse effects on wildlife habitat from communication sites would be slightly less than under the No 

Action Alternative because of the additional exclusion areas (Oregon Buttes and Continental Peak) added 

under this alternative. 

The entire planning area, except WSAs, would be open to fluid mineral leasing (Map 42). Approximately 

205 oil and gas wells would be drilled over the planning period: 18 wells per year in the first 4 years with 

drilling then steadily decreasing to 7 wells per year as producing wells played out. Adverse effects such 

as those described under the No Action Alternative would occur; however, an adaptive management 

process would be implemented under this alternative that would establish indicators to inform BLM of 

any adverse effects of actions within the planning area and prevent the effects from becoming significant 

through BLM’s ability to control timing of development activities if needed. Adverse effects of existing 

leases (as described above in the Common to All Alternatives section) would still occur; however, once 

leases expired they would become part of the adaptive management process. 

The effects of coalbed gas development would be the same as those described under the No Action 

Alternative. 

Assuming a total of 205 oil and gas wells, with the remaining assumptions being the same as those under 

the No Action Alternative, water depletions from oil, gas, and coalbed gas wells would total 

approximately 367.5 acre-feet for the Colorado River system and 15 acre-feet for the Platte River system. 

Based on a 20-year time span, the average annual depletion for the Colorado River and Platte River 

systems would be 18.4 acre-feet and 0.75 acre-feet, respectively. The depletion of water from the 

Colorado and Platte River systems and its effect on threatened and endangered species downstream are 

described in the Biological Assessment (Appendix 3) for this document. 

There would be some limited adverse effects on the northern parturition areas from existing mining claim 

activities; however, effects would be reduced because of the withdrawal of this habitat under this 

alternative (Map 45). Withdrawal of portions of Steamboat Mountain and of the area added to the Greater 

Sand Dunes ACEC would also reduce adverse effects of mining on wildlife habitat. The effects of 

locatable mineral development on wildlife habitat would otherwise be the same as under the No Action 

Alternative. 

The planning area would be open for consideration of mineral material sales except in certain sensitive 

wildlife habitat (Map 46). Closing these areas to mineral material sales would benefit a portion of 

wildlife habitat; however, having Steamboat Mountain ACEC open to sales would cause greater adverse 

effects on big game. Overall impacts of mineral material sales on wildlife habitat could be slightly 

greater than those under the No Action Alternative. 

4-70 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 4 

The effects of coal and sodium exploration on wildlife habitat would be less than those under the No 

Action Alternative because of the additional closure of Steamboat Mountain ACEC. 

The effects of coal leasing on wildlife habitat would be less than under the No Action Alternative because 

additional areas would be protected. 

Management actions associated with the expansion of the Greater Sand Dunes and the Steamboat 

Mountain ACECs would benefit wildlife habitat through further restrictions on activities within these 

sensitive areas. The Greater Sand Dunes ACEC would be expanded to include the paleosol deposition 

area, and Steamboat Mountain ACEC would be expanded to include Indian Gap and the face of 

Steamboat Mountain. Management actions associated with designating special status plant species and 

the cushion plant community as ACECs would also benefit wildlife habitat as described above. 

Impacts on federally listed and candidate species would be the same as those described under the No 

Action Alternative. 

4.4.6.6 Proposed JMH CAP 

Two types of adverse impacts on wildlife are common to all alternatives: displacement and habitat 

fragmentation. However, these two types of adverse impacts would vary in degree depending on 

alternative. Displacement resulting from surface disturbing or disruptive activities moves animals into 

less desirable habitat and creates competition for available resources with other species and uses. 

Wildlife displacement can be either direct or indirect, depending on the amount and type of activity. 

The amount of land used for road surfaces, well pads, stock tanks, and any recreation facilities represents 

a direct loss of wildlife habitat. The actual effect caused by surface disturbing and disruptive activities in 

desert areas void of tall stands of vegetation or dramatic topographic relief is greater than the direct loss 

of acreage indicates. Wildlife habitat loss results from road construction and road use, facility 

construction and placement, pipeline construction, field facility maintenance, ROW construction, range 

improvement construction, and disturbance zones around these areas. Not all disturbed acreages would 

be fully reclaimed to the same structure and density that existed in predisturbance conditions, and 

portions, particularly in shrub communities and stabilized sand dunes, could remain unavailable as habitat 

for wildlife for more than 20 years. The basin big sagebrush/lemon scurfpea community habitat would 

likely take up to 70 years to reach their predisturbance structure and density. Limited rainfall, poor soils, 

and severe winter conditions make reclamation difficult, increasing the time required to reestablish 

suitable vegetation to predisturbance composition and density. 

Activities in desert-type terrain tend to displace wildlife, particularly big game species by distances of 

more than 3 miles because of extended sight distances and lack of security cover. The loss of adjacent 

habitats due to harassment or habitat degradation is much more subtle but has been observed and 

documented. 

Elk have been shown to avoid disturbance by upwards of 1.25 miles from active oil and gas wells 

(Gussey 1986; Powell 2003; WGFD 2000), upwards of 2.4 miles from construction of drill sites (HaydenWing Associates 1990), and upwards of 1.25 miles from major roads (Powell 2003). Disturbance is also 

avoided or reduced by topographic visual barriers between the source of disturbance and the elk (Irwin 

and Gillin 1984; Ward 1986; Olson 1981; Kuck et al. 1985; Van Dyke and Klein 1996). This disturbance 

is usually temporary, however, and some studies have shown that elk return to the area of disturbance 

once the source of disturbance and human presence are gone (Gussey 1986; WGFD 2000), albeit at 50 

percent of previous levels in forested environments (Hayden-Wing Associates 1990). Studies particular 

to oil and gas activities have shown that elk tolerate some level of operating wells and associated facilities 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 4-71 
Chapter 4 Final EIS 

as long as there is no human presence or cover is available in the vicinity of the well site (Gusey 1986; 

Beak Consultants 1979; Bennington et al. 1982; Hayden-Wing Associates 1990). 

Van Dyke and Klein (1996) found that elk showed no shift in home range between the pre and post 

drilling of a single oil well with all roads closed to other traffic and remote monitoring during sensitive 

periods. However, they shifted use of core areas out of view of the drill pad during both periods, there 

was increased intensity of use in core areas after drilling, and a slightly reduced total range was used. 

Van Dyke and Klein concluded that if drilling occupied a relatively small amount of home range, elk 

were able to compensate by shifting areas of use. 

Kuck et al. (1985) showed that persistent disturbance weakened the tendency of elk (in forested 

environments) to return to the disturbed area and that selection of more marginal habitat occurred. 

However, abandonment of the traditional calf-rearing habitat did not result in abandonment of calves or a 

difference in survival rates between disturbed and control groups. This study also found no data to 

suggest that elk habituated to mining noises. Johnson and Wollrab (1987) also found that elk distribution 

changed during gas exploration and field development, with the abandonment of winter and calving 

habitat and changes in range. These authors discovered that although elk returned to disturbed sites, 

populations were lower (sometimes less than half) and use of the habitat was unpredictable. 

When studying elk response to roads, Lyon and Ward (1982) found that elk moved from 0.24 to 1.8 

miles, depending on the amount and type of traffic, road quality, and adjacent cover density. Generally, 

road avoidance has been reported to be greater in areas of open vegetation with less adjacent cover (Perry 

and Overly 1976; Lyon 1979) and in areas with increased density of high-quality roads (Hershey and 

Leege 1976). Road avoidance also was greater in shrub lands than in pine forests and juniper woodlands 

(Rost and Bailey 1979). 

A JMH Desert Elk Study was initiated in 1999 to better understand the effects of human disturbance on 

elk behavior and habitat use within the planning area. The findings of this study are outlined in Section 

3.1.6.1.3 and include the following: Elk typically avoided habitats offering little security cover; 

topography and screening cover by vegetation were important during daylight hours for providing 

security cover; habitat use patterns within the planning area were strongly influenced by roads, making 

the habitat loss much more than that of the actual road “footprint”; human disturbance led to increased 

daily movements of disturbed elk and reduced elk use of traditional calving areas; and although disturbed 

elk moved greater distances, they apparently did not move to areas that were poorer in terms of security 

or habitat quality (Powell 2003). 

In contrast to the numerous studies conducted on the effects of human disturbance on elk (as shown 

above), significantly fewer studies have been conducted on the effects of such disturbance, particularly 

from roads and/or oil and gas development, on mule deer and pronghorn antelope. For this reason, 

possible effects on these species are not well understood. Rost and Bailey (1979) found that mule deer 

avoided roads by up to 200 meters (0.12 miles) and that road avoidance was greater where roads were 

more traveled and in shrub versus forested habitats. There are no published studies on pronghorn 

antelope reactions to roads; however, it has been documented that woven wire ROW fences along roads 

impede or block antelope movement, resulting in fragmentation of habitat (Deblinger 1988; Bruns 1977) 

and pronghorn deaths due to reduction or elimination of access to severe winter relief range. 

Hiatt and Baker (1981) examined the effects of a single well installation on winter distributions of elk and 

mule deer. They found that both species avoided the drilling site during drilling but did not avoid the 

access road. They also examined the vegetation present at the well location and concluded that shifts in 

usage were not the result of differences in vegetation. Easterly et al. (1991) examined the winter 

distribution and habitat use of pronghorn and mule deer within a petroleum production complex and 

4-72 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 4 

found that pronghorn used four of six oil fields in proportion to their availability and that mule deer used 

five of six oil fields in proportion to their availability. Two of the most active oil fields were used less 

than expected by pronghorn given their availability, and no mule deer were observed within one of the 

most active oil fields. Easterly et al. concluded that there was continued use of winter range by pronghorn 

and mule deer after construction of an oil and gas field. 

It is generally agreed that once disturbance reaches a certain threshold, impacts are expected to become 

significant. Further study and monitoring are needed to determine this threshold for the planning area. 

Habitat fragmentation occurs when a contiguous habitat is broken up (fragmented) by surface disturbing 

activities, causing a reduction in usable ranges and the isolation of smaller, less mobile species; a loss of 

genetic integrity within species or populations; and an increase in abundance of the habitat generalists that 

are characteristic of disturbed environments (i.e., competitors, predators, and parasites) (Harris 1998). 

The primary factor affecting wildlife species (especially big game) within the planning area is the 

reduction in usable habitat and the disruption of migration corridors that link crucial habitat (winter 

range) and parturition areas. This would occur particularly in areas with many access roads and surface 

disturbances. Transportation routes tend to fragment habitats and can act as barriers to some species, 

especially under severe winter conditions. This could also increase public access to areas that had 

previously been relatively inaccessible to vehicles during the winter and spring. This effect would 

become more important and would increase adverse effects on wildlife as increased demands for use of 

public lands occurred. Migration routes could be altered, changing some traditional use patterns on a 

local level. Seclusion areas for wildlife would become smaller and more dispersed in some areas. 

Increased oil and gas activity, especially in areas with reduced well spacing (40- and 80-acre spacing) 

would preclude use of some of these areas by wildlife species, especially deer and elk. Existing leases 

within the planning area might not provide the specific mitigation measures needed to protect important 

wildlife habitats. In specific cases where stipulations were not adequate to protect habitat, COAs for 

APDs could be applied. These would be based on site-specific analysis and would establish specific, 

necessary mitigation measures not covered by stipulations for resource and environmental protection. 

BLM specialists would review sensitive resources with lease operators to develop and implement 

protective measures to allow effective development operations where impacts could be avoided or 

mitigated. Depending on the economics of the industry at the time, it is possible that developers could 

claim an economic hardship and might not have to implement recommended mitigation measures. 

Greater sage-grouse populations have been declining over the past half century due to such factors as 

habitat degradation, fragmentation, and loss (see Chapter 3). As oil and gas development has increased in 

Wyoming, so has concern over how this type of development might affect greater sage-grouse 

populations. Potential impacts of fluid mineral development on greater sage-grouse populations include: 

direct habitat loss from well, road, pipeline, and transmission line construction; displacement caused by 

increased human activity and associated pumping noise; increased legal and illegal harvest; and direct 

mortality associated with evaporation ponds and increased exposure to predation (Braun 1986; TRC 

Mariah Associates Inc. 1997). 

A study of the greater sage-grouse of the Pinedale Mesa near Pinedale, Wyoming, was conducted by 

Lyon in May 2002 to examine the effects of natural gas and oil development on use, productivity, general 

movements, and habitat use of greater sage-grouse. The results of the study indicate that hens captured 

on disturbed leks had lower nest initiation rates; traveled twice as far to nest sites; and selected, for height, 

greater total shrub canopy cover and live sagebrush canopy cover than did hens captured from 

undisturbed leks. Lyons concluded that extreme early brood survival appeared to be the limiting factor in 

greater sage-grouse population stability on the Pinedale Mesa and that this suggested that disturbances 

(i.e., noise and predation) associated with well drilling and road traffic during breeding could result in 

reduced nest initiation rates and could be causing lower brood survival. 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 4-73 
Chapter 4 Final EIS 

Other studies conducted on greater sage-grouse indicate that noise might be adversely affecting strutting 

and nesting grouse; however, the level of impact is still unknown (LaGory et al. 2001; Dantzker et al. 

1999). 

As documented in Chapter 3, greater sage-grouse nesting and wintering habitat requirements are quite 

specific. If this habitat were disturbed, more than 20 years might be required to restore affected habitat to 

predisturbance conditions. During this time, however, opportunities may exist to enhance remaining 

vegetation and habitat characteristics (for example, by applying vegetation treatments to create a mosaic 

in the landscape) to provide more suitable habitat than currently exists. If that cannot be accomplished, 

there would be a net loss of habitat function and adverse impacts on greater sage-grouse habitat during the 

planning period. 

The health of fisheries within the planning area is directly related to the overall health and functional 

capabilities of riparian resources, which in turn are a reflection of watershed health. Any activities that 

affected the ecological condition of the watershed and its vegetative cover would directly affect the 

aquatic environment. It is assumed that any substantial disturbance to soils or changes in vegetative cover 

would have an adverse effect on watershed health and water quality and would therefore have an adverse 

effect on associated fisheries. The degree of impact attributed to any one disturbance or series of 

disturbances is influenced by location within the watershed, time and degree of disturbance, existing 

vegetation, and precipitation. Surface disturbances result in accelerated erosion and runoff, increasing 

stream flow and sediment and nutrient loads to local channels. Sedimentation of a given channel can 

impact fisheries by reducing habitat complexity, which results in a lower diversity of prey organisms. 

Increased turbidity also results from increased sediment input, which decreases light penetration and 

inhibits visual predation by fish. Any surface disturbance near streams that results in substantial removal 

of riparian vegetation can increase current velocity, which puts additional strain on fish and reduces 

nutrient cycling. In addition to increased sediment input, streambank disturbance can affect fisheries by 

creating bank instability, which can alter flow and destroy pool-riffle formations necessary for fish 

survival. Increased nutrient loading of streams can impact fisheries by increasing primary production 

above natural levels, which degrades habitat and decreases oxygen levels. Because any impact on natural 

water resources is also an impact on fisheries, impacts on fisheries can be inferred from Section 4.4.2, 

which discusses impacts on riparian areas and water quality. 

Oil and natural gas production may result in the use of pits to separate oil from produced water or to 

evaporate large volumes of water with high levels of TDS. Birds are attracted to pits because they 

mistake them for natural bodies of water. The sticky oil then entraps birds in the pits, and they die from 

exposure and exhaustion. Birds that do manage to escape can die from starvation or experience impaired 

reproduction caused by the toxic effects of oil ingested during preening. Scavengers and predators can 

also suffer adverse effects from consuming oiled birds. Pits or ponds containing hypersaline water can 

pose a mortality threat to migratory birds through ingestion of toxic brine, susceptibility to avian 

botulism, and sodium crystallization on feathers, which destroys thermoregulatory and buoyancy 

functions. A study of bird mortality in oil pits in Wyoming conducted by Brent J. Esmoil for the 

University of Wyoming demonstrated that deterrents such as flagging, strobe lights, metal reflectors, and 

noisemakers were not effective in preventing bird mortalities in these pits. Esmoil did not find any 

mortality in pits completely covered with netting or wire mesh with mesh sufficiently small to prevent 

songbirds from falling through the wire (USFWS 2003). It is BLM standard practice that pits with 

harmful fluids in them be maintained in a manner that prevents migratory bird mortality, thus eliminating 

potential effects. 

Use of prescribed fire as a vegetation treatment in the planning area could benefit many wildlife habitats 

because it aids in regeneration of some tree and shrub species and allows additional wildlife forage. One 

adverse effect of prescribed fire on wildlife habitat is extensive forage utilization by big game species 

4-74 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 4 

after treatment of aspen stands. To reduce adverse effects on aspen communities, treatments would be 

fenced on a case-by-case basis. Another possible adverse impact of prescribed fire in the planning area 

would be loss of cover. Conversions of shrubs to grassland using prescribed fire would contribute to a 

direct loss of cover for species (such as small mammals, greater sage-grouse, and big game) that require 

cover for security to carry out life stages. The effects of loss of cover could be long-term, particularly 

because it takes sagebrush more than 20 years to reach the appropriate canopy cover height and spacing 

needed for some sagebrush-dependent species. Greater sage-grouse are particularly susceptible to loss of 

cover from fire activities because of the relationship between their breeding, brood-rearing, and wintering 

habitat and sagebrush. Significant long-term adverse impacts on greater sage-grouse nesting habitat and 

winter range could occur if large acreages were burned. Brood-rearing habitat might also be negatively 

affected by prescribed burns; however, further investigation is needed. No prescribed fires would be 

allowed within the basin big sagebrush/lemon scurfpea vegetation association; therefore, effects on 

wildlife dependent on this association would not occur. 

Watershed management would provide benefits to wildlife by maintaining or restoring habitat conditions 

through the establishment of DPC objectives, placement of buffer zones around riparian areas, and 

restrictions on surface disturbance within riparian areas and floodplains. Actions that would maintain or 

improve watershed conditions would generally benefit the ecological condition of wildlife habitat. 

Wild horses currently occur in the planning area outside the identified HMAs. This compounds problems 

associated with limited water sources and big game crucial habitat (winter range). Wild horses 

concentrate in the core area during the summer months and compete with big game for available forage 

during winter months (November through March). With livestock competition for available water and 

forage added to wild horse competition, adverse impacts on big game would be expected. Water 

developments provided on an as-needed basis would reduce this competition and therefore lessen adverse 

impacts on big game. All water developments within sensitive wildlife habitats would be considered only 

if wildlife habitat and resource conditions were improved or maintained. Adverse impacts in the planning 

area from wild horses would also be minimal provided that numbers were kept at plan objective levels 

and the herd was maintained within the HMA. 

The effects of livestock grazing on wildlife would be minimal because management actions (livestock 

water developments, exclosures, fencing, and conversions) for improving rangeland and riparian habitat 

must meet the Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands (Appendix 10). Forage utilization levels 

would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis and would factor in forage for livestock, wildlife, and wild 

horses. Water developments proposed in sensitive wildlife habitat would be considered only if the habitat 

and resource conditions would be maintained or improved and could benefit wildlife by providing 

additional sources of water. Water developments could also adversely affect wildlife habitat, particularly 

in winter and parturition ranges, through reductions in forage due to increased distribution of animals. 

However, implementation of the Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands would ensure that impacts 

were not significant. Adverse impacts of fences on wildlife within the planning would be minimal 

because of requirements that fences be located so as not to impede wildlife movement and that the fences 

be removed, modified, or reconstructed where documented conflicts with wildlife occurred. Future 

livestock conversions (sheep to cattle or vice versa) would be carefully analyzed. Sustainability reviews 

would be required before conversions, which would benefit the range. 

It is estimated that 23 livestock pits, ponds, and water wells could be created or rebuilt in the planning 

area. It is assumed that all water used for livestock pits, ponds, and water wells within the Green River 

and Sweetwater River Basins would have contributed to the surface flows of the Colorado or Platte Rivers 

or their tributaries. Water depletions are an important issue because water from portions of the planning 

area is part of the habitat for endangered fish, wildlife, and/or plant species downstream from the project 

area in the Colorado and Platte River systems. Of the 23 water developments to be constructed, 19 would 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 4-75 
Chapter 4 Final EIS 

be in the Green River Basin (Colorado River), and 4 would be in the Sweetwater River Basin (Platte 

River). Using 5 acre-feet per water development over the 20-year planning period, average annual 

depletions anticipated from these actions would not exceed 5 acre-feet for the Colorado River system and 

1 acre-foot for the Platte River system after all developments were installed. 

The potential exists for additional strain on forage resources within portions of the planning area (southcentral) from potential concentrations of grazing animals. Heavy concentrations of grazing animals could 

result in overutilization of vegetation. However, monitoring and evaluation of habitat to comply with the 

“Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands” should provide information on vegetation resources before 

impacts became significant. 

Protections afforded to special status plant species would benefit wildlife habitat by protecting plant 

species from surface disturbing and disruptive activities. Reduction of invasive species would also 

benefit wildlife habitat through maintaining the quality of habitat by requiring provisions to reduce and 

control invasive species. 

The management of heritage sites would indirectly benefit wildlife through preservation of potential 

habitat as well as general habitat characteristics. Disturbance and removal of vegetation could occur 

through activities related to management of heritage resources; however, any impact would generally be 

limited to relatively small areas. Even under the most intense management (i.e., excavation), the amount 

of habitat disturbed would be very small. However, such disturbance could still have significant impacts 

on small animals (e.g., pygmy rabbits, a BLM sensitive species and WGFD classification as “high” value) 

occupying those areas. 

OHV use is expected to increase because of improvements in the facilities near the Greater Sand Dunes 

Recreation Area, increased interest in the planning area, and increased access due to development 

activities. Estimated levels of recreation activity are discussed in detail in Section 4.7, Recreation 

Resources. The majority of OHV use would occur within the Greater Sand Dunes Recreation Area; 

however, activity is also expected throughout the planning area. No significant impacts on wildlife 

(specifically elk, mule deer, antelope, greater sage-grouse, and raptors) are expected from OHV use 

because of the ability to place seasonal restrictions on OHV users (Map 52) at crucial times in sensitive 

habitats; seasonal closure of Steamboat Mountain; limitation of access to designated roads and trails in 

the Steamboat Mountain ACEC; and the fact that the majority of OHV use in the planning area (outside 

the seasonal closure area) would occur in the summer and fall (June through October), a time when 

wildlife would be the least sensitive to human disturbance. However, OHV use would have localized 

adverse impacts on wildlife through disturbance due to human presence, and a small amount of surface 

disturbance. Additional areas of seasonal restrictions could be implemented as needed to reduce adverse 

impacts. ROWs (such as pipelines and power lines) could adversely affect wildlife habitat through 

disturbances related to associated roads, increased access, and associated displacement caused by human 

presence. Many of these alternations of habitat favor predators, thereby increasing predation of species 

such as the greater sage-grouse. Although companies might not need to travel pipeline routes, removal or 

crushing of vegetation would allow increased access for recreationists, causing further intrusion into 

wildlife habitat and increased disturbance. Currently, numerous two-track-type roads access almost all 

parts of the planning area, although these are used primarily seasonally during hunting. Aboveground 

pipelines would have less adverse impact on crucial wildlife habitats (big sagebrush, mountain shrubs, 

woodland habitats, stabilized sand dunes); however, these pose a threat to public safety, primarily to OHV 

users. 

ROW impacts on sensitive wildlife habitat contained in the South Pass Historic Landscape ACEC, West 

Sand Dunes Archaeological District, greater sage-grouse nesting habitat, and connectivity area would be 

reduced because of these areas’ designation as avoidance areas (Map 49). To the extent possible, utility 

4-76 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 4 

and transportation ROWs would be located to coincide with existing roads, trails, and other ROWs or 

easements, further reducing adverse impacts on wildlife. 

Communication sites and related access, when located in crucial habitat (winter range) and parturition 

areas, would have significant impacts on those habitats. Access to these sites occurs year-round. Yearround access could result in plowing of roads that displaces wintering wildlife, which would add to their 

stress caused by winter conditions, and disrupt parturition areas. Plowing of these roads would also allow 

more recreational traffic to use these areas year-round. The Steamboat Mountain ACEC and the 

Steamboat Mountain Management Area would be closed to communication sites, which would greatly 

reduce possible adverse impacts on the majority of big game habitat. 

Effects of geophysical exploration and related detonation activities on wildlife would be minimal given 

limitations on exploration within key wildlife habitats such as the connectivity area, basin big 

sagebrush/lemon scurfpea, and a one-quarter-mile buffer around greater sage-grouse leks. Exploration 

and related detonation activities also would be allowed in sensitive resource areas only if they could be 

performed with acceptable mitigation of impacts. 

Overall, the development of a transportation plan specific to the planning area would further reduce 

adverse impacts on wildlife habitat from ROWs, roads, OHV use, and general access. This plan would 

provide for appropriate access routes, which enable maximum protection of crucial habitats and sensitive 

resources. Further reductions in adverse effects of transportation and access to big game would occur 

through development of a travel management plan for Steamboat Mountain, White Mountain, Essex 

Mountain, and the two northern parturition areas, to control development access. 

Recreation activities (camping, hiking/biking, recreational mining) in the planning area would be 

expected to increase steadily throughout the planning period. Recreation activities would have localized 

adverse impacts on wildlife through disturbance due to human presence, and a small amount of surface 

disturbance. It is unknown whether these impacts would be short term or long term. Developed 

recreation sites would not be constructed in greater sage-grouse nesting habitat. 

Hunting activity in the planning area has been shown to have short-term adverse effects on elk, and most 

likely all wildlife, in the planning area because of an increase in human activities and disturbance (Powell 

2003). Hunting is expected to remain constant; therefore, the level of short-term disturbance from 

increased human activity would remain the same. 

Greater sage-grouse lek, nesting, and early brood-rearing habitat locations (as determined by site-specific 

analysis) would be avoidance areas for surface disturbing and disruptive activities and would be protected 

from direct habitat loss and degradation. Habitat quality at these locations would also be improved on an 

as-needed basis. These management prescriptions provide the greatest amount of protection to the 

species under the JMH CAP alternatives; however, a large portion of greater sage-grouse habitat is 

located within areas that contain existing leases. As discussed previously, existing leases might not 

provide the specific mitigation measures needed to protect important wildlife habitats. In these cases, 

COAs might be necessary, as determined by site-specific analysis. A portion of greater sage-grouse 

habitat is also located within Area 3 of the JMH CAP fluid mineral leasing implementation strategy 

(Appendix 17), which would retain a “no lease” management prescription or an NSO stipulation that 

would ensure protection of unleased habitat in Area 3 as well as habitat within leased areas for which the 

leases expired before they were developed or held by production. The majority of identified greater sagegrouse breeding and winter range occurs in Area 1, identified for immediate sale of new leases. In 

addition to areas designated with surface disturbance restrictions, seasonal limitations would apply to all 

greater sage-grouse winter range, as well as to raptor, mountain plover, and big game sensitive habitats. 

These restrictions would reduce adverse impacts on these species during important times of their life 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 4-77 
Chapter 4 Final EIS 

cycle; however, they would not prevent further habitat destruction from occurring, which could result in 

the selection of habitats of lower quality. 

Approximately 205 fluid mineral wells (exploration, discovery, production) would be drilled over the 

planning period. Drilling could occur throughout the planning area, except in unleased portions of Area 3 

of the JMH CAP fluid mineral leasing implementation strategy (Appendix 17), on leases with an NSO 

stipulation, and in WSAs. It is likely that drilling would occur mostly on existing leases for the first few 

years of development. The phase of fluid mineral activity most disturbing to wildlife is drilling because 

of the high level of human disturbance from the creation of access roads, surface disturbance from the 

well pads (approximately 3 acres), noise from the rig during drilling, and overall human presence. This 

phase of activity lasts approximately 1 to 4 months depending on well depth. All wells not put into 

production would be reclaimed through implementation of a reclamation plan. Production wells that 

played out after an estimated 30 years would also be reclaimed. Full restoration of some habitats 

(shrubland and basin big sagebrush/lemon scurfpea) would not occur for more than 20 years. 

Big game, especially elk and mule deer, would experience adverse effects from fluid mineral 

development, causing avoidance of areas through drilling, creation of roads, and possible disruption of 

migratory corridors. The level and duration of adverse effects would depend on where the activity 

occurred within the planning area. It is assumed that the majority of development would be concentrated 

in the high development potential area, a large portion of which is contained within Area 3 of the JMH 

CAP fluid mineral leasing implementation strategy (Appendix 17). The majority of big game sensitive 

habitats are also located within Area 3. A portion of Area 3 would retain a “no lease” management 

prescription or would be leased with an NSO stipulation that would ensure protection of big game 

sensitive habitat in these areas. A large portion of sensitive big game habitats within Area 3, however, are 

in areas that have already been leased. The majority of existing leases have a minimum stipulation that 

protects big game habitat seasonally, but as shown in the analysis of the other alternatives, seasonal 

restrictions do not prevent destruction of habitat, resulting in the selection of suboptimal habitats. In 

specific cases where stipulations would not be adequate to protect big game habitat, COAs for APDs 

could be applied, as discussed previously. Without specific mitigation, such as remote monitoring, pad 

drilling, directional drilling, and centralized tank batteries, development activities could prevent big game 

from using the affected area for the life of the activity. This has the potential to cause significant effects 

on big game through long-term displacement from habitat, with the severity of the effects depending on 

the amount, timing, and duration of activity. 

As part of the “no lease” prescription in Area 3, existing leases that expired before they were developed 

or were held by production would not be reoffered for lease, further protecting big game habitat 

resources. Because of this, however, development on existing leases within Area 3 is expected to occur in 

the first 11 years of the planning period, instead of over the life of the plan (20 years). A shortened 

development period in Area 3 would likely result in the following: existing leases’ being developed 

concurrently, or within close time periods that would not allow habitat in those areas to recover before 

other areas were developed; displacement of big game into habitats that were not leased, causing possible 

overuse of available habitat and increased competition among and between species for available habitat; 

and long-term disruption of migration from the northern parturition areas to the core area because of the 

location of existing leases south of Oregon Buttes ACEC. These effects could be significant for big game 

habitats, depending on the amount, timing, and duration of development activities, and could be greater 

than those under the No Action Alternative because of the potential for lack of alternate habitats for big 

game species due to concentrated timing of development in Area 3. 

It is estimated that two coalbed gas exploration projects with a total of 50 wells would be drilled within 

the planning area (but outside the core area) during the planning period. Impacts on wildlife, particularly 

big game, are expected to be significant for animals in those localized areas. Because coalbed gas wells 

4-78 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 4 

are drilled in a “pod” formation for dewatering purposes, with approximately 25 wells per pod, impacts 

are expected to be intense and localized but might not affect as much acreage as traditional oil and gas 

well development. 

Drilling and completion activities for oil, gas, and coalbed gas wells would use local water sources and 

would therefore deplete water from portions of the planning area that are part of the habitat for 

endangered fish, wildlife, and/or plant species downstream from the project area in the Colorado River 

and Platte River systems. It is assumed that all water used for drilling and completion of wells within the 

Green River and Sweetwater River Basins would have contributed to the surface flows of the Colorado or 

Platte Rivers or their tributaries. Of the 205 oil and gas wells to be drilled, 95 percent would be in the 

Green River Basin (Colorado River), and 5 percent would be in the Sweetwater River Basin (Platte 

River). All of the coalbed gas wells (50) would be in the Green River Basin. 

Using 1.5 acre-feet of water per well, depletions from these actions would total approximately 367.5 acrefeet in the Colorado River system and 15 acre-feet in the Platte River system. Based on a 20-year time 

span, the average annual depletion for the Colorado River and Platte River systems would be 18.4 acrefeet and 0.75 acre-feet, respectively. Depletion of water from the Colorado and Platte River systems and 

its effect on threatened and endangered species downstream are described in the Biological Assessment 

(Appendix 3) for this document. 

Locatable mineral activity on existing active claims in and around northern parturition areas has the 

potential to decrease and eliminate the availability of these areas for calving and fawning. This 

particularly applies to activities that might occur in or near aspen stands associated with deer and elk 

parturition areas, although some of the aspen stands would be withdrawn as part of the South Pass 

Summit. Withdrawals would also be pursued for the northern parturition areas, further reducing effects. 

These areas are also important to a variety of birds and other wildlife and are rare habitat types in the 

planning area. Although current exploration activities are seasonal, with little or no activity during the 

winter, mining activities could continue at the current rate, or even increase, during the fawning and 

calving periods, causing displacement of animals. There is limited information available on the 

likelihood of other locatable mineral development (such as commercial diamond or gold mining) in the 

planning area. If exploration activities found the potential for such development, a plan of operation 

would have to be filed that specified how mining would be conducted without permanently impacting 

other resources. Reclamation plans would also have to be developed, and bonds posted, to ensure that 

mined lands were reclaimed. 

Habitat within the planning area would be open for consideration of mineral material sales except for 

habitat within one-half mile to 1 mile of raptor nesting sites, the Steamboat Mountain ACEC, the 

Steamboat Mountain Management Area, and greater sage-grouse nesting habitat (Map 58). Closing these 

areas to mineral material sales would benefit the majority of wildlife habitat within the planning area, 

resulting in minimal localized effects on wildlife through possible disturbance of open habitats. 

Coal and sodium exploration would be allowed on a case-by-case basis (with mitigation for protection of 

sensitive resources), except in wetlands, riparian areas, and floodplains; within one-quarter mile of sage 

grouse leks; in raptor nesting sites; and in the Steamboat Mountain ACEC (Map 55). Effects of this 

exploration on wildlife habitat are expected to be minimal because of the limited surface disturbance 

associated with exploration and the mitigation included in proposals, which could include seasonal 

limitations, access restrictions to existing roads and trails, and full reclamation. 

Only federal coal lands within the Coal and Sodium Occurrence and Development Potential Area would 

be open to consideration of leasing (Map 57). This would reduce adverse effects on wildlife habitat from 

coal leasing overall. In addition, a portion of the Greater Sand Dunes ACEC would be closed to leasing 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 4-79 
Chapter 4 Final EIS 

within this area. Raptor nesting sites (with a one-half- to 1-mile buffer), Steamboat Mountain ACEC (big 

game parturition and crucial habitat), and Steamboat Mountain Management Area would also be open to 

coal leasing with subsurface mining and controls on surface facilities, further minimizing adverse impacts 

on wildlife. Additional measures would be implemented for maintenance of adequate big game habitat. 

Overall, coal leasing is expected to have negligible impacts on wildlife because the projected demand for 

developing this resource in this area is minimal. 

The federally listed black-footed ferret, which may occur within the planning area, might be affected by 

management actions but would not likely be adversely affected. The black-footed ferret could be affected 

because of the amount of surface disturbance and human activity associated with management of the 

planning area; however, no adverse effects are expected to occur because of the surveys required for 

threatened and endangered species before surface disturbance activities and the subsequent protection 

measures developed by BLM in conjunction with FWS should a species be found. No impacts on the 

bald eagle, grizzly bear, gray wolf, or western population of the yellow-billed cuckoo are expected from 

management of the planning area, because of a lack of suitable habitat or because of these species’ status 

as casual migrants or experimental populations. 

Potential effects on the Wyoming BLM sensitive species mountain plover and greater sage-grouse are 

discussed above. It is unknown whether adverse impacts on other Wyoming BLM sensitive species 

would occur, because of the lack of information on habitat locations and the requirements within the 

planning area. Searches for the species would be required in any potential habitat before approval of any 

project or activity in those areas. If such species were found, mitigation measures would be speciesspecific and determined on a case-by-case basis. 

Protections afforded to special management areas and other management areas would generally result in 

beneficial impacts on wildlife resources. Protections aimed at conserving vegetation resources, and 

limitations on surface disturbing activities, would benefit wildlife by enhancing overall habitat conditions. 

The addition of the West Sand Dunes Archaeological District as a special management area would reduce 

adverse effects on big game habitats through management prescriptions that controlled surface disturbing 

and disruptive activities. The expansion of the Steamboat Mountain ACEC and addition of the Steamboat 

Mountain Management Area would also reduce effects on big game habitats because they would control 

surface disturbing and disruptive activities in the most concentrated area of crucial winter range and 

parturition area overlap and the basin big sagebrush/lemon scurfpea plant community, which is important 

for big game parturition. Disturbances (e.g., excavation) could have locally significant impacts on small 

animals (e.g., pygmy rabbits,) occupying those areas. 

4.5 HERITAGE RESOURCES 

Heritage resources are relatively scarce, nonrenewable resources whose values can be easily diminished 

by physical disturbances. Resources include cultural and historic trails and sites, archaeological sites, 

Native American respected places, unique geological features, and paleontological sites. 

4.5.1 Potential Impacts on Heritage Resources 

Management of heritage resources could have environmental impacts on resources and nonenvironmental 

effects on resource users. Impacts on resources and resource users that might result from implementation 

of the heritage resource program are discussed in those particular resource sections. This section 

describes potential impacts on heritage resources resulting from the implementation of management 

actions for other resource management categories. 

4-80 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 4 

The criteria used to determine the significance of impacts on heritage resources include effects on NRHP 

eligibility, future research potential, and (in some cases) effects on the resources’ suitability for religious 

or traditional uses. An impact would be significant if it resulted in the physical alteration, destruction, or 

loss of a resource listed or determined eligible for listing on the NRHP, or considered important to Native 

American groups. To be considered significant, resources must meet one or more of the criteria for 

inclusion on the NRHP. The impact of an action would be beneficial if it protected or improved public 

appreciation of heritage resources. 

For analysis purposes, it is assumed that the overall density of archaeological sites in the planning area 

would be approximately 3.2 sites per 640 acres (one section), and that about one-third of the sites would 

prove to be significant in terms of NRHP criteria. This density is based on less than 5 percent of the 

planning area’s having been inventoried at a Class III level intensity. This sample is recognized to be 

very low and potentially misleading. The BLM also recognizes that areas with site densities as high as 15 

sites per section have been found elsewhere in the Green River Basin. 

4.5.1.1 Common to All Alternatives 

Direct impacts on heritage resources would be from surface disturbing activities and soil compaction, 

whereas indirect impacts could occur as a function of increased erosion, easier access, vibration from 

vehicles and equipment, or alteration of the setting associated with certain heritages resources. Indirect 

impacts could also occur if heritage resources lost potential information, integrity, and cultural value as a 

result of disturbances. 

Federal regulations require inventory, recordation, and evaluation of resources in the area of potential 

effect as part of the approval process for any surface disturbing activity. BLM prefers to avoid all effects 

on significant heritage resources. BLM would use GIS and other technologies to place surface disturbing 

activities in areas where they would be least intrusive to heritage resource values. 

When avoidance is not possible, several mitigation measures could be applied to lessen the effects on 

heritage resources. Mitigation measures common to all alternatives include data recovery in the case of 

archaeological sites that are important because of the scientific information they contain. Mitigation 

might also include interpretive efforts, which would improve the public’s ability to appreciate the 

resource in nearby areas. Data recovery and interpretation could have a beneficial effect for the public, 

because these efforts increase understanding and appreciation of our shared heritage. In some cases, 

interpretation and other measures that improve the public’s ability to enjoy and appreciate heritage 

resources might also be appropriate. 

Resources discovered during implementation of an undertaking would be documented and evaluated for 

eligibility for the NRHP, and mitigation, such as data recovery, site stabilization, or other appropriate 

measures, would be implemented to ensure protection of resource values. Sites not eligible for the NRHP 

would be managed on a case-by-case basis according to their values. The State Historic Preservation 

Office (SHPO) would be consulted under provisions of the National Historic Preservation Act, as 

implemented in the BLM-SHPO Protocol, on any potential effects on heritage resources (Appendix 7). 

Native American traditional elders have identified a number of sites important for their traditional, sacred, 

or religious uses by Native peoples. Elders in this region have referred to these sites as “respected 

places.” Surface disturbance and disruptive activities have the potential to affect these respected places 

and their associated viewsheds. These types of heritage resources differ from more typical archaeological 

and historical sites because of their sacredness to Native Americans and because adverse effects on the 

resources cannot be mitigated by recovery of scientific information. Federal mandates encourage BLM to 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 4-81 
Chapter 4 Final EIS 

protect these places and to make accommodations to allow their use by Native American traditional 

people to the extent possible within the bounds of other appropriate regulations. 

The significance of any adverse impact would depend on the importance of the resource (e.g., its 

eligibility for NRHP inclusion) and implementation of mitigation measures. On rare occasions, heritage 

resources might be of such importance that their protection might preclude other kinds of activity. 

Federal land users could be adversely affected if a proposed activity were not approved or would require 

modification to the extent the activity became economically infeasible. 

Examples of heritage resources of unique significance within the planning area include the region of 

stabilized sand/silt sheet deposit north and west of White Mountain. This area, referred to as the paleosol 

deposition area, has very intact manifestations of some of the earliest cultures in North America, as 

exemplified by the Finley and Krmpotich sites. These sites include preserved cultural materials and 

Pleistocene and early Holocene faunal remains. These sites are tremendously important for the study of 

past environmental conditions and their effects on human adaptation over thousands of years. Surface 

disturbance would be controlled so as to manage the area to protect scientific values. 

Paleontological resources are known in the planning area. Before surface disturbing activities, BLM 

would classify or rank the area according to its potential for containing significant fossils or noteworthy 

occurrences of invertebrate or plant fossils. Documented or located significant fossil sites would be 

avoided to protect scientific and educational values. If impacts could not be avoided, the site would be 

evaluated and surveyed (as needed) by a professional paleontologist. A mitigation plan, which could 

include activity monitoring, fossil documentation, recovery, and storage in a federally approved 

repository, would be coordinated with BLM before any surface disturbing activity could occur. 

Fire suppression efforts would have beneficial effects by protecting standing historic structures; however, 

the use of heavy equipment and resulting surface disturbance could have adverse effects by disturbing the 

soil matrix, which could contain archaeological or historical resources. Fire retardant chemicals would 

not be allowed in the vicinity of rock art sites and some historic structures to protect their historic 

integrity. Fire changes the visual appearance of an area and thus could have short-term adverse effects on 

the historic setting of places, such as the South Pass Historic Landscape. On the other hand, fire was part 

of the natural ecosystem, and burning often restores a more natural landscape, which would have a 

beneficial effect on historic settings. 

Actions associated with managing the wild horse program usually would not have any adverse impact on 

heritage resources. Consultation with tribal elders indicates that the presence of wild horses on BLMadministered lands is important to Native Americans. This is also illustrated by the images of horses in 

the Native American rock art at the White Mountain Petroglyphs sites. For these reasons, wild horses 

could almost be considered a heritage resource, and their appropriate management would represent a 

beneficial effect on traditional values. 

Land exchanges and ownership adjustments could have an adverse effect on heritage resources located on 

the affected parcels. Resources could become vulnerable to impacts because historic preservation laws 

and procedures, such as inventory and avoidance, generally apply only to lands under federal jurisdiction. 

Changes in ownership could significantly alter land management practices. The State of Wyoming does 

not have extensive state laws protecting heritage resources; thus, land exchanges with the state could be 

adverse because of removal of the property from the protection of the National Historic Preservation Act 

and other federal laws. In addition, public access to important heritage resources could be adversely 

affected if access through privately owned land were precluded or made more difficult. Inventories and 

evaluations for heritage resources would be required prior to transferring lands from federal jurisdiction. 

4-82 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 4 

This would ensure adequate data recovery and documentation of the resource to minimize any adverse 

effect associated with the transfer and loss of federal protection. 

Surface disturbing activities associated with the construction of linear ROWs for pipelines, transmission 

lines, communication lines, and oil and gas development could adversely affect heritage resources. Land 

clearing and grading activities necessary for construction remove vegetation, excavate and compact soils, 

and contribute to increased erosion that could expose buried archeological sites. Federal regulations 

require inventory, recordation, and evaluation of heritage resources in the area of potential effect as part 

of the approval process for any surface disturbing activity. Adverse impacts on heritage resources 

discovered during construction activities would be minimized by relocating the activity to avoid the 

resources or through proper mitigation if disturbance or destruction could not be avoided. 

Special management area designations and associated management prescriptions, including ACECs, 

WSAs, and National Historic or Scenic Trails, would provide protection to heritage resources by limiting 

or controlling surface disturbing activities. These resources include a portion of the Killpecker Sand 

Dunes, White Mountain Petroglyphs, South Pass National Historic Landmark (including the Oregon, 

California, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express National Historic Trails), Boars Tusk, Crookston Ranch, 

and Tri-Territory Marker. 

4.5.1.2 No Action Alternative 

Heritage resources would remain protected through special management area designations (e.g., WSAs, 

National Historic Trails) and associated management prescriptions. These resources include a portion of 

Killpecker Sand Dunes, White Mountain Petroglyphs, South Pass Historic Landscape (including the 

Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express National Historic Trails), Boars Tusk, Crookston 

Ranch, and Tri-Territory Marker. Other areas could be included in the future as further NRHP-eligible 

sites are located and/or special management designations are considered. 

Sites eligible for inclusion in the NRHP because of their scientific value would be protected. Preservation 

of the scientific information would be the preferred mitigation method if any such sites had to be affected 

by other activities. These sites include the Finley, Krmpotich, and Eden-Farson archaeological sites in the 

paleosol deposition area. Other sites will be included as they are located, recorded, and evaluated for 

NRHP eligibility. 

Management actions associated with watershed quality, livestock grazing, wildlife, and vegetation would 

generally have indirect but beneficial impacts on heritage resources. Implementing the Wyoming 

Standards for Healthy Rangelands, meeting PFC standards, taking measures to achieve DPC objectives, 

and controlling or preventing surface disturbing activities in sensitive wildlife habitat would all contribute 

to improved range conditions, soil and vegetation stability, and decreased soil erosion. 

Overuse of an area by livestock, wildlife, and/or wild horses could accelerate erosion and thus destroy the 

soil matrix, which might contain archaeological or historical resources. The wildlife management 

practices of imposing seasonal restrictions on OHV use within the greater sage-grouse nesting habitats 

could benefit the protection of historical resources through prevention of soil erosion. Proper 

construction of water developments and range improvements, and proper placement of salt and mineral 

supplements would help minimize adverse impacts on heritage resources. Areas would be inventoried 

and evaluated for heritage resources before any disturbance associated with the construction of fences, 

water developments, and range improvements, and appropriate mitigation measures would be 

implemented if needed. The amount of surface disturbance anticipated for such activities would not be 

significant and, based on the assumed densities of heritage resources, the likelihood of encountering 

previously unknown sites would be negligible. 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 4-83 
Chapter 4 Final EIS 

Rock art sites and significant historic structures, such as those at Crookston Ranch, would be fenced to 

protect them from livestock and wildlife. 

Management of travel and access could adversely affect heritage resources by facilitating access and use 

within the planning area. Heritage resources would be affected through direct human disturbance and, 

potentially, by unauthorized OHV use. However, providing for appropriate ingress, egress, and access 

routes through effective transportation planning would help reduce related impacts. In addition, limiting 

OHV use to existing roads and trails, and implementing seasonal limitations would minimize soil 

disturbance, thus helping prevent exposure of buried archaeological sites. 

Heritage resources such as Boars Tusk, Crookston Ranch, and White Mountain Petroglyphs would be 

closed to OHV use to protect their scenic qualities and historic values. 

Geophysical exploration activities could affect heritage resources through direct disturbance of such 

resources. Preauthorization inventory and avoidance would usually allow the geophysical operation to be 

conducted in a way that avoided effects on most heritage resources. 

Approximately 1,800 acres of new surface disturbance could occur over the planning period as a result of 

projected oil and gas development activities (Appendix 13, Table A13-7). At the assumed densities for 

heritage sites of 3.2 sites per 640 acres, approximately 13 sites could potentially be affected. Other types 

of ROWs, such as communication sites and ROWs for salable minerals, could result in surface 

disturbances and effects to the setting of sites such as Native American respected places. ROWs 

proposed in proximity to Indian Gap, Monument Ridge, White Mountain, and the face of Steamboat 

Mountain, and around Native American respected places could have adverse impacts on these resources 

and would be avoided to the extent possible. 

Withdrawals identified in the Green River Resource Management Plan (RMP) would be pursued. 

Withdrawing lands from locatable mineral development and revoking existing withdrawals would have 

impacts on the resources and resource users. The oil shale and coal classifications would be revoked and, 

upon revocation, the planning area would be open to filing of mineral claims, exploration, and 

development of locatable minerals. White Mountain Petroglyphs, Greater Sand Dunes ACEC, special 

status plant sites, Crookston Ranch, public water reserves, Tri-Territory Marker, and South Pass Summit 

would be withdrawn from mineral location before the revocation of the oil shale and coal classifications. 

Preauthorization inventory and evaluation are not always required before some mining operations 

conducted pursuant to the 1872 Mining Act; thus, surface disturbance associated with mining claims 

could have the potential to destroy archeological and historical resources and affect historic settings such 

as the South Pass Historic Landscape. However, it is anticipated that fewer than 100 acres within the 

planning area would be disturbed over the planning period because of locatable mineral activity; thus, any 

adverse impact would likely be minimal. Where mining activities would disturb more than 5 acres of 

land, a plan of operations and a resource evaluation would be required. These measures would minimize 

potential impacts on heritage resources. A plan of operations would also be required for mining 

operations in ACECs, which would discuss project details relative to those areas. 

Recreational management actions, such as implementation of public education and interpretive programs, 

would have beneficial effects by encouraging protection of heritage resources. The preparation of 

recreation project plans for the National Historic Trails, Crookston Ranch, Boars Tusk, and White 

Mountain Petroglyphs would benefit the users of these resources by providing interpretive materials on 

historical and cultural sites of interest. An inventory and evaluation of potential heritage resources would 

be completed before the expansion of facilities at the Sand Dunes OHV recreation site, minimizing the 

potential for any adverse impact on previously unknown resources. The projected increase in recreation 

4-84 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 4 

use of the planning area could have the potential to affect heritage resources. Any area that experienced 

increased recreational use would be closed if significant resource damage were observed. Some seasonal 

limitations on OHV use might restrict recreational use and therefore benefit heritage resources; however, 

these benefits would be limited because of the temporary nature of such restrictions. 

Management of visual resources could have beneficial effects through the protection of viewsheds 

associated with historic resources, such as the National Historic Trails in the South Pass Historic 

Landscape, and sites of concern to Native Americans, such as White Mountain Petroglyphs. The Visual 

Resource Management (VRM) Class II designation for these locations would require structures and 

activities to be designed to retain the existing character of the landscape. Any Native American respected 

places located within VRM Class I or II areas could be adversely affected if noticeable changes to the 

landscape occurred. Consultation with Native American elders would help identify alternative measures 

to minimize impacts. 

Management actions for special management areas would usually benefit heritage resources. Limitations 

on surface disturbing activities and other development, including communication sites, would help protect 

heritage resources from physical and visual impacts. Maintaining the South Pass Historic Landscape 

viewshed for approximately 3 miles in either direction from the National Historic Trail would have 

beneficial effects for recreation users of the trails and for the integrity of the historic resource. However, 

other resource users within the viewshed could be adversely affected. Use of GIS technologies to analyze 

the setting of the National Historic Trails through South Pass would assist in maximizing multiple use in 

the South Pass area while still protecting this historically significant viewshed. Allowing communication 

sites on Essex Mountain and Pacific Butte could have adverse effects on visual resources, particularly in 

areas identified as respected places by Native Americans. Application of GIS technologies to analyze 

visual settings could help maximize all uses in these areas while still protecting settings important to 

Native Americans. 

4.5.1.3 Alternative 1 

Heritage resources would remain protected through special management area designations (e.g., WSAs, 

National Historic Trails) and associated management prescriptions. These resources include a portion of 

Killpecker Sand Dunes, White Mountain Petroglyphs, South Pass Historic Landscape (including the 

Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express National Historic Trails), Boars Tusk, Crookston 

Ranch, and Tri-Territory Marker. Other areas could be included in the future as additional NRHP-eligible 

sites and/or special management prescriptions are considered. 

Sites that are eligible for inclusion in the NRHP because of their scientific value (Appendix 7, Heritage 

Resources) would be protected. Preservation of scientific information would be the preferred mitigation 

method if any such sites had to be affected by other activities. These sites include the Finley, Krmpotich, 

and Eden-Farson archaeological sites and the paleosol deposition area. Many other significant 

archeological sites are located in the planning area, and it is anticipated that still more will be discovered 

during the life of this plan. As sites are located, they will be recorded and evaluated for NRHP eligibility. 

These provisions will apply to all sites determined to be eligible under Criterion D (Appendix 7). 

Management actions associated with watershed quality, livestock grazing, wildlife, and vegetation would 

generally have beneficial impacts on heritage resources, similar to those under the No Action Alternative. 

The level of development activity and AUM use is expected to be greater under this alternative; thus, 

there would be greater potential for impacts on heritage resources. However, impacts would remain 

insignificant because of implementation of management tools to improve range conditions, improve soil 

and vegetation stability, and decrease soil erosion, and through mitigation measures to inventory, 

evaluate, avoid, or protect heritage resources. 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 4-85 
Chapter 4 Final EIS 

Under this alternative, recreation management actions would have impacts similar to those under the No 

Action Alternative. Interpretive materials on the importance of protecting and preserving heritage 

resources would be prepared as necessary, including recreation project plans for the National Historic 

Trails, Crookston Ranch, Boars Tusk, and White Mountain Petroglyphs. This would benefit the users of 

these resources by providing interpretive materials on historical and cultural sites of interest. The Sand 

Dunes OHV recreation site would not be expanded; thus, inventory and evaluation of archeological 

resources would not be required. However, an indirect adverse impact could be anticipated if OHV use 

increased outside the recreation site because of lack of available open area for users. The projected 

increase in recreationists’ use of the planning area could have the potential to affect heritage resources, 

but impacts would be minimized by closing popularly used areas if resource damage occurred. However, 

based on the assumed densities of heritage sites within the planning area, it would be unlikely that a 

significant impact would result. 

Management of travel and access throughout the planning area could have adverse impacts on heritage 

resources similar to those under the No Action Alternative. The OHV designations would allow more 

travel on existing roads and trails, but significant adverse impacts would not be anticipated provided that 

users adhered to the designations. Heritage resources such as Boars Tusk, Crookston Ranch, and White 

Mountain Petroglyphs would remain closed to OHV use to protect their historical significance. 

Geophysical exploration activities would be allowed throughout the planning area, subject to seasonal 

limitations and sensitive plant species locations. These activities could affect heritage resources, but 

preauthorization inventory and avoidance measures should minimize adverse impacts. 

Surface disturbing activities associated with the construction and location of ROWs for pipelines, 

transmission lines, communication lines, roads, and oil and gas development activities could adversely 

impact heritage resources, much as they would under the No Action Alternative. Although additional 

land area would be available for ROWs, the potential for this impacting additional heritage resources 

would be small. Cultural resource inventory, recordation, and evaluation of heritage resources would be 

part of the approval process for any surface disturbing activity, and adverse impacts would be minimized 

by avoiding the resources or by proper mitigation if disturbance or destruction could not be avoided. 

Approximately 2,100 acres of new surface disturbance could occur over the planning period for projected 

oil and gas development activities (Appendix 13, Table A13-7). At the assumed densities for heritage 

sites of 3.2 sites per 640 acres, approximately 15 sites could potentially be affected. Additional 

disturbance would be likely for other types of ROWs, such as alternative energy developments, 

communication sites, and mineral material sales, but the number of acres affected would not be so 

significant as to increase the number of potentially affected heritage sites. Any ROWs proposed in 

proximity to Native American respected places could have adverse impacts on these resources; therefore, 

ROWs would not be allowed within one-quarter mile of these places. As under the No Action 

Alternative, the significance of any adverse impact would depend on the significance of the resource and 

the implementation of mitigation measures. 

The paleosol deposition area is of unique significance to the planning area because of its intact 

manifestations of some of the earliest cultures in North America, as exemplified by the Finley and 

Krmpotich sites. This area would be managed to protect scientific values, as under the No Action 

Alternative. The requirement for special testing strategies in this area would also help minimize the 

potential for impacting sites in this depositional regime. 

The oil shale and coal classifications would be revoked, and upon this revocation, the planning area, with 

the exception of White Mountain Petroglyphs, would be open to the filing of mineral claims, exploration, 

4-86 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 4 

and development of locatable minerals. This could have adverse impacts on heritage resources if the 

revocations resulted in significant increases in mining activity. 

As under the No Action Alternative, preauthorization inventory and evaluation would not always be 

required before mining operations affecting fewer than 5 acres, conducted pursuant to the 1872 Mining 

Act. Surface disturbance associated with mining claims could have the potential to destroy archeological 

and historical resources and affect historic settings, such as the South Pass Historic Landscape. Although 

a majority of the planning area would be open for mineral location, fewer than 100 acres would be 

expected to be disturbed over the planning period because of available resources and demand for those 

resources. Thus, any adverse impact would likely be quite minimal. 

Management actions for visual resources under this alternative could have adverse effects on protection of 

the visual quality of historic resources and Native American respected places. Most of the planning area 

would be classified as VRM Class IV, which would allow major modifications to the landscape character. 

Although the management actions for special management areas would benefit heritage resources, this 

alternative would reduce the land area receiving these protections by removing the ACEC designation 

from Steamboat Mountain. Limitations on surface disturbing activities and other development would 

help protect heritage resources from physical and visual impacts, but allowing communication sites on 

Steamboat Mountain could adversely impact visual resources, particularly in areas identified as respected 

places by Native Americans. The South Pass Historic Landscape viewshed would be reduced to 

approximately 1 mile in both directions from the National Historic Trail. This could adversely affect both 

the users of the trail and the historic integrity of the South Pass area if surface disturbing activities and 

visual intrusions were to increase. 

4.5.1.4 Alternative 2 

Heritage resources would remain protected through special management area designations (e.g., WSAs, 

ACECs, and National Historic Trails) and associated management prescriptions. These resources include 

a portion of Killpecker Sand Dunes, Indian Gap, White Mountain Petroglyphs, South Pass Historic 

Landscape (including the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express National Historic 

Trails), Boars Tusk, Crookston Ranch, and Tri-Territory Marker. Other areas could be included in the 

future as additional NRHP-eligible sites and/or special management designations are considered. 

Management actions associated with watershed quality, livestock grazing, wildlife, and vegetation would 

generally have indirect but beneficial impacts on heritage resources, like those under the No Action 

Alternative. The additional protective measures for wildlife under this alternative could have beneficial 

effects on heritage resources by increasing the amount of area protected from surface disturbing activities. 

Recreational management actions would have impacts similar to those under the No Action Alternative. 

Additional interpretive materials on the importance of protecting and preserving heritage resources would 

be prepared, including recreation project plans for the National Historic Trails, Crookston Ranch, Boars 

Tusk, White Mountain Petroglyphs, and Native American sites such as Indian Gap. The Indian Gap Trail 

would be researched and mapped, and an interpretive plan would be prepared. This would benefit users 

of these resources by providing educational materials on historical and cultural sites of interest. The Sand 

Dunes OHV recreation site would not be expanded; therefore, inventory and evaluation of archaeological 

resources would not be required (as under Alternative 1). However, an indirect adverse impact could be 

anticipated if OHV use increased outside the recreation site because of lack of available open area for 

users. This impact could also be influenced by the closure of OHV use in the greater sage-grouse winter 

range. Any adverse impacts on heritage resources due to ground disturbance from camping activities 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 4-87 
Chapter 4 Final EIS 

would be minimized and monitored through a permit program. Areas might be closed to OHV use if 

significant resource damage were observed. 

Travel and access throughout the planning area could have adverse impacts on heritage resources similar 

to those under the No Action Alternative. However, impacts would be reduced through implementation 

of a transportation plan providing maximum protection of sensitive resources. Moreover, limiting OHV 

use to designated roads and trails and closing more areas to OHV use would minimize soil disturbance 

and compaction and thus minimize erosion that could expose previously unknown resources. Boars Tusk, 

Crookston Ranch, White Mountain Petroglyphs, the greater sage-grouse winter range, and the paleosol 

deposition area would be closed to OHV use to protect their uniqueness and sensitive resources. 

Geophysical exploration activities would be excluded from a majority of the planning area; thus impacts 

on heritage resources would be avoided. 

Surface disturbing activities associated with the construction and location of ROWs could adversely 

affect heritage resources in much the same way that they would under the No Action Alternative; 

however, because less land area would be available for ROWs, the potential for significantly impacting 

heritage resources would be low based on the assumed densities of sites within the planning area. 

Approximately 1,300 acres of new surface disturbance could occur over the planning period for projected 

oil and gas development activities (Appendix 13, Table A13-7). At the assumed densities for heritage 

sites of 3.2 sites per 640 acres, fewer than 10 sites could be affected. Any ROWs proposed in proximity to 

Indian Gap, Monument Ridge, White Mountain, the face of Steamboat Mountain, and Native American 

respected places could have adverse impacts on these resources and therefore would be avoided to the 

extent possible. Native American elders would be consulted to determine the viewshed necessary to 

protect respected places from surface disturbing or disruptive activities. As with the other alternatives in 

this plan, inventory, recordation, and evaluation of heritage resources would be part of the approval 

process for any surface disturbing activity, and adverse impacts would be minimized by avoiding the 

resources or by appropriate mitigation if disturbance or destruction could not be avoided. 

The Greater Sand Dunes ACEC would be expanded to include the paleosol deposition area. This area has 

intact manifestations of some of the earliest cultures in North America, as exemplified by the Finley and 

Krmpotich sites. Because of its importance to archeological science, the expanded ACEC would be 

evaluated as a research natural area (RNA). An RNA designation is for areas that contain important 

ecological and scientific values; these areas would be managed for minimum human disturbance. This 

designation would benefit this unique heritage resource by maintaining the area for the primary purpose 

of research and education. 

The entire planning area would be withdrawn from the filing of mining claims, exploration, and 

development for locatable minerals (including recreational use), salable minerals, and coal exploration 

and development. This would have an overall beneficial effect on heritage resources by eliminating these 

surface disturbing activities. 

Management actions for visual resources would benefit the visual quality of historic resources and Native 

American respected places. Most of the planning area would be classified as VRM Class I or II; thus, 

development would be designed to retain the existing character of the landscape. 

The benefits to heritage resources from proposed actions for special management areas would be similar 

to those under the No Action Alternative. However, under this alternative, the benefits would be even 

greater because additional areas would be designated. Management prescriptions associated with ACEC 

expansion areas and greater sage-grouse winter range would provide protections to sensitive resources, 

including heritage resources. Limitations on surface disturbing activities and other development, 

4-88 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 4 

including communication sites, would help protect heritage resources from physical and visual impacts. 

Increasing the South Pass Historic Landscape viewshed to 5 miles in both directions from the National 

Historic Trail would have beneficial effects for both the users of the trail and the historical integrity of the 

South Pass area. However, other users wanting to engage in development activities within the viewshed 

could be adversely impacted, as they would be under the No Action Alternative. Effects on those users 

would be greater under this alternative because larger areas would be managed more restrictively. 

4.5.1.5 Alternative 3 

Heritage resource sites eligible for the NRHP would be protected and managed in accordance with the 

National Historic Preservation Act and Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA). Pursuant to 

the protocol agreement between BLM and the Wyoming SHPO (Appendix 7), sites eligible for inclusion 

in the NRHP because of their scientific information content would be surrounded by a 100-foot avoidance 

area. Expansion era roads and associated sites eligible for the NRHP would be protected from activities 

that would affect their NRHP eligibility status. Activities on the roads and sites may be limited on a caseby-case basis. Consideration would be given to nominating for listing the contributing portions of 

expansion era roads and associated sites eligible for the NRHP. This would have beneficial effects on 

both the heritage resources and the users of these resources. 

Management actions associated with watershed quality, livestock grazing, wildlife, and vegetation would 

generally have beneficial impacts on heritage resources, similar to those of the No Action Alternative and 

Alternative 2. The additional protection measures for wildlife could have beneficial effects on heritage 

resources by increasing the amount of area protected from surface disturbing activities. 

Recreation management actions would have impacts similar to those under Alternative 2. Interpretive 

materials on the importance of protecting and preserving heritage resources would be prepared. Indirect 

adverse impacts could be anticipated if OHV use increased outside the recreation site because of lack of 

available open area for users. Disturbance from camping activities would be minimized and monitored 

through a permit program to minimize any potential effect on previously unknown resources. 

Travel and access throughout the planning area could have adverse impacts on heritage resources similar 

to those under the No Action Alternative. However, impacts would be slightly reduced under this 

alternative through implementation of a transportation plan that provides for maximum protection of 

sensitive resources. In addition, limiting OHV use to existing and designated roads and trails, limiting 

seasonal access, and closing some sensitive plant and wildlife areas would minimize soil disturbance and 

associated erosion that could expose previously unknown resources. 

Geophysical activities could have adverse impacts on heritage resources, similar to those under 

Alternative 2. Impacts would be slightly greater under Alternative 3, however, because this type of 

activity would be excluded from fewer areas than under Alternative 2. Preauthorization inventory and 

avoidance measures would help minimize adverse impacts. 

Potential adverse impacts on heritage resources from surface disturbing activities associated with the 

construction and location of ROWs would be similar to those under the No Action Alternative. However, 

less land area would be available for ROWs; thus, the potential for significant impacts on heritage 

resources would be minimal. Approximately 1,600 acres of new surface disturbance could occur over the 

planning period for projected oil and gas development activities (Appendix 13, Table A13-7). At the 

assumed densities for heritage sites of 3.2 sites per 640 acres, fewer than 12 sites potentially could be 

affected. ROWs would be avoided in areas in close proximity to Indian Gap, Monument Ridge, White 

Mountain, the face of Steamboat Mountain, and Native American respected places, providing a benefit to 

these resources. As with all of the management alternatives, inventory, recordation, and evaluation of 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 4-89 
Chapter 4 Final EIS 

heritage resources would be part of the approval process for any surface disturbing activity. Adverse 

impacts would be minimized by avoiding the resources, or by proper mitigation if disturbance or 

destruction could not be avoided. 

The Greater Sand Dunes ACEC would be expanded to include the paleosol deposition area. This area has 

intact manifestations of some of the earliest cultures in North America, as exemplified by the Finley and 

Krmpotich sites, and warrants the added protection of the ACEC designation. Surface disturbing 

activities would be allowed only if appropriate archeological inventory, testing, and data recovery could 

ensure that there would be no adverse impacts on the resource. 

The majority of the planning area would be open to the filing of mineral claims, exploration, and 

development of locatable minerals. This could have adverse impacts on heritage resources if significant 

increases in mining activity occurred. Surface disturbance associated with mining claims could 

potentially impact archeological and historical resources. Mining in the areas most likely to support 

mining activity (South Pass Summit and Steamboat Mountain) could also affect historic settings and 

Native American respected places. Therefore, those areas would be withdrawn from mineral location. 

Pursuant to the 1872 Mining Act, preauthorization inventory and evaluation would not be required before 

mining operations that would affect fewer than 5 acres (unless located in a special management area). 

However, no significant impacts would be expected because the available mineral resource with the most 

demand would be withdrawn. The White Mountain Petroglyphs would also be withdrawn from mineral 

location; thus, there would be no impact on this Native American rock art site. 

Management of visual resources would have beneficial effects on the visual quality of historic resources 

and Native American respected places. Approximately two-thirds of the planning area would be 

classified as VRM Class I or II; thus, development would be designed to retain the existing character of 

the landscape. Native American respected places located with VRM Class IV areas could be adversely 

affected if noticeable changes to the landscape occurred. However, consultation with Native American 

elders would help identify alternative measures to minimize any impact. 

Special management areas would benefit heritage resources because management prescriptions generally 

limit surface disturbing activities and other development, including communication sites. Management 

actions associated with expansion of existing ACECs and designation of additional ACECs would 

provide protections to sensitive resources, including heritage resources. Maintaining the South Pass 

Historic Landscape viewshed at 3 miles in both directions from the National Historic Trail would have 

beneficial effects on both the users of the trail and the historical integrity of the South Pass area. 

However, other resource users wanting to engage in development activities within the viewshed could be 

adversely impacted, as they would under the No Action Alternative. 

4.5.1.6 Proposed JMH CAP 

Direct impacts on heritage resources would be from surface disturbing activities and soil compaction, 

whereas indirect impacts could occur as a function of increased erosion, easier access, vibration from 

vehicles and equipment, or alteration of the setting associated with certain heritage resources. Impacts on 

heritage resources could include loss of scientific and historical information, integrity, and cultural value. 

Federal regulations require inventory, recordation, and evaluation of resources in the area of potential 

effect as part of the approval process for any surface disturbing activity. BLM prefers to avoid all effects 

on significant heritage resources. BLM would use GIS and other technologies to place surface disturbing 

activities in areas where they would be least intrusive to heritage resource values. 

When avoidance is not possible, several mitigation measures could be applied to lessen the effects on 

heritage resources. Mitigation measures common to all alternatives include data recovery in the case of 

4-90 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 4 

archeological sites that are important because of the scientific information they contain. Mitigation might 

also include interpretive efforts, which would improve the public’s ability to appreciate the resource in 

nearby areas. Data recovery and interpretation could have a beneficial effect for the public because these 

efforts increase understanding and appreciation of our shared heritage. In some cases, interpretation and 

other measures that improve the public’s ability to enjoy and appreciate heritage resources might also be 

appropriate. 

Resources discovered during implementation of an undertaking would be documented and evaluated for 

eligibility for listing in the NRHP. Mitigation, such as data recovery, site stabilization, or other 

appropriate measures, would be implemented to ensure protection of resource values. Sites not eligible 

for the NRHP would be managed on a case-by-case basis according to their values. The SHPO would be 

consulted under provisions of the National Historic Preservation Act, as implemented in the BLM-SHPO 

Protocol, on any potential effects concerning heritage resources (Appendix 7). 

Native American traditional elders have identified a number of sites that are important for their 

traditional, sacred, or religious uses by Native peoples. Elders in this region have referred to these sites as 

“respected places.” Surface disturbance and disruptive activities have the potential to affect these 

respected places and their associated viewsheds. These types of heritage resources differ from more 

typical archeological and historical sites because of their sacredness to Native Americans, and also 

because adverse effects on the resources could not be mitigated by the recovery of scientific information. 

Federal mandates encourage BLM to protect these places and to make accommodations to allow their use 

by Native American traditional people to the extent possible within the bounds of other appropriate 

regulations. 

The significance of any adverse impact would depend on the importance of the resource (e.g., its 

eligibility for NRHP inclusion) and the implementation of mitigation measures. On rare occasions 

heritage resources might be of such importance that their protection might preclude other kinds of 

activity. Federal land users could be adversely affected if a proposed activity were not approved or would 

require modification to the extent that it became economically infeasible. 

Examples of heritage resources of unique significance within the planning area include the region of 

stabilized sand/silt sheet deposit north and west of White Mountain. This area, referred to as the paleosol 

deposition area, has very intact manifestations of some of the earliest cultures in North America, as 

exemplified by the Finley and Krmpotich sites. These sites include preserved cultural materials and 

Pleistocene and early Holocene faunal remains. The sites are tremendously important for the study of 

past environmental conditions and their effects on human adaptation over thousands of years. Surface 

disturbance would be controlled so as to manage the area to protect scientific values. 

Paleontological resources are known in the planning area. The effects of surface disturbing activities such 

as soil erosion, compaction, and vibration, and allowing access into or adjacent to these sensitive areas, 

would impose adverse impacts on these sensitive resources. The impacts would most likely come from 

unauthorized access to the area or even from wildlife that could potentially damage sensitive geologic 

information. Before surface disturbing activities, BLM would classify or rank the area according to its 

potential to contain vertebrate fossils or noteworthy occurrences of invertebrate or plant fossils. 

Documented vertebrate fossil sites would be avoided to protect scientific and educational values. Fencing 

and signage might be used to mitigate open access to some extent, but if impacts could not be avoided, 

the site would be evaluated and surveyed (as needed) by a professional paleontologist. A mitigation plan, 

fossil documentation, recovery, and storage in a federally approved repository would be coordinated with 

BLM before any surface disturbing activity could occur. 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 4-91 
Chapter 4 Final EIS 

Fire suppression efforts would have beneficial effects on heritage resources by protecting standing 

historic structures. However, the use of heavy equipment and the resulting surface disturbance could 

have adverse effects by disturbing the soil matrix, which could contain archeological or historical 

resources. Fire retardant chemicals would not be allowed in the vicinity of rock art sites and some 

historic structures to protect their historic integrity. Fire changes the visual appearance of an area and 

thus could have short-term adverse effects on the historic setting of places such as the South Pass Historic 

Landscape. On the other hand, fire was part of the natural ecosystem, and burning often restores a more 

natural landscape, which would have a beneficial effect on historic settings. 

Actions associated with managing the wild horse program usually would not have any adverse impact on 

heritage resources. Consultation with tribal elders indicates that the presence of wild horses on BLMadministered lands is important to Native Americans. The heritage value of horses is also illustrated by 

the number of horses in the Native American rock art at the White Mountain Petroglyphs site. For these 

reasons, wild horses could almost be considered a heritage resource; thus, their appropriate management 

would have a beneficial effect on traditional values. 

Management actions associated with watershed quality, livestock grazing, wildlife, and vegetation would 

generally have an indirect beneficial effect on heritage resources. Implementing the Wyoming Standards 

for Healthy Rangelands, meeting PFC standards, taking measures to achieve DPC objectives, and 

controlling or preventing surface disturbing activities in sensitive wildlife habitat would all contribute to 

improved range conditions, soil and vegetation stability, and decreased soil erosion. 

Overuse of an area by livestock, wildlife, and/or wild horses could accelerate erosion, destroying the soil 

matrix, which could contain archeological or historical resources. Proper construction of water 

developments and range improvements, and proper placement of salt and mineral supplements, would 

help minimize adverse impacts on heritage resources. Areas would be inventoried and evaluated for 

heritage resources before any disturbance associated with the construction of fences, water developments, 

and range improvements, thus mitigating related impacts. The amount of surface disturbance anticipated 

for such activities would not be significant and, based on the assumed densities of heritage resources, the 

likelihood of encountering previously unknown sites would be negligible. Rock art sites and historic 

structures, such as those at Crookston Ranch, would be fenced to exclude livestock and wildlife. 

Recreation management actions such as implementation of public education and interpretive programs 

could have significant beneficial effects through encouraging protection of heritage resources. 

Preparation of recreation project plans for the National Historic Trails, Crookston Ranch, Boars Tusk, and 

White Mountain Petroglyphs would benefit the users of these resources by providing interpretive 

materials on historical and cultural sites of interest. For example, the location of interpretive and 

directional signage along backcountry byways would be coordinated with state and local governments. 

The projected increase in recreational use of the planning area could have the potential to adversely affect 

heritage resources through increased soil compaction, vegetation removal, and subsequent erosion of 

archeological sites. Any area experiencing increased recreational use would be closed if significant 

resource damage were observed. An inventory and evaluation of potential heritage resources would be 

completed before the expansion of facilities, minimizing the potential for any adverse impact on 

previously unknown resources. However, based on the assumed densities of heritage sites within the 

planning area, it would be unlikely that a significant impact would result. Overall management plans for 

specific heritage resource areas would have significant beneficial effects on the physical integrity of the 

resource as well as for users of these resources. 

Travel and access could adversely affect heritage resources by facilitating access and use within the 

planning area. Heritage resources would be affected through direct human disturbance and, potentially, 

unauthorized OHV use. However, providing for appropriate ingress, egress, and access routes through 

4-92 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 4 

effective transportation planning would help reduce related impacts. In addition, limiting OHV use to 

existing roads and trails would minimize soil disturbance, thus helping prevent exposure of buried 

archeological sites. Heritage resources such as WSAs, Boars Tusk, Crookston Ranch, special status plant 

sites, the Oregon Buttes ACEC, the Pinnacles Geologic Feature, and the White Mountain Petroglyphs 

ACEC would be closed to OHV use to protect their scenic qualities and historic values. Impacts could be 

slightly less than under the No Action Alternative because of implementation of a transportation plan 

specific to the planning area, ROW avoidance areas within the greater sage-grouse nesting habitat, and 

the Pinnacles Geologic Feature ROW exclusion area. Again, management of access in these areas would 

benefit heritage resources as well as natural resources of all kinds. 

Geophysical exploration activities could adversely affect heritage resources. However, preauthorization 

inventory and avoidance could usually allow the geophysical operation to be conducted in a manner that 

would avoid effects on most heritage resources. 

Land exchanges and ownership adjustments could have an adverse effect on heritage resources located on 

the affected parcels. Resources could become vulnerable to impacts because historic preservation laws 

and procedures such as inventory and avoidance generally apply only to lands under federal jurisdiction. 

Changes in ownership could significantly alter land management practices. Because the State of 

Wyoming does not have extensive state laws protecting heritage resources, land exchanges with the state 

could have adverse effects through removal of the property from the protection of the National Historic 

Preservation Act and other federal laws. In addition, public access to important heritage resources could 

be adversely affected if access through privately owned land were precluded or made more difficult. 

Inventories and evaluations for heritage resources would be required before transferring lands from 

federal jurisdiction. This would ensure adequate data recovery and documentation of the resource to 

minimize any adverse effect associated with the transfer and loss of federal protection. 

Surface disturbing activities associated with the construction of linear ROWs for pipelines, transmission 

lines, communication lines, and oil and gas development could adversely affect heritage resources. Land 

clearing and grading activities necessary for construction remove vegetation, excavate and compact soils, 

and contribute to increased erosion that could expose buried archeological sites. Preauthorization 

inventory and avoidance would usually allow operations to be conducted in a way that would avoid 

effects on most heritage resources. As with all of the alternatives, federal regulations would require 

inventory, recordation, and evaluation of heritage resources in the area of potential effect as part of the 

approval process for any surface disturbing activity. Adverse impacts on heritage resources discovered 

during construction activity would be minimized by relocating the activity to avoid the resources, or 

through proper mitigation if disturbance or destruction could not be avoided. 

As under Alternative 3, approximately 1,600 acres of new surface disturbance is anticipated over the 

planning period for projected oil and gas development activities (Appendix 13, Table A13-7). At the 

assumed densities for heritage sites of 3.2 sites per 640 acres, approximately 13 sites could potentially be 

affected. These impacts could be reduced in Area 3 (Figure A17-1) of the JMH CAP fluid mineral 

leasing implementation strategy (Appendix 17). The majority of Area 3 would be closed to new oil and 

gas leasing, which could result in fewer disturbances of heritage resources in this area. Over the long 

term, impacts in Area 3 would be minimized because all leases in this area would expire within an 11-

year time period. Other types of ROWs, such as communication sites and salable minerals operations, 

could result in surface disturbance and effects on the setting of sites, such as Native American respected 

places. Any ROWs proposed in proximity to Indian Gap, Monument Ridge, White Mountain, the face of 

Steamboat Mountain, and Native American respected places could have adverse impacts on these 

resources and thus would be avoided to the extent possible. 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 4-93 
Chapter 4 Final EIS 

Proposed withdrawals from locatable minerals identified in the Green River RMP would be pursued. 

Withdrawing of lands from locatable mineral development and revoking existing withdrawals would have 

beneficial impacts on heritage resources and resource users. Any mineral withdrawals would benefit 

heritage resource management by preventing vegetation removal, soil erosion and compaction, and 

vibration of significant heritage resources. The White Mountain Petroglyphs, Greater Sand Dunes ACEC, 

special status plant sites, Crookston Ranch, public water reserves, Tri-Territory Marker, Pinnacles 

Geologic Feature, and South Pass Summit would be withdrawn from mineral location before revocation 

of the oil shale and coal classifications. Preauthorization inventory and evaluation are not always 

required before some mining operations conducted pursuant to the 1872 Mining Act; thus surface 

disturbance associated with mining claims could have the potential to destroy archeological and historical 

resources and affect historic settings, such as the South Pass Historic Landscape. Where mining activities 

would disturb more than 5 acres of land, a plan of operations and a resource evaluation would be required. 

These measures could minimize potential impacts on heritage resources. A plan of operations would also 

be required in special management areas, which also would minimize the potential impact on heritage 

resources. 

Management of visual resources could have beneficial effects through the protection of viewsheds 

associated with historic resources (e.g., South Pass Historic Landscape), and Native American sites (e.g., 

White Mountain Petroglyphs). The VRM Class II designation for these locations would require that 

structures or activities be designed to retain the existing character of the landscape. Native American 

respected places located within VRM Class I or II areas could be adversely affected if noticeable changes 

to the landscape occurred. Consultation with Native American elders would help identify alternative 

measures of minimizing impacts. 

Special management area designations and associated management prescriptions, including ACECs, 

WSAs, and National Historic or Scenic Trails, would provide protection to heritage resources by limiting 

or controlling surface disturbing activities. These resources include a portion of Killpecker Sand Dunes, 

White Mountain Petroglyphs, South Pass National Historic Landmark (including the Oregon, California, 

Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express National Historic Trails), Boars Tusk, Crookston Ranch, and TriTerritory Marker. Appropriate limitations on surface disturbing activities and other developments, 

including communication sites, would help protect heritage resources from physical and visual impacts. 

For example, communication sites would be prohibited in the Steamboat Mountain ACEC but would be 

considered on Essex Mountain and Pacific Butte, provided that appropriate mitigation measures could be 

implemented to meet VRM prescriptions. Maintaining the South Pass Historic Landscape viewshed at 

approximately 3 miles in each direction from the center of the National Historic Trail would also have 

beneficial impacts on both the users of the trail and the historic integrity of the historic trails setting. 

However, other resource users wanting to engage in development activities within the viewshed could be 

adversely affected. 

4.6 TRAVEL, ACCESS, AND REALTY 

This resource management category includes the land use programs of transportation, OHV use, lands and 

realty management, ROWs, and access routes and issues. 

4.6.1 Potential Impacts on Travel, Access, and Realty 

The land use programs of travel, access, and realty have environmental impacts on resources, and 

nonenvironmental effects on resource users. Impacts on resources and resource users resulting from 

implementation of these programs are discussed in those particular resource sections. This section 

describes potential impacts on the land use programs of travel, access, and realty resulting from the 

implementation of management actions for other resource management categories. 

4-94 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 4 

An impact would be considered significant if the implementation of management actions would 

compromise public health and safety, limit reasonable public access and use of the planning area, cause 

economic hardship for developers, and/or have adverse effects on state or private inholdings. 

For analysis purposes, it is assumed that the majority of ROW locations are the result of development in 

the area. Exchanges of public land for state lands in sensitive resource areas would be pursued, and 

access to state and private inholdings would be maintained. 

4.6.1.1 Common to All Alternatives 

For the area of travel, access, and realty, the management actions associated with the alternatives would 

primarily affect where and when access to and travel within the JMH CAP planning area would be 

allowed, and where ROWs and other realty actions would be permitted. The limitations placed on travel, 

access, and realty management and related users would depend on locations of sensitive resources and 

measures used to protect those resources. 

Management of water, vegetation, and wildlife resources would place restrictions on access, travel, and 

realty actions within the planning area, thereby impacting related users. Such restrictions could affect 

OHV use, general travel within the planning area, access to remote locations, ROW developments, land 

exchanges, and other realty actions. Impacts are not expected to be significant because many of the 

restrictions designed to protect land and water resources are implemented on a seasonal basis. ROW 

windows have been identified in the Green River RMP for areas outside the JMH CAP planning area that 

provide opportunities for placement of major transmission facilities. 

Land adjustments and exchanges identified in the Green River RMP would be pursued, including 

exchange of state lands within WSAs and other special management areas. Acquiring state inholdings 

and other lands would likely result in beneficial impacts on travel, access, and realty management because 

BLM could implement cohesive management practices and reduce fragmentation of the planning area. 

Similar benefits could occur to the state or private party receiving lands in the exchange. Certain lands 

(e.g., areas with wetland and riparian habitat) would not be considered for disposal unless exchanged for 

lands of equal or better value (including functional resource value and monetary value). Mineral 

development activities would generally benefit and increase travel and access within the planning area 

through the development of additional roads needed to access drilling locations. However, such 

development could create health and safety risks to OHV users if pipelines became exposed in areas of 

shifting sand, which could have a significant adverse impact on users. 

Visual resources management would adversely impact travel, access, and realty management by imposing 

restrictions on surface use and surface occupancy via VRM classifications, which serve to retain the 

existing character of the landscape. These restrictions could affect OHV use, general travel within the 

planning area, ROW developments, and other realty actions. Specifically, restrictions related to VRM 

classifications could increase project costs related to ROW developments and geophysical activities. An 

impact would be significant if a project were abandoned because expected costs outweighed projected 

benefits. 

4.6.1.2 No Action Alternative 

Management actions designed to protect water, vegetation, and wildlife resources would generally have 

adverse effects on travel, access, and realty management. Such actions include limitations on surface 

disturbing and disruptive activities in the form of designated avoidance areas, surface use stipulations, and 

specific mitigation measures. The area within 500 feet of riparian areas and wetlands, areas containing 

highly erodible soils, potential habitat for and known locations of special status species, and other 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 4-95 
Chapter 4 Final EIS 

sensitive wildlife habitat would all be subject to surface disturbance restrictions, which would place 

limitations on access and use within the planning area and could increase costs to the permittee. 

Transportation planning would result in beneficial impacts on travel, access, and realty management by 

providing for appropriate ingress, egress, and access routes that would follow BLM guidelines and the 

road classifications defined in the Green River RMP (Appendix 12). Arterial roads would be high-trafficvolume roads that would provide primary access to the planning area; collector roads would provide 

access to large blocks of land; local roads would serve smaller areas; and resource roads would provide 

access to resource locations. Implementing OHV use designations and related seasonal closures would 

affect users by limiting travel within the planning area. However, impacts are expected to be minimal 

because existing and designated roads and trails provide adequate vehicle access throughout the planning 

area. 

Geophysical activities would be required to conform to OHV use designations for minimizing adverse 

impacts on vegetation and other sensitive resources. This would affect applicants because of the nature of 

exploration activities. Limiting exploration activities to existing roads and trails could keep applicants 

from exploring in a grid pattern, and therefore could make it uneconomical to conduct exploration if 

portable techniques could not be used. 

Areas that excluded or limited ROWs would cover approximately one-third of the planning area under 

this alternative. Applicants for ROWs would have to avoid another 30 percent of the planning area or 

apply additional mitigation to protect sensitive resource values. Such limitations could create increased 

costs and have an adverse economic impact on applicants by requiring a longer route to avoid these areas. 

This, in turn, could create additional surface disturbances, which could require additional mitigation and 

funds to construct the longer route. Moreover, construction would be subject to seasonal limitations in 

approximately half of the planning area, which could affect the timing (and therefore the cost) of ROW 

developments. An impact would be significant if a project were abandoned because the expected costs 

outweighed the benefits of acquiring the ROW. 

4.6.1.3 Alternative 1 

Management actions for water, vegetation, and wildlife resources would be less restrictive under this 

alternative, which would reduce adverse impacts on travel, access, and realty management compared with 

the No Action Alternative. Reducing the avoidance area around wetlands and riparian areas to 250 feet, 

limiting protections to special status plant and wildlife species, and eliminating surface disturbance 

restrictions in big game winter range and birthing areas would result in an increased level of access and 

use within the planning area. 

As under the No Action Alternative, transportation planning would result in beneficial impacts on travel, 

access, and realty management by providing for appropriate ingress, egress, and access routes. OHV use 

designations would be less restrictive to users because fewer areas would be limited to designated roads 

and trails or have seasonal access limitations. This would increase access to existing roads and trails, 

thereby increasing the amount of area available to OHV users. 

Geophysical activities would not be subject to OHV use designations, as required in the No Action 

Alternative. Geophysical activities would be allowed throughout the planning area, subject to seasonal 

limitations and sensitive plant species locations. This would reduce adverse impacts because users would 

be able to conduct economical exploration activities generally in a grid design and by portable techniques 

as necessary. 

4-96 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 4 

Applicants would have greater flexibility and opportunity for locating and routing ROWs than they would 

under the No Action Alternative. Placement of ROWs would be limited in areas designated as NSO, in 

exclusion or avoidance areas, by seasonal limitations, and by VRM classifications. Impacts on users 

would likely be less than under the other alternatives, because more land area would be available for 

ROWs. 

Of the five alternatives, this alternative would provide the greatest level of mineral development, resulting 

in increased benefits to travel, access, and realty management compared with the other alternatives. 

Although existing roads and trails provide adequate vehicle access, anticipated development of existing 

and new leases would likely create additional access routes for users of the planning area. However, 

increased oil and gas development could create health and safety risks to OHV users if pipelines became 

exposed in areas of shifting sand, which could have a significant adverse impact on users. 

Restrictions on surface use and surface occupancy imposed by VRM classifications would be least 

restrictive under this alternative. VRM Class II and III areas would be reduced in size, and VRM Class 

IV areas would increase by at least 120,000 acres over the other alternatives (Table 4-1 and Map 25). 

This would reduce related impacts on OHV use, travel within the planning area, ROW developments, and 

other realty actions. 

4.6.1.4 Alternative 2 

Management actions for water, vegetation, and wildlife resources would be more restrictive under this 

alternative, which would increase adverse impacts compared with the No Action Alternative. Increasing 

the avoidance area around wetlands and riparian areas to one-quarter mile, increasing protections to 

special status plant and wildlife species, and increasing surface disturbance restrictions in big game 

birthing areas would result in increased restrictions on travel, access, and realty management, thereby 

reducing the level of access and use within the planning area. 

Transportation planning under this alternative would provide for appropriate access routes to provide 

maximum protection for crucial habitats and sensitive resources. This would limit access and could close 

roads in the planning area. Implementation of such a transportation plan could have significant adverse 

impacts on users if areas were no longer accessible by vehicles, and travel time would increase because 

more direct routes would not be available. Travel management plans would be developed in conjunction 

with transportation planning efforts to control development within Steamboat Mountain ACEC, White 

Mountain, the two northern birthing areas, and Essex Mountain. This could adversely affect users if 

access distance became too lengthy or costly, or was eliminated entirely, which could effectively preclude 

development. 

OHV use designations would be more restrictive under this alternative, closing approximately 70 percent 

of the planning area because of sensitive or unique resources (Map 30). Moreover, the facilities at the 

Greater Sand Dunes Recreation Area would not be expanded or improved. This would adversely affect 

OHV users because much of the planning area would not be accessible by vehicle, and users would have 

to travel farther to access certain locations. This could also deter OHV use in the planning area, which 

could lessen the health and safety risks posed by oil and gas development. Geophysical activities would 

be excluded from areas with NSO requirements and areas with sensitive or unique resource values. This 

could result in significant adverse impacts on users because these designations encompass much of the 

planning area, leaving a limited amount of area for geophysical activities. Seasonal limitations would 

also apply to these activities, further affecting exploration operations. 

Placement of ROWs would be limited in areas with sensitive or unique resources; seasonal limitations; 

and NSO, exclusion, or avoidance stipulations, which cover a majority of the planning area. This would 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 4-97 
Chapter 4 Final EIS 

provide extremely limited opportunities for locating and routing ROWs through the planning area. 

Impacts on users would be significant because it would likely be uneconomical to locate a ROW through 

much of the planning area with adequate mitigation or while avoiding sensitive resources. 

This alternative allows the least amount of mineral development of the five alternatives, thereby 

decreasing benefits to travel and access opportunities. Decreased development of existing and new leases 

would result in forgone opportunities to develop additional access routes. However, decreased oil and gas 

development could reduce the health and safety risks to OHV users associated with exposed pipelines in 

areas of shifting sand. 

Restrictions on surface use and surface occupancy imposed by VRM classifications would be the most 

restrictive under this alternative. Most of the planning area (over 400,000 acres) would be designated a 

VRM Class I area; there would be very few VRM Class III areas and no VRM Class IV areas (Table 4-1 

and Map 36). This would increase related impacts on OHV use, travel within the planning area, ROW 

developments, and other realty actions. 

4.6.1.5 Alternative 3 

Management actions designed to protect water, vegetation, and wildlife resources would generally have 

adverse effects on travel, access, and realty management. Such actions include limitations on surface 

disturbing and disruptive activities (including OHV use) in the form designated avoidance areas, surface 

use stipulations, and specific mitigation measures. The area within 500 feet to one-quarter mile of 

wetlands and riparian areas, areas containing highly erodible soils, potential habitat for and known 

locations of special status species, and other sensitive wildlife habitat would all be subject to surface 

disturbance restrictions, which would place limitations on access and use within the planning area. 

Impacts would be slightly less than under the No Action Alternative because of moderate increases in 

restrictions on surface disturbing and disruptive activities. 

Transportation planning would follow BLM guidelines and road classifications to provide maximum 

protection for crucial habitats and sensitive resources. This would limit access through seasonal road 

closures and/or gating to limit frequency of access in crucial wildlife habitat. Reroutes or rehabilitation of 

existing roads and trails could have significant adverse impacts on users if areas were no longer accessible 

by vehicle, travel time increased because more direct routes were not available, or construction and 

maintenance of roads to meet management objectives were more costly. A travel management plan 

would be developed specifically to manage access in the Steamboat Mountain and White Mountain areas. 

This could adversely affect users if access distance became too lengthy or costly. Implementing OHV use 

designations and related seasonal closures would affect users by limiting travel within the planning area. 

Such impacts would be slightly greater than under the No Action Alternative because more areas would 

be closed to OHV use and subject to seasonal limitations. 

Geophysical activities would be excluded from areas with NSO requirements (Map 39) and sensitive or 

unique resource values, as under Alternative 2. Significant adverse impacts on users would be likely if 

these designations effectively precluded geophysical exploration activities; however, exceptions to these 

exclusions would be considered if adequate mitigation could be implemented. Seasonal limitations would 

also apply to these activities, further affecting exploration operations but not precluding them. 

Applicants would have less opportunity to locate and route ROWs under this alternative than under the 

No Action Alternative. Placement of ROWs would be limited in areas with sensitive or unique resources 

through employment of seasonal limitations and by an increase in areas designated as VRM Class II (Map 

47). Construction would be subject to VRM classifications and seasonal limitations in approximately half 

of the planning area, which could affect the amount of time needed to place utilities in ROWs. This could 

4-98 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 4 

adversely affect users through increased project costs. An impact would be significant if a project were 

abandoned because the expected costs outweighed the benefits of acquiring the ROW. However, 

exceptions might be granted which would lessen this effect (Appendix 4). 

The level of mineral development would be slightly less under this alternative than under the No Action 

Alternative, thereby decreasing benefits to access and travel. Decreased development of existing and new 

leases would result in forgone opportunities to develop additional access routes. However, decreased oil 

and gas development could reduce the health and safety risks to OHV users associated with exposed 

pipelines in areas of shifting sand. 

Restrictions on surface use and surface occupancy imposed by VRM classifications would be more 

restrictive than under the No Action Alternative through designation of additional Class I and II areas 

(Table 4-1 and Map 47). This would increase related impacts on OHV use, travel within the planning 

area, ROW developments, and other realty actions. 

4.6.1.6 Proposed JMH CAP 

For the area of travel, access, and realty, the management actions associated with the Proposed JMH CAP 

would primarily affect where and when access to and travel within the JMH CAP planning area would be 

allowed, and where ROWs and other realty actions would be permitted. The limitations placed on travel, 

access, and realty management and related users would depend on the locations of sensitive resources and 

the measures used to protect those resources. 

Management of water, vegetation, and wildlife resources would place restrictions on access, travel, and 

realty actions within the planning area, thereby impacting related users. Such restrictions could affect 

OHV use, general travel within the planning area, access to remote locations, ROW developments, land 

exchanges, and other realty actions. Management actions designed to protect water, vegetation, and 

wildlife resources would include limitations on surface disturbing and disruptive activities (including 

OHV use) in the form of designated avoidance areas, surface use stipulations, and specific mitigation 

measures. The area within 500 feet of wetlands and riparian areas, areas containing highly erodible soils, 

potential habitat for and known locations of special status species, and other sensitive wildlife habitat 

would all be subject to surface disturbance restrictions, which would place limitations on access to and 

use within the planning area. Management actions for greater sage-grouse habitat would be more 

restrictive than under the No Action Alternative, potentially increasing impacts on access, travel, and 

realty management. Impacts are not expected to be significant because many of the restrictions designed 

to protect land and water resources would be implemented on a seasonal basis. In addition, ROW 

windows have been identified in the Green River RMP for areas outside the JMH CAP planning that 

provide opportunities for placement of major transmission facilities. 

Land adjustments and exchanges identified in the Green River RMP would be pursued, including 

exchange of state lands within WSAs and other special management areas. Acquiring state inholdings 

and other lands would likely result in beneficial impacts on travel, access, and realty management because 

BLM could implement cohesive management practices and reduce fragmentation of the planning area. 

Similar benefits could occur to the state or private party receiving lands in the exchange. Certain lands 

(e.g., areas with wetland and riparian habitat) would not be considered for disposal unless exchanged for 

lands of equal or better value (including functional resource value and monetary value). 

Transportation planning would provide for appropriate access routes to provide maximum protection for 

crucial habitats and sensitive resources. Unlike the No Action Alternative, the Proposed JMH CAP 

would implement a transportation plan that could include mitigation measures (such as offsite placement 

of facilities, remote control monitoring, restricted or prohibited surface use, and concentration of pipelines 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 4-99 
Chapter 4 Final EIS 

and power lines) in areas subject to seasonal limitations and controlled surface use and NSO stipulations. 

This could limit access to and use within the planning area and could have significant adverse impacts on 

users if areas were no longer accessible by vehicles and travel time increased because more direct routes 

were not available. Moreover, travel management plans would be developed in conjunction with 

transportation planning efforts to control development within Steamboat Mountain, White Mountain, the 

two northern calving areas, and Essex Mountain. This could adversely affect users if access distance 

became too lengthy or costly, or was eliminated entirely, which could effectively preclude development. 

Implementing OHV use designations and related seasonal closures would impact users by limiting travel 

within the planning area. However, impacts would likely be minimal because existing and designated 

roads and trails would provide adequate vehicle access throughout the planning area. Geophysical 

activities would be allowed throughout the planning area, subject to appropriate mitigation and limitations 

applied to ROWs (Map 49) and measures to protect sensitive resources. Activities would not be allowed 

within one-half mile of the Pinnacles Geologic Feature or in areas of sensitive heritage resources and 

geologic features, such as Boars Tusk, White Mountain Petroglyphs, and historic trails. In addition, 

geophysical vehicles would not be allowed in areas closed to OHV use. Geophysical activities would be 

allowed in sensitive resource areas only if they could be performed with acceptable mitigation of impacts. 

Such restrictions would likely limit geophysical activities and thereby adversely impact users. However, 

exceptions to these limitations would be considered. To the extent possible, utility and transportation 

ROWs would be located to coincide with existing roads, trails, and other ROWs or easement 

concentration areas, where they would not create safety hazards or conflict with other resources and uses. 

Placement of ROWs would also be limited in exclusion and avoidance areas (Map 49). This could affect 

specific placement of ROWs and access to future development locations. Specific impacts could include 

logistical difficulties in using an existing road, trail, other ROW, and/or easement because of unfavorable 

geography, proximity, or presence of sensitive resources. The level of impact would depend on the 

location of existing roads, trails, other ROWs, and/or easements relative to the location objective of the 

user. Mitigation measures to alleviate this problem would include coordination of proposed leases with 

the overall transportation plan and individual travel management plans as applicable. 

Mineral development activities would generally benefit travel and access within the planning area through 

the development of additional roads needed to access drilling locations. This would increase the level of 

access and travel opportunities within the planning area. However, mineral development activities could 

also create health and safety risks to OHV users if pipelines became exposed in areas of shifting sand, 

which could have a significant adverse impact on users. These impacts could be reduced in Area 3 

(Figure A17-1) of the JMH CAP fluid mineral leasing implementation strategy (Appendix 17). The 

majority of Area 3 would be closed to new oil and gas leasing, which would result in less well 

development and associated road construction. Over the long term, impacts in Area 3 would be 

minimized because all leases in this area would expire within an 11-year time period. 

Visual resources management would adversely impact travel, access, and realty management by imposing 

restrictions on surface use and surface occupancy via VRM classifications, which serve to retain the 

existing character of the landscape. These restrictions could affect OHV use, general travel within the 

planning area, ROW developments, and other realty actions. Specifically, restrictions related to VRM 

classifications could increase project costs related to ROW developments and geophysical activities. An 

impact would be significant if a project were abandoned because expected costs outweighed the projected 

benefits. Although VRM classifications would differ slightly under this alternative compared with the No 

Action Alternative, the level of impact would be similar given that increases in VRM Class II areas would 

help offset increases in VRM Class IV areas under this alternative. 

4-100 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.7 RECREATION RESOURCES 

BLM-administered lands are managed to provide broad opportunities for many different types of 

recreation use. This resource management category includes dispersed recreation use and hunting. 

4.7.1 Potential Impacts on Recreation Resources 

The land use program for recreation resources has environmental impacts on resources and 

nonenvironmental effects (e.g., quality of recreation experience) on resource users. Impacts on resources 

and resource users resulting from implementation of recreation management actions are discussed in 

those particular resource sections. This section describes potential impacts on recreation resources or 

opportunities resulting from the implementation of management actions for other resource management 

categories. 

An impact on recreation resources would be significant if an activity resulted in elimination of recreation 

use in any area, affected the user’s experience, or would compromise public health and safety. 

Significant impacts would also occur if a level of development occurred that would prevent meeting the 

recreation objectives for the planning area or if activities occurred that would have a direct or indirect 

effect on wilderness suitability. 

For analysis purposes, it is assumed that recreation activity levels would vary by alternative and would be 

related to how much recreation opportunity would be created or lost because of other projected 

development and activities. The specific assumptions for activity levels are presented in Section 4.12, 

Socioeconomics. Generally, dispersed recreation use is assumed to increase under each alternative, 

whereas OHV use is assumed to remain constant or to increase for a few years and then remain constant 

or decline slightly. New large-scale recreation facilities or developments would not be constructed during 

the planning period. Existing recreation facilities might be upgraded or improved. Hunting for elk is 

assumed to remain constant for all alternatives except Alternatives 1 and 2, for which the number of 

hunting days is expected to increase slightly in early years (because of dispersion of animals and 

decreased access) and to begin to decline in the later part of the planning period. Other big game hunting 

would remain constant. Greater sage grouse hunting is expected to decline under the No Action 

Alternative and Alternatives 1 and 3, as populations continued to decline, and to remain constant under 

Alternative 2 and the Proposed JMH CAP. 

4.7.1.1 Common to All Alternatives 

For recreation resources, the management actions associated with the alternatives would primarily affect 

where and when recreation use would be permitted within the planning area. The limitations placed on 

users of the planning area would depend on the location of sensitive resources and the measures used to 

protect these resources. 

Management of land and water resources would not have significant impacts on recreation resources. 

These management actions generally limit the extent of surface disturbing activities or vegetation removal 

and provide for protection of habitat used by wildlife, which indirectly benefits the recreation user. 

Limitations on seasonal use of the planning area to protect sensitive plant and wildlife habitat would limit 

recreation use during certain times of the year; however, impacts on recreation users would not be 

significant because of the temporary nature of these limitations. 

Heritage sites such as White Mountain Petroglyphs, National Historic and National Scenic Trails, Boars 

Tusk, Crookston Ranch, and Tri-Territory Marker contribute to the recreation resources of the planning 

area. Managing and protecting these heritage resources would directly benefit the resources and users of 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 4-101 
Chapter 4 Final EIS 

these resources. Protection of these resources, in addition to the development of interpretive sites for 

select areas, would enhance the recreation experience in the planning area. 

4.7.1.2 No Action Alternative 

Salt or mineral supplements for livestock would not be allowed within 500 feet of riparian habitat or 

National Historic and Scenic Trails. This would have a beneficial effect on recreation users by protecting 

riparian areas used for camping and fishing and by maintaining the cultural integrity of the trails. 

The actions proposed for the management of wildlife would have impacts on recreation use because of the 

seasonal restrictions placed on OHV use within the greater sage-grouse nesting areas. However, impacts 

on recreation users would not be significant because of the temporary nature of these limitations. 

The actions proposed for managing recreation resources would have beneficial impacts on both the 

resource and the user. The proposed development of recreation project and site plans and interpretive 

signs for the backcountry byways, historical sites, and viewing areas would represent a positive effect for 

the recreation experience and could increase the number of recreation visitor days for certain dispersed 

activities. Limitations on dispersed camping to protect riparian areas and protection measures associated 

with special recreation use permits would not significantly affect these uses. 

Existing roads and trails provide adequate vehicle access in the planning area for recreation purposes. 

OHV designations would minimize adverse impacts on recreation resources by limiting disturbance to 

vegetation, watersheds, and wildlife; however, this could also impact OHV users through limitations on 

access and use within the planning area. Approximately 20 percent of the planning area would remain 

closed to OHV use. A recreation project plan would be developed to expand the parking area and 

facilities at the Greater Sand Dunes Recreation Area (i.e., OHV open area) to accommodate anticipated 

increases in OHV users and reduce user conflicts, thereby enhancing the recreation experience. 

The construction of facilities and ROWs for pipelines, transmission lines, communication lines and 

towers, and oil and gas development could adversely affect recreation resources. Land clearing, grading, 

construction, and drilling activities would create dust, noise, and increased traffic. These activities could 

have adverse impacts on recreation uses because the activities would be visually and audibly apparent 

during the recreation experience. The significance of any impact for recreation users would depend on 

the proximity to the development. Users could be inconvenienced if ROW construction impeded access to 

recreation activities; however, any impact would likely not be significant because of the temporary nature 

of the construction. The visual intrusion of these developments would be site-specific and would not 

affect recreationists outside the viewshed of each facility. 

The oil shale and coal classification would be revoked, and upon revocation, the planning area, with the 

exception of White Mountain Petroglyphs, Greater Sand Dunes ACEC, special status plant sites, 

Crookston Ranch, public water reserves, Tri-Territory Marker, and South Pass Summit, would be open 

for mineral location, having a beneficial effect on recreation users because additional locations would be 

available for recreational mining activities. 

VRM classifications provide the planning mechanism for maintaining or improving scenic quality by 

managing the effects of human activities and other intrusions on the visual landscape. Implementation of 

these classifications would have beneficial effects on recreation resources and users by ensuring that 

surface disturbing activities would be compatible with the existing character of the landscape and that 

visual intrusions would not adversely affect the recreation experience. The existing landscape of 

recreation resources, including WSAs, 1-mile transition zones around WSAs, and ACECs, would be 

maintained or retained, thus having a beneficial impact on the recreation use of these areas. 

4-102 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 4 

Management prescriptions associated with special management areas, including ACECs, WSAs, and 

National Historic or Scenic Trails, would provide protection to recreation resources by limiting or 

controlling surface disturbing activities and development in these areas. This would have a beneficial 

impact on recreation users by minimizing incompatible uses in these areas and providing areas for 

solitude and primitive recreation opportunities. 

4.7.1.3 Alternative 1 

Salt or mineral supplements for livestock would not be allowed within 250 feet of riparian habitat and 

National Historic and Scenic Trails. This could have an adverse effect if areas frequented by 

recreationists for camping, fishing, and hiking were altered so as to impact the recreation experience. 

The actions proposed for the management of wildlife within the greater sage-grouse nesting area would 

be less restrictive on recreation than those under the No Action Alternative. This is because the area 

under consideration is less extensive and because only areas under consideration that contain sagebrush 

would have restrictions on OHV use. 

Like the actions under the No Action Alternative, the actions proposed for managing recreation resources 

under this alternative would have beneficial impacts on both the resource and the user. The proposed 

development of recreation project and site plans and interpretive signs for backcountry byways, historical 

sites, and viewing areas would represent a positive effect for the recreation experience and could increase 

the number of recreation visitor days for certain dispersed activities. However, potential conflicts 

between increased development activities and recreation uses in certain areas could have a long-term 

effect if recreation resources or the recreation experience were degraded such that visitor days declined. 

Limitations and requirements for dispersed camping and special recreation use permits would not 

significantly affect these uses. 

Anticipated development would likely create additional access routes in the planning area that could be 

used by recreationists. The OHV designations would be less restrictive than those under the No Action 

Alternative because OHV use would be limited to designated roads and trails, or be subject to seasonal 

access limitations, in fewer areas. This could have adverse effects on users who preferred nonmotorized 

forms of recreation. 

Leaseholders and applicants for ROWs would have greater flexibility in and opportunity for oil and gas 

development and location and routing of ROWs in the planning area than they would under the No Action 

Alternative. Construction and drilling activities would create more dust, noise, and traffic, which could 

have adverse impacts on recreation uses, than under the No Action Alternative. However, the 

significance of any impact on recreation resource users would depend on the proximity of the recreation 

activity to the development. There could be adverse impacts on recreation users if ROW construction 

impeded access to recreation activities, but any impact would be temporary and insignificant. Recreation 

users could be adversely affected by increased developments and surface disturbing activities’ affecting 

the visual appeal of the area. The significance of any impact would be site-specific and would vary 

among recreationists because of the subjective nature of visual appeal and its influence on a recreation 

experience. 

The development of roads and well facilities would result in more access to the planning area and 

potential loss and fragmentation of wildlife habitat, which could increase hunting pressure on wildlife. 

Projected increases in human activity from all types of users (i.e., industry workers, hunters, 

recreationists) could cause displacement of wildlife populations that support recreation activities such as 

hunting and wildlife viewing. The significance of any impact on recreation resources and resource users 

would depend on the extent to which recreation opportunity was reduced. 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 4-103 
Chapter 4 Final EIS 

Although most of the planning area would be open to mineral location, areas of notable recreation 

importance, including White Mountain Petroglyphs, Crookston Ranch, Tri-Territory Marker, and South 

Pass Summit, would be withdrawn from filing of mining claims, exploration, and development. This 

would have a beneficial effect on recreation users by preventing or limiting surface disturbing activities 

associated with mining activities in these particular areas and by leaving the remainder of the planning 

area available for recreational mining use activities. 

The VRM Class II classification would provide protection to recreation resources by limiting or 

controlling surface disturbing activities and development in the designated areas. This would benefit users 

by minimizing incompatible uses in these areas and providing areas for solitude and primitive recreation 

opportunities. However, the overall extent of beneficial impacts would be less extensive than under the 

No Action Alternative because there would be more land area designated as VRM Class IV, which could 

degrade the recreation experience. 

The benefits of special management areas for recreation resources would be reduced under this alternative 

compared with the No Action Alternative, with the removal of the ACEC designation from Steamboat 

Mountain. 

4.7.1.4 Alternative 2 

Salt or mineral supplements for livestock would not be allowed within one-half mile of riparian habitat 

and National Historic and Scenic Trails. This would have a greater beneficial effect on recreation 

resources and users than would the corresponding provisions of the other alternatives, by ensuring 

protection of riparian areas used for camping and fishing and by maintaining the cultural integrity of the 

trails. 

The proposed actions for the management of wildlife under this alternative would have greater impacts on 

recreation use than would those under the No Action Alternative and Alternative 1. The closure of more 

than 70 percent of the planning area to OHV use would create direct impacts by precluding access to 

these areas, as well as indirect impacts by directing heavier use to other locations within the planning 

area. At the same time, these restrictions would have a beneficial impact on other recreation users by 

minimizing incompatible uses in these areas and providing areas for solitude and primitive recreation 

opportunities. 

Recreation resources and resource users would be expected to benefit from increased recreation planning. 

Recreation project and site plans and interpretive signs for backcountry byways, historical sites, and 

numerous viewing areas under this alternative would have greater beneficial effects on the recreation 

experience than would those under the No Action Alternative and Alternative 1 because plans would be 

prepared and implemented instead of developed on an as-needed basis as under the No Action Alternative 

and Alternative 1. Camping would be limited to designated areas, and activities and locations would be 

monitored through a permit program for parties of five or more to ensure that adverse impacts on other 

resources values would not occur. Special recreation use permits for managed activities proposed for the 

planning area would be reviewed and issued by the Rock Springs Field Office to monitor this type of 

activity and any potential impact on resources from such use. This could inconvenience outfitters and 

discourage some recreationists from camping in JMH but is not expected to have significant impacts on 

camping activities. 

The projected decrease in the level of mineral development activities, along with limitations on ROWs, 

would reduce impacts on recreation resources and certain recreation users compared with the other 

alternatives. Potential overlapping resource uses would be minimized, and the overall recreation 

experience would likely be enhanced because of preservation of sensitive resources that attracts 

4-104 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 4 

recreationists to the planning area. Construction and drilling activities would create dust, noise, and 

increased traffic, but not to the extent that they would under the No Action Alternative or Alternative 1; 

thus, any adverse impacts on recreation uses due to visual or audible disturbances to the recreation 

experience would not be significant. 

Although additional access roads and well facilities would be constructed, this alternative would provide 

the lowest level of access to the planning area because of OHV use limitations. This could have an 

adverse impact on some hunters, because many hunting areas would be inaccessible except by 

nonmotorized means. 

The entire planning area would be withdrawn from mineral location. This would have an adverse effect 

on recreational mining activities because no areas would be available for this type of use. Other 

recreation users would benefit from this action. 

Management of visual resources under this alternative would provide protection to recreation resources 

by limiting or controlling surface disturbing activities and development in areas with sensitive visual 

resources. This would have a beneficial impact on recreation users by minimizing incompatible uses. 

Beneficial impacts would be greatest under this alternative because of increased designations of more 

restrictive VRM classifications. 

Management prescriptions associated with additions and expansions of ACECs would benefit recreation 

resources by providing an increase in areas with opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation. 

4.7.1.5 Alternative 3 

Salt or mineral supplements for livestock would not be allowed within one-quarter mile of riparian habitat 

and National Historic and Scenic Trails. This would have a greater beneficial effect on recreation 

resources and users than would corresponding provisions under the No Action Alternative by ensuring 

protection of riparian areas used for camping and fishing and by maintaining the cultural integrity of the 

trails. 

Approximately 30 percent of the planning area would be closed to OHV use. This could have adverse 

effects on users who preferred motorized forms of recreation, similar to the effects under the No Action 

Alternative. 

Increased recreation planning would benefit recreation resources and resource users as described in 

Alternative 2. Camping would be limited to designated areas, and activities and locations would be 

monitored through a permit program for parties of 10 or more to minimize potential adverse impacts on 

other resource values. As under Alternative 2, special recreation use permits for managed activities 

proposed for the planning area would be reviewed and issued by the Rock Springs Field Office to monitor 

this type of activity and any potential impact on resources from such use. This could inconvenience 

outfitters and discourage some recreationists from camping in JMH but is not expected to have significant 

impacts on camping activities. 

The projected decrease in the level of mineral development activities and limitations on ROWs compared 

with the No Action Alternative would likely reduce impacts on recreation resources and certain recreation 

users. The overall recreation experience in the JMH CAP planning area would likely be enhanced 

because of protection of sensitive resources that would attract recreationists to the area. Potential adverse 

impacts caused by visual or audible disturbances to the recreation experience could occur from 

construction and drilling activities but are not likely to be significant because of the temporary nature of 

these activities. Although mineral development facilities would constitute a long-term visual intrusion on 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 4-105 
Chapter 4 Final EIS 

the landscape that could affect recreation resource users, impacts would be site-specific and not likely to 

affect recreationists outside the viewshed of each facility. 

Although most of the planning area would be open to mineral location, areas of notable recreation 

importance, including White Mountain Petroglyphs ACEC, Crookston Ranch, Tri-Territory Marker, 

Boars Tusk, and South Pass Summit, would be withdrawn from filing of mining claims, exploration, and 

development, as they would under the No Action Alternative. The lava rock portion of Steamboat 

Mountain and the northern area used for elk calving would also be withdrawn from mineral location. 

Recreational mining activity would be limited to a 5-acre site that would be designated in the Dickie 

Springs-Oregon Gulch Gold Placer Mining District area. A recreation site plan would be prepared and 

implemented to manage the site for recreation purposes. This would have a beneficial effect on other 

recreational users by preventing or limiting surface disturbing activities associated with mining activities 

in these particular areas. 

VRM classifications would provide protection to recreation resources by limiting or controlling surface 

disturbing activities and development in areas of sensitive visual resources. This would have a beneficial 

impact on recreation users by minimizing incompatible uses in these areas. Beneficial impacts would be 

greater than under the No Action Alternative because of increased designations of more restrictive VRM 

classifications. 

Management prescriptions associated with additions and expansions of ACECs would significantly 

benefit recreation resources by providing an increase in areas with opportunities for solitude and primitive 

recreation. 

4.7.1.6 Proposed JMH CAP 

For recreation resources, the management actions associated with this alternative primarily would affect 

where and when recreation use would be permitted within the planning area. The limitations placed on 

users of the planning area would depend on the location of sensitive resources and the measures used to 

protect these resources. 

The management of land and water resources would not have significant impacts on recreation resources. 

Management actions generally limit the extent of surface disturbing activities or vegetation removal and 

provide for protection of wildlife habitat, which indirectly benefits the recreation user. Limitations on 

seasonal use of the planning area to protect sensitive plant and wildlife habitat would limit recreational 

use during certain times of the year; however, impacts on recreation users would not be significant 

because of the temporary nature of these limitations. 

Salt or mineral supplements for livestock would not be allowed within 500 feet of riparian habitat and 

National Historic and Scenic Trails. This would have a beneficial effect on recreation resources, although 

less than would occur under Alternatives 2 and 3, by ensuring protection of riparian areas used for 

camping and fishing and by maintaining the cultural integrity of the trails. 

Heritage sites such as White Mountain Petroglyphs, National Historic and National Scenic Trails, Boars 

Tusk, Crookston Ranch, and Tri-Territory Marker contribute to the recreation resources of the planning 

area. Managing and protecting these heritage resources would directly benefit the resources and users of 

these resources. Protection of these resources, in addition to the development of interpretive sites for 

selected areas, would enhance the recreation experience in the planning area. 

4-106 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 4 

This alternative would provide fewer opportunities than that of the No Action Alternative to develop the 

planning area. This would curtail surface disturbance and construction of facilities, which would likely 

benefit recreation opportunities in the planning area. 

Increased recreation planning would benefit recreation opportunities in the planning area, as described in 

Alternative 2. Dispersed camping would be allowed under the Proposed JMH CAP as long as these 

activities would not cause damage to other resources. Special recreation use permits for activities 

proposed for the planning area would be reviewed by the Rock Springs Field Office to monitor this type 

of activity and any potential impact on resources from such use. This could inconvenience outfitters but 

would not be expected to deter recreation activities; thus any impact on users would be negligible. 

Existing roads and trails provide adequate vehicle access in the planning area for recreation purposes. 

OHV designations would minimize adverse impacts on recreation resources by limiting disturbance to 

vegetation, watersheds, and wildlife; however, this could also impact OHV users through limitations on 

access and use within the planning area. Approximately 20 percent of the planning area would be closed 

to OHV use. A recreation plan would be developed to expand the parking area and facilities at the 

Greater Sand Dunes Recreation Area (i.e., OHV open area) to accommodate anticipated increases in 

OHV users, thereby enhancing the recreation experience. 

As under Alternative 3, the projected decrease in the level of mineral development activities and 

limitations on ROWs under this alternative would slightly reduce impacts on recreation opportunities and 

certain recreation users compared with the No Action Alternative and Alternative 1. The overall 

recreation experience in the planning area would likely be enhanced because of protection of sensitive 

resources that would attract recreationists to the area. Potential adverse impacts caused by visual or 

audible disturbances to the recreation experience could result from construction and drilling activities but 

are not likely to be significant because of the temporary nature of these activities. Although mineral 

development facilities would constitute a long-term visual intrusion on the landscape that could affect 

recreation resource users, any impact would be site-specific and not likely to affect recreationists outside 

the viewshed of each facility. 

Although the level of projected development would be the same as that under Alternative 3 (Table A13-

7), the strategy for implementing fluid mineral leasing decisions (Appendix 17) might affect the degree of 

impact in certain areas. There would be no new oil and gas leasing in the majority of Area 3 (Figure A17-

1), which could reduce impacts in this area over the long term. However, in the short term, this could 

result in more rapid exploration and development of existing leases in Area 3 because there would not be 

any opportunity to renew leases upon expiration. Moreover, given that much of this area is within the 

high development potential area (Map 69), successful well completion rates are expected to be high. 

These factors could result in a substantial increase in surface disturbance, noise, and visual intrusion over 

a relatively short period of time, potentially increasing short-term impacts on the recreation experience 

compared with Alternative 3. 

Although most of the planning area would be open to mineral location, areas of notable recreation 

importance, including White Mountain Petroglyphs, Crookston Ranch, Tri-Territory Marker, and South 

Pass Summit, would be withdrawn from filing of mining claims, exploration, and development, as they 

would under the No Action Alternative. A portion of Steamboat Mountain and the northern birthing areas 

would also be withdrawn from mineral location. This would have a beneficial effect on recreation users 

by preventing or limiting surface disturbing activities associated with mining activities in these particular 

areas. Recreational mining activity would be allowed in those parts of the planning area that were not 

withdrawn from mineral location or where such withdrawals would not be pursued. Mineral sales would 

not be allowed within the greater sage-grouse nesting habitat. 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 4-107 
Chapter 4 Final EIS 

Management of visual resources would provide protection to recreation resources by limiting or 

controlling surface disturbing activities and development in sensitive visual resource areas. This would 

have a beneficial impact on recreation users by mitigating incompatible uses in these areas. Impacts 

would be slightly greater than under the No Action Alternative because of increased designations of more 

restrictive VRM classifications. 

Management prescriptions associated with additions of special management areas under this alternative 

would benefit the recreation resources increasing the area available for solitude and primitive recreation 

opportunities. 

4.8 MINERALS AND ALTERNATIVE ENERGY RESOURCES 

Minerals and alternative energy resources include fluid and solid minerals leased for development under 

the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 and amendments, locatable minerals that may be claimed and patented 

under the Mining Act of 1947, earth materials that may be purchased under the Mineral Materials Sales 

Act of 1947, and alternative energy development projects that may be proposed within the planning area 

through a lease or permit arrangement with BLM. Where there is state or private ownership of the 

mineral estate, BLM does not have jurisdiction over the development of those mineral rights. 

Impacts on resources and resource users resulting from implementation of mineral management actions 

are discussed in those particular resource sections. This section describes potential impacts that 

implementation of management actions for other resource management categories might have on mineral 

development and the development activity expected for each mineral resource under each alternative. 

These activity level projections also provide the basis for assessing impacts on the environment and other 

resource uses. 

Impacts on mineral development would be considered significant if management actions or mitigation 

requirements resulted in a greater than 25 percent decrease in development activity over the planning 

period or caused development of the resource to be infeasible or economically nonviable. 

4.8.1 Potential Impacts on Leasable Fluid Minerals 

Impacts of management actions on resource development activities occur when management actions 

prohibit development of economically viable resources or when management actions render development 

infeasible or economically nonviable. The relative impacts of management actions are identified by 

projecting changes in development activity within the planning area for the different alternatives. A 

management action can impact the individual resource user, such as a lease operator, when it results in a 

projected change in development activity. The significance of the impact depends on the resulting change 

in overall development levels, which would depend on the amount of production affected by the action. 

Exploration and production activity within the JMH planning area would also be affected by factors other 

than management actions, such as commodity prices. 

The effects discussed in the analysis are based on the estimated levels of development activity for the 

management actions that would be implemented under each alternative (Appendix 13). Land use 

planning decisions and mitigation requirements included in each alternative are also considered. 

Generally, a 20-year period, with the base year as 2001, was used in preparing assumptions for each 

resource. It is also assumed that BLM actions and land uses under each alternative would be required to 

comply with existing laws, regulations, guidelines, and standards for multiple use of public lands. The 

comparison of management alternatives assumes that increased resource mitigation generally results in 

increased costs for activities. It is assumed that prescribed mitigation measures through lease stipulations 

4-108 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 4 

would be successful and adjusted over time to meet resource objectives. The assumption and analysis 

guidelines discussed above were used to assess impacts under all of the alternatives. 

Leasable fluid minerals include oil, natural gas, and coalbed gas. The analysis of impacts for fluid 

minerals is based on the following assumptions. 

Oil and Gas. It is assumed that all existing leases within the JMH CAP planning area would see some 

development over the 20-year planning period and that development activities would be concentrated in 

the high development potential area. 

Under the Proposed JMH CAP, it is assumed that wells on existing leases in Area 3 would be drilled 

during the first 11 years of the planning period (8 year maximum lease term plus 3-year suspension 

release). Unleased portions of Areas 1 and 2 would be leased and once leases expired, it is assumed they 

would be available to be released. 

The Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission has established a density of 160 acres per gas well, 

with federal exploratory units exempt from that density requirement. Nitchie Gulch unit/field is now 

developed at a density of 160 acres per well. Up to 38 new production wells would be drilled in Nitchie 

Gulch, with a maximum well density of up to six wells per section. This development is expected to occur 

over the first 5 years of the planning period. Other producing units in the planning area (Buccaneer, Rim 

Rock, and Steamboat Mountain units) are developed at a density of 640 acres per well. Future 

exploratory activity would be widely spaced; however, development activity would most likely occur at a 

density of 160 acres per well. 

Ultimate gas recovery from existing gas wells is estimated to be 145.4 billion cubic feet. Approximately 

24.3 billion cubic feet of gas is left to produce from these active wells. Based on the production history of 

wells in the planning area, the average estimated ultimate gas recovery is expected to be 2.3 billion cubic 

feet per well. Decline curve analysis indicates that the average well would produce about 2.3 billion 

cubic feet of gas over a lifespan of 26 years before declining to an uneconomic rate, which would then 

result in abandonment. 

The ratio of gas to oil (condensate) production is assumed to remain similar to its present ratio. At this 

ratio an average well would produce only 117 barrels of oil each year. Because of the relatively low 

production rates of oil, these resources are not evaluated in the total production estimates for the planning 

area. 

To avoid drainage from state and/or private fluid mineral development, adjacent 160-acre spacing areas 

could be accessed by directional drilling (probably from state or private surface locations). It is also 

assumed that because there is a small amount of state and/or private mineral land within the planning 

area, only a minimal amount of drainage would be likely to occur. 

Surface Disturbance. The following disturbance rates are assumed for access roads, drill pads, and 

pipelines and power lines associated with oil and gas exploration and development drilling activities. The 

amount of surface disturbance per well is based on standard industry practices and compliance 

requirements of existing regulations for surface disturbing activities. 

Access Roads: 

• 40 feet total width 

• 12- to 14-foot-wide travelway 

• 4.8 acres initial disturbance per linear road mile 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 4-109 
Chapter 4 Final EIS 

• 1.5 miles of road construction for exploration wells 

• 0.375 miles of road construction for development wells 

• 4.0 acres long-term disturbance per producing well (no stabilization or revegetation of barrow 

ditch) 

• 4.0 acres of access road stabilized per abandoned dry well, after 3 years 

• 4.0 acres of access road stabilized after abandonment of each producing well, after 3 years 

• Road standards would be in conformance with guidelines issued in BLM Manual 9113 (Roads) 

and Surface Operating Standards for Oil and Gas Exploration and Development (1989). 

Drill Pads: 

• 3.0 acres initial disturbance per average well pad 

• 0.7 acres long-term disturbance per producing well 

• 2.3 acres stabilized per producing well, after 3 years 

• 3.0 acres stabilized per abandoned dry well, after 3 years 

• 0.7 acres stabilized after abandonment of each producing well, after 3 years. 

Pipelines and Power Lines: 

• 6.0 acres initial disturbance per producing well 

• 5.5 acres stabilized per producing well, after 3 years 

• 0.5 acres long-term disturbance per producing well 

• 0.5 acres stabilized after abandonment of each producing well, after 3 years. 

Drilling of wells would require water to make up drilling fluid and for consumption in various processes, 

such as washing down equipment and for fire fighting reserve water. In general, oil and gas wells drilled 

in the depth ranges expected in the planning area require 1 to 1.5 acre-feet of water. Coalbed gas wells 

drilled to depths of greater than 1,200 feet would require 0.75 to 1 acre-foot of water consumption. 

Coalbed Gas. Currently, there is no active coalbed gas production in the planning area because of low 

gas production rates on initial well tests and water disposal costs. No coalbed wells are expected to be 

drilled until after the signing of the record of decision (ROD). Each project would contain up to 25 wells, 

9 interior wells and 16 surrounding wells, to adequately evaluate an area. Drilling fewer than 16 

surrounding wells might not reduce hydrostatic pressure to the point that an adequate test of potential to 

recover coal gas from the interior wells could be made. If successful, all 25 wells could eventually 

produce gas. No production rate assumptions were made for coalbed gas, and no production history is 

available on which to base a reasonable assessment at this time. Coalbed gas wells produce at relatively 

low rates, and the projected producing wells would not contribute significant production to the much 

larger volumes expected from conventional wells. 

The surface disturbance rates associated with drilling oil and gas wells are similar to surface disturbance 

at coalbed gas wells for access roads, drill pads, and pipelines and power lines. 

Expected water production rates associated with coalbed gas cannot be predicted for the planning area. 

Produced water from shallow-depth coal seams should contain lower concentrations of dissolved solids. 

However, most of the planning area is subject to strict water quality discharge requirements to comply 

with state and federal regulations on salinity control. Because the area with high coalbed gas potential is 

located within the Colorado River Basin, these requirements are assumed to apply to all coalbed gas 

development projects that may occur in the planning area. All produced water would be reinjected into 

the subsurface in compliance with water quality regulations. Existing gas wells in the planning area could 

be converted to injection wells at the end of their productive life. 

4-110 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.8.1.1 Common to All Alternatives 

The management alternatives include restrictions on fluid mineral resource development as a result of 

conflicts with environmentally related surface values. These restrictions result in impacts on the use of 

the resources while providing additional protection of the environment. Actions such as not leasing 

portions of the planning area, application of NSO restrictions, controlled surface use mitigation, seasonal 

restrictions, reclamation requirements, and ROW placement restrictions would affect the amount of 

exploration and development that would occur. These measures could discourage industry from initiating 

exploration and development activities and increase operating costs of development activities and 

transporting of products. Areas affected by restrictions or prohibitions on mineral development are listed 

in Tables 4-3 through 4-8 at the end of this chapter. 

Where incremental costs resulted in a reduced return on investment below an acceptable minimum, the 

leaseholder could choose not to proceed with the development. The decision not to proceed with 

development would result in a reduced production of oil and gas, lower royalty and tax payments, and 

decreased spending with contractors and vendors, such as drilling and service companies. In some cases, 

a lease- or claimholder might recoup some or all of the expenditures for a right by selling his or her 

interest to another operator if there were a willing buyer. Exercise of mitigation measures could result in 

nonenvironmental impacts on resource users, including decreased profit and reduced interest in 

developing other economically marginal resources within the planning area. 

Incremental compliance costs and related considerations less frequently make development of a 

commodity economically nonviable if the commodity is relatively high valued to begin with. Higher 

valued commodities, such as oil and gas, can bear some cost increases and still be profitable because of 

the value and scarcity of the material produced. In general, development of lower-value commodities, 

such as sand and gravel, are more sensitive to additional costs of compliance. As a result, for these 

commodities, alternate sources with lower compliance costs would likely be developed first. Because the 

costs would depend on the specific actions required for land use activities (such as resource protection or 

avoidance requirements for a proposed oil and gas well location), these costs could only be quantified at 

the time of the site-specific analyses. The comparison of management alternatives assumes that increased 

resource mitigation generally results in increased costs for activities. 

Resources in areas where energy and mineral development are prohibited because of nondiscretionary 

closures cannot be developed regardless of the market for the commodity or interest in development. No 

associated income or related economic activity could be realized from these resources, and the lost 

opportunity for development represents an unknown impact for resource users. Areas closed to 

development, or with cumulative restrictions that would prevent development, are considered in the 

impacts on resource users for each of the alternatives. The expected surface disturbance and vehicle 

traffic associated with oil and gas development are listed in Table A13-7 (in Appendix 13) and Table 4-12 

(at the end of this chapter), respectively. These expected levels of surface disturbance and traffic volumes 

provide the basis for assessing potential impacts on other resources and are discussed in the respective 

sections for these resources. 

4.8.1.2 No Action Alternative 

Based on the existing management decisions for the planning area, the current understanding of the 

geologic potential of the available area, and the existing stipulations placed on leases, the projected level 

of development was estimated for the Hydrocarbon Occurrence and Development Potential Report 

(Appendix 13). Under the No Action Alternative, more than 210,000 acres would be closed (including 

about 119,000 acres of existing nondiscretionary closure) to new leasing (Map 10). More than 412,000 

acres would be available for development through current or newly obtained leases (Map 10). 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 4-111 
Chapter 4 Final EIS 

It is expected that 38 development wells would be drilled to infill locations at Nitchie Gulch unit/field, 

and existing leases could be explored and developed within the core area. The planning area outside the 

core area would be available for further leasing and development activity. Because more than 60 percent 

of the core area is currently leased, activity could occur on those leases at the completion of the planning 

process. However, a significant number of the leases would expire during the planning period unless the 

leases were developed and held by production. Because no new leases could be offered in the core area 

and expiring leases would become unavailable for further development, potential reductions in 

development activity would occur. Based on the predicted drilling and completion rates for the parts of 

the planning area that are currently leased or are open to leasing under the No Action Alternative, the total 

estimated drilling activity would be 221 wells drilled, with 114 wells placed in production. This would 

include 126 exploration wells and 95 development wells drilled in the planning area. Impacts on the 

resource users under the No Action Alternative would include the loss of opportunity to obtain new leases 

in the core area and incremental costs required to comply with stipulations on active and new leases, 

consistent with the resource protection requirements of the Green River RMP. Operators put together 

blocks of leases before exploration. Where leasing is restricted, opportunities to obtain control of blocks 

of leases would be reduced and consequently, exploration interest would be reduced. Because this 

alternative would result in a loss of development potential in the core area where there are no planning 

decisions to support leasing, it could have a significant impact on individual operators of oil and gas 

developments. 

No coalbed gas project has currently proved to be economically viable in this portion of the Greater 

Green River Basin. Available geologic information indicates that there is potential for future coalbed gas 

development. Leasing and development could occur under the same requirements applicable to oil and 

gas leasing under the No Action Alternative, including compliance with existing regulations and lease 

stipulations. 

Under the No Action Alternative, an initial phase of coalbed gas exploration would be expected to include 

up to 50 wells. This is based on the development of two exploration projects, each having 25 closely 

spaced wells to effectively dewater the coal and determine maximum gas production rates. This is the 

assumed level of activity for which economic viability could be estimated. At least small quantities of 

gas would probably be produced from any test, and successful completion of two exploratory projects 

could result in gas production rates of several hundred thousand cubic feet of gas per day. 

If exploration tests showed that coalbed gas development would be economically feasible, well life could 

be 10 to 20 years based on information on coalbed gas wells in the Powder River Basin. Because no 

information is available to determine well productivity or success rates for the planning area, it was 

assumed that none of the 50 wells would be abandoned during the planning period. In addition to the 50 

well sites, other facilities, such as access roads, gas gathering and water disposal pipelines, water injection 

wells, electrical utilities, and compressors, would be constructed to aid in production of any gas 

developed. If economically successful exploration projects for coalbed gas were completed in the 

planning area, the actual production rates and the acreage of areas available for coalbed gas development 

could be used to estimate production rates. Impacts under the No Action Alternative on coalbed gas 

development are the same as those for oil and gas leasing and development. No new leases could be 

offered in the core area, and expiring leases would become unavailable for further development. 

Developments would also be required to comply with applicable lease stipulations, which could result in 

additional costs to the developers. Because this alternative would result in a loss of development 

potential in the core area where there are no planning decisions to support leasing, it could have a 

significant impact on coalbed gas development if significant coalbed gas resources were present in the 

core area. 

4-112 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.8.1.3 Alternative 1 

More than 119,000 acres would remain closed to leasing (Map 20). Approximately 500,000 acres would 

be available for leasing and development under this alternative. The average number of wells in currently 

producing units within JMH is approximately four wells. Based on the average number of wells per 

producing unit and the area available for development, new discoveries would result in drilling of 70 

development wells, and development drilling in existing producing areas would be expected to result in 

drilling of 38 additional infill producing wells, resulting in a total of 108 new development wells. The 

total estimated drilling activity is 264 wells drilled, with 132 wells placed in production. No additional 

restrictions based on lease stipulations would be placed on drilling and development activities beyond 

existing regulatory requirements, so no additional associated costs would be placed on development. 

There would be no loss of development activity based on increased costs associated with these types of 

requirements. No additional areas would be closed to oil and gas leasing and development, and expiring 

leases in the core area could be offered for subsequent development, resulting in an increase in 

development opportunities over the No Action Alternative. This would have a positive impact on oil and 

gas development and provide the greatest opportunities for development. 

The planning area would be open to leasing and development except for areas closed to development 

through existing nondiscretionary closures. New oil and gas leases would be offered in the core area. 

Because high coalbed gas potential areas exist in the planning area, it is assumed that two exploration 

projects and 50 wells would still be installed under this management action, as under the No Action 

Alternative and Alternative 3. Impacts on coalbed gas development actions under Alternative 1 would 

include reduced costs compared with the No Action Alternative, because fewer resource protection 

stipulations would be required. This would have a positive impact on coalbed gas development and 

would provide the greatest opportunities for development. 

4.8.1.4 Alternative 2 

The management actions under Alternative 2 would result in no new leasing in sensitive resource areas 

and would provide compensation for existing rights to willing leaseholders in areas that would be closed 

to leasing for protection of sensitive resources (Map 31). More than 584,000 acres would be closed 

(including 119,000 acres of existing nondiscretionary closures) to oil and gas development, and nearly 

38,000 acres would be available for lease offerings. If purchases or exchanges of existing leases were 

executed (Appendix 16), no new drilling and completion of production wells would occur on these leases 

in sensitive resource areas. In parts of the planning area without sensitive resources, leasing and 

development could occur, consistent with the planning requirements of the Green River RMP. Although 

any lease in a sensitive resource area could be exchanged or purchased, it is expected that drilling of 

additional development wells in currently producing areas would not be exchanged or bought out because 

of the relatively high probability of success for these wells. Operators put together blocks of leases prior 

to exploration. Where leasing is restricted, opportunities to obtain control of blocks of leases would be 

reduced and consequently, exploration interest would be reduced. Impact on exploratory activity under 

this alternative would increase compared with the No Action Alternative and Alternative 1. Based on the 

current estimates of areas that would not be available for leasing under this alternative, approximately 86 

exploration wells would be drilled in the rest of the planning area at the projected density for exploration 

activity, resulting in 13 new producing wells. Development of the new discoveries would be expected to 

require drilling of 39 new producing wells, along with 38 infill wells drilled to expand existing 

production, resulting in 77 new development wells. A total 163 new wells would be drilled, with 90 new 

wells placed in production. This alternative would result in significant impacts on oil and gas 

development (26 percent reduction in wells compared with the No Action Alternative), with the greatest 

area closed to additional development of any alternative. 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 4-113 
Chapter 4 Final EIS 

Areas closed to oil and gas leasing also would not be available for coalbed gas development. Because a 

large part of the planning area with potential for coalbed gas development contains sensitive resources, it 

is assumed that only one coalbed gas exploration project would be completed in the planning area, with 

up to 25 wells installed to dewater and test production in the exploration project. The impacts on coalbed 

gas development under this alternative include less area available for leasing and development compared 

with the No Action Alternative, and increased costs associated with resource protection requirements in 

lease stipulations compared with Alternative 1. This alternative would result in significant impacts on 

coalbed gas development, with the greatest area closed to additional development of any alternative. 

4.8.1.5 Alternative 3 

Alternative 3 provides for controls on leasing and levels of drilling activity to prevent irreversible adverse 

impacts on sensitive resources in the planning area. In addition, more than 128,000 acres would be closed 

(including 119,000 acres of existing nondiscretionary closures) to new leasing and development, with 

approximately 490,000 acres available for oil and gas development (Map 42). Past drilling activity shows 

that the highest 5-year rate was during the 1978–1982 period, when 48 wells were drilled. It is assumed 

that if drilling activity occurred at a level near the maximum rate observed for a 5-year period, a 

maximum rate of drilling activity could be projected. At a rate of 46 wells per 5-year period, an 

additional 205 wells could be drilled in the JMH planning area, including 115 exploration wells and a 

total of 69 development wells, with 107 new wells placed into production (Appendix 13). 

Impacts on oil and gas development would increase under this alternative (compared with Alternative 1 

and the No Action Alternative) because of resource protection requirements and restrictions on 

development activity, which would reduce development opportunities and increase compliance costs. 

Operators put together blocks of leases before exploration. Where leasing is restricted, opportunities to 

obtain control of blocks of leases would be reduced and consequently, exploration interest would be 

reduced. Exploratory impact would increase compared with the No Action Alternative and Alternative 1. 

The expected level of development under this alternative could represent a significant impact on 

development, with some loss of areas to development, and restrictions on the timing of development 

activity that might result in lost opportunities for economically viable development. However, this effect 

would depend on the trends of the sensitive resource indicators monitored as part of adaptive 

management. 

The coalbed gas development activity estimates under this alternative are similar to those predicted for 

Alternative 1. Although the additional resource protection requirements that would be implemented 

under this alternative would increase development costs and might decrease interest in development of 

coalbed gas resources by industry, the initial two exploration projects and 50 wells anticipated for 

Alternative 1 could be carried out within the planning area. A high development potential area could be 

leased and explored outside of sensitive resource areas. Any reduction in development related to access 

restrictions and costs associated with mitigation requirements would probably affect later development 

activity, which cannot be estimated from currently available information because there is no development 

history for coalbed gas production in the planning area. 

4.8.1.6 Proposed JMH CAP 

The Proposed JMH CAP provides for development of existing leases and closes a portion of the planning 

area to leasing for protection of sensitive resources. Approximately 317,000 acres would be closed 

(including about 119,000 acres of existing nondiscretionary closure) to new leasing and development, 

with just over 305,000 acres available for oil and gas development (Map 54). As outlined in Chapter 2 

and Appendix 17, the JMH CAP fluid mineral leasing implementation strategy is composed of three 

areas. Area 1 would be open to oil and gas leasing, exploration, and development, with appropriate 

4-114 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 4 

stipulations, mitigation, project planning, and design approach to meet JMH management objectives. 

Area 2 would be managed in the same way as Area 1, except that more stringent or intensive mitigation 

measures might be applied because of the amount of sensitive resource values. Area 3 would be closed to 

new leasing, and existing leases would not be renewed once they expired. A portion of Area 3 could be 

offered for lease with an NSO stipulation. 

Lease suspensions would be lifted after 3 years from the signing of the ROD or on a case-by-case basis as 

requested by operators. This would allow industry time to submit proposals for development of those 

leases that were suspended with the Green River RMP ROD. Lease expiration dates are expected to be 

the driving factor for development of existing leases in Area 3 because of the inability to extend or renew 

leases. Those operators that hold multiple leases within Area 3 might not be provided with the 

opportunity to develop all of their leases because of the exploratory nature of development that would 

occur and the amount of capital if would take to provide drilling rigs for multiple lease areas. Small 

operators would be particularly affected by economic constraints. Because of the inability to extend or 

renew leases, exploration or drilling activity on existing leases within Area 3 is expected to occur in the 

first 11 years of the planning period, instead of over the 20-year life of the plan (because of the maximum 

8-year lease period on existing leases within Area 3 and the 3-year reinstatement period for suspended 

leases). 

A large portion of Area 3 is also within high development potential areas for oil and gas and coalbed gas 

resources. Although existing leaseholders would be given the opportunity to develop their leases, closing 

Area 3 to new leasing would affect resource users in ways similar to those under the No Action 

Alternative in the core area. Effects would include the loss of opportunity to obtain new leases in Area 3 

and incremental costs required to comply with existing lease stipulations and COAs on active leases 

consistent with the resource protection requirements of the Proposed JMH CAP. The impacts on oil and 

gas development from this alternative include a net decrease in areas available for development compared 

with the No Action Alternative. The compliance costs associated with resource protection requirements 

would represent an increased impact on development compared with the No Action Alternative and 

Alternative 1. 

Operators generally try to put together blocks of leases before exploration. They may also opt to unitize 

those lease blocks to assist in exploration. Where leasing is restricted, opportunities to obtain control of 

blocks of leases would be reduced and consequently, exploration interest would be reduced compared 

with the No Action Alternative and Alternatives 1 and 3. Because this alternative would result in a loss of 

development potential in Area 3, the inability to block up leases or to unitize lease blocks might represent 

a significant impact for individual operators of oil and gas developments. 

Management actions, such as not leasing portions of the planning area, application of NSO stipulations, 

controlled surface use mitigation, seasonal restrictions, reclamation requirements, potential centralized 

and offsite placement of facilities, remote control monitoring, and ROW placement restrictions, being 

added for this alternative would affect the amount of exploration and development that would occur. 

These measures could discourage industry from initiating exploration and development activities and 

could increase operating costs related to development activities and transporting of products. 

Past drilling activity shows that the highest 5-year rate was during the 1978–1982 period, when 48 wells 

were drilled. It is assumed that if drilling activity occurred at a level near the maximum rate observed for 

a 5-year period, a maximum rate of drilling activity could be projected. At a rate of 46 wells per 5-year 

period, an additional 205 wells could be drilled in the JMH planning area, including 115 exploration wells 

and a total of 69 development wells, with 107 new wells placed into production. The coalbed gas 

development activity estimates under this alternative are similar to those predicted for Alternative 1. 

Although the additional resource protection requirements that would be implemented under this 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 4-115 
Chapter 4 Final EIS 

alternative would increase development costs and might decrease interest in development of coalbed gas 

resources by industry, the initial two exploration projects and 50 wells anticipated for Alternative 1 could 

be carried out within the planning area. Access restrictions and costs associated with mitigation 

requirements would probably adversely affect levels of later development activity, which cannot be 

estimated from currently available information because there is no development history for coalbed gas 

production in the planning area. 

4.8.2 Potential Impacts on Leasable Solid Minerals 

Potential leasable solid minerals in the planning area include coal, oil shale, sodium (brine), and potash. 

The analysis of impacts for solid minerals is based on the following assumptions. 

No oil shale development is expected during the planning period. There is low potential for coal and 

brine development. Existing coal mines and known coal reserves south of the planning area are expected 

to meet the demand for coal (USDI 1996), but limited amounts of exploration could occur within the 

planning area to evaluate future coal development potential. If coal exploration occurred at all, it would 

likely occur in the last 5 to 10 years of the planning period. The most probable location for exploration 

would be within the Coal Occurrence and Development Potential Area (Map 56) and would be limited to 

the areas open to exploration south and east of the Steamboat Mountain ACEC and south of the eastern 

portion of the Greater Sand Dunes ACEC. Access would largely be overland and along existing roads 

and trails. The amount of disturbance is expected to be between 10 and 15 acres and to occur in a single 

season. It is expected that disturbed sites would be fully reclaimed within 3 years of disturbance. 

Projected brine (containing soda ash, oil, and gas) development potential for the planning period is also 

low. Existing soda ash mines and oil and gas developments can more easily and economically meet the 

demand for these products. The existing soda ash mines are located outside the planning area. 

The Leucite Hills, including Boars Tusk and Steamboat Mountain, are known to contain potash, but 

development of this resource within the planning area is unlikely during the planning period given 

existing surface use constraints, poor accessibility, high development costs, and better availability of 

potash from existing sources outside the planning area. 

4.8.2.1 Common to All Alternatives 

Leasing and mining of coal on BLM-administered lands requires evaluation of prospective lease areas by 

a 20-point suitability screening process. Areas identified as coal potential areas have been through this 

screening process and are considered available for leasing. Areas determined to be suitable for leasing 

could have additional restrictions placed on mining activity, such as NSO or subsurface mining with 

controls on the location of surface facilities. 

4.8.2.2 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, approximately 16,000 acres of the coal potential area would be closed 

to leasing. Another 17,980 acres of the coal potential area would be available for subsurface mining with 

controls on the location of surface facilities. Approximately 70 acres would be available for coal leasing 

with NSO requirements. If exploration activities in other parts of the planning area identified coal 

resources with economic potential, the area could be leased if it were determined to be suitable for 

development under the screening process. More than 270,000 acres of the planning area would be closed 

to coal exploration. Although coal resources in the planning area are generally less desirable for 

development than resources in other locations, there is some potential for coal development in the 

4-116 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 4 

planning area. Management actions affect the amount of land available for coal exploration, leasing, and 

mining, although these activities are not considered likely during the planning period. 

Management actions under the No Action Alternative allow for consideration of leasing and development 

of potential potash and sodium resources. However, no development activity is expected in the JMH 

planning area during the planning period because of the lack of commercial deposits and/or because of 

existence of economic resources outside the planning area that are more favorable for development. 

4.8.2.3 Alternative 1 

The management actions under Alternative 1 close just under 5,000 acres in the coal potential area, with 

approximately 9,700 acres open to subsurface mining with controls on the location of surface facilities. 

More than 119,000 acres are closed to exploration activity because of special management areas and other 

resources protected by existing mitigation. No development activity is expected in the JMH planning area 

during the planning period because of the lack of commercial deposits and/or because of existence of 

economic resources outside the planning area that are more favorable for development. Therefore, 

although the closures to leasing and exploration represent a loss of opportunity to conduct these activities, 

impacts are not expected in development of these resources because development is not considered likely 

during the planning period. 

4.8.2.4 Alternative 2 

The management actions under Alternative 2 close the entire coal potential area to leasing, with more 

than 53,000 acres no longer available for leasing. The entire planning area (approximately 622,300 acres) 

would be closed to exploration activity. No development activity is expected in the JMH planning area 

during the planning period because of the lack of commercial deposits and/or because of existence of 

economic resources outside the planning area that are more favorable for development. Therefore, 

although the closures to leasing and exploration represent a loss of the opportunity to conduct these 

activities, impacts are not expected in development of these resources because development is not 

considered likely during the planning period. 

4.8.2.5 Alternative 3 

The management actions under Alternative 3 close approximately 16,000 acres in the coal potential area, 

with approximately 18,000 acres open to subsurface mining with controls on the location of surface 

facilities. Approximately 306,000 acres would be closed to exploration activity, as required for special 

management areas and other resources protected by existing regulations. The area available for leasing is 

similar to that under the No Action Alternative. No development activity is expected in the JMH 

planning area during the planning period because of the lack of commercial deposits and/or because of 

existence of economic resources outside the planning area that are more favorable for development. 

Therefore, although the closures to leasing and exploration represent a loss of the opportunity to conduct 

these activities, impacts are not expected in development of these resources because development is not 

considered likely during the planning period. 

4.8.2.6 Proposed JMH CAP 

The management actions under the Proposed JMH CAP close approximately 16,000 acres in the coal 

potential area, with approximately 20,600 acres open to subsurface mining with controls on the location 

of surface facilities. Approximately 320,000 acres would be closed to exploration activity, as required for 

special management areas and other resources protected by existing regulations. No development activity 

is expected in the JMH planning area during the planning period because of the lack of commercial 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 4-117 
Chapter 4 Final EIS 

deposits and/or because of existence of economic resources outside the planning area that are more 

favorable for development. Therefore, although the closures to leasing and exploration represent a loss of 

the opportunity to conduct these activities, impacts are not expected in development of these resources 

because development is not considered likely during the planning period. 

4.8.3 Potential Impacts on Locatable Minerals 

Existing levels of mining claim activity from the gold placers in the Dickie Springs/Oregon Gulch area 

are expected to continue through the planning period. Exploration activity on these claims has typically 

disturbed 1 to 5 acres at a time and is related to trenching with a backhoe or manual tools. Such activity 

is limited to the snow-free months, typically May through mid-November. 

The potential for development of a gold mine in this area is low. Existing information indicates that gold 

occurrences are limited to thin zones within the sand and gravel deposits that host the gold. Lateral 

continuity of these zones has not been established. The limited extent of potential gold occurrences is 

probably below total resource requirements needed to support a commercial operation. No mine proposals 

have been submitted. However, a hypothetical gold mine will be used to evaluate the impacts that would 

be associated with a commercial gold discovery. A hypothetical mine could process as much as 320,000 

tons per year of ore and disturb about 53 acres over an 11-year life. 

There is potential for diamond occurrences in association with the Quaternary volcanic rocks 

(lamprophyres) at Steamboat Mountain, located in the southern portion of the planning area (Hausel et al. 

1995). Additional exploration would be needed to further define these deposits. Exploration might occur 

during the planning period. Access to the top of Steamboat Mountain is limited; therefore, exploration 

could consist of using a helicopter to bring in a drill rig to gather the required information. About 2 acres 

of disturbance would be anticipated from this type of activity. 

Locatable minerals considered to have no foreseeable development potential in the planning area include 

uranium and deposits of copper, lead, zinc, and silver. Based on current information and commodity 

prices, gold and diamonds are the only mineral types that have potential for development in the planning 

area. 

4.8.3.1 Common to All Alternatives 

Under each of the management alternatives, mineral exploration, filing of claims, and issuing of patents 

would comply with the requirements of the Mining Law of 1872 and regulations at 43 CFR 3809. 

Exploration disturbing more than 5 acres, activities in excess of casual use, or activities located in special 

management areas must file plans of operation. Reclamation plans would be developed and bonds posted 

for these operations. Withdrawals from mineral location are in effect for coal and oil shale in the 

planning area. These withdrawals are no longer considered necessary and will be revoked. Because most 

of these withdrawal areas have low potential for locatable mineral development, the revocations would 

not have a significant impact on future locatable mineral development activity. 

4.8.3.2 No Action Alternative 

Areas that are currently open to mineral location are available for exploration, locating of claims, and 

mining. More than 150,000 acres are withdrawn from all mineral location. There are currently active 

claims in the Dickie Springs/Oregon Gulch area of the planning area. Exploration activity on these 

claims has typically disturbed 1 to 5 acres at a time through trenching with a backhoe or manual tools. 

Development of a large-scale commercial gold mine in the planning area is considered unlikely based on 

the size and grade of potential ore deposits and expected gold prices. Because development of existing or 

4-118 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 4 

new claims would be allowed in areas that have not been withdrawn from mineral location, there would 

be no additional impacts on exploration and mining of locatable minerals. 

Exploration for diamonds is expected to occur in the planning area, resulting in a surface disturbance of 

approximately 2 acres. Additional disturbance would occur if a commercial diamond deposit were 

discovered. There is no sufficient information to evaluate the potential for development of a diamond 

find. There are no anticipated impacts on exploration and development activities for diamond mining 

because the diamond potential area is open to mineral location under this alternative. 

4.8.3.3 Alternative 1 

Under Alternative 1, more than 150,000 acres are withdrawn from mineral location. Requirements for 

exploration and mining activities are the same as under the No Action Alternative. Development of a 

large-scale commercial gold mine in the planning area is considered unlikely based on the size and grade 

of potential ore deposits, and expected gold prices. If a commercial deposit were discovered in the 

planning area, it is estimated that development of a mine could result in disturbance of about 53 acres 

over an expected mine life of 11 years. Up to 320,000 tons of ore would be mined. Because development 

of existing or new claims would be allowed in the areas that have not been withdrawn from mineral 

location, there will be no additional impacts on exploration and mining of locatable minerals. 

Like the No Action Alternative, exploration for diamonds is expected to occur in the planning area, 

resulting in a surface disturbance of approximately 2 acres. Additional disturbance would occur if a 

commercial diamond deposit were discovered. There is no sufficient information to evaluate the potential 

for development of a diamond find. There are no anticipated impacts on exploration and development 

activities for diamond mining because the diamond potential area is open to mineral location under this 

alternative. 

4.8.3.4 Alternative 2 

The entire planning area would be withdrawn from mineral location under Alternative 2. Active claims 

would be evaluated, and any claims determined to be invalid would be declared null and void. 

Exploration and mining activity on claims determined to be valid could continue, typically disturbing 1 to 

5 acres at a time through trenching with a backhoe or manual tools. No further impacts would occur from 

claims determined to be invalid. Development of a commercial mine could result in disturbance of about 

53 acres over an expected mine life of 11 years. This could occur only if an existing claim were found to 

be valid and then successfully developed. Development of a large-scale commercial gold mine in the 

planning area is considered unlikely based on the size and grade of potential ore deposits and expected 

gold prices. The impact on gold mining under this alternative would include the loss of opportunity for 

exploration and development on any existing claims that would be declared null and void. In addition, 

the potential for development of a commercial mine, while unlikely based on geologic and economic 

factors, would be lost under this alternative. 

No diamond exploration or development would occur under this alternative because there are no existing 

claims in potential diamond occurrence areas. 

4.8.3.5 Alternative 3 

Under Alternative 3, more than 160,000 acres would be withdrawn from mineral location. Active claims 

cover large areas within the proposed withdrawal areas. Those claims determined to be invalid would be 

declared null and void. The management action for locatable minerals would also include a designated 

area for recreational mining in the Dickie Springs/Oregon Gulch District. Approximately 5 acres would 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 4-119 
Chapter 4 Final EIS 

be withdrawn from mineral location and would be actively managed to support recreational mining. This 

would include removal and stockpiling of topsoil in an active area to provide access to placer beds for 

recreational miners. As the active area is mined out, BLM would regrade the excavation and replace the 

stockpiled soil to reclaim the area. Approximately 1 acre would be actively managed for recreational 

mining at any given time. Development of a large-scale commercial gold mine in the planning area is 

considered unlikely based on the size and grade of potential ore deposits and expected gold prices. 

However, development of existing or new claims would be allowed under Alternative 3 on the areas that 

had not been withdrawn from mineral location. The net impact is expected to be greater than that of the 

No Action Alternative because more of the area with the highest interest for gold development would be 

withdrawn if existing claims were not found to be valid. 

Proposed withdrawals include the area of highest potential for diamond occurrence in the planning area, 

resulting in no surface disturbance for diamond exploration. The impact on diamond exploration and 

mining would be similar to that of Alternative 2, since the highest potential area would be withdrawn 

from mineral location. 

4.8.3.6 Proposed JMH CAP 

Under the Proposed JMH CAP, just over 155,000 acres would be withdrawn from mineral location. 

Withdrawals would be pursued for the northern elk calving areas, and the potential diamond mining area 

of Steamboat Mountain ACEC. Active claims cover large areas within the proposed withdrawal areas. 

Those claims would be evaluated, and any claims determined to be invalid would be declared null and 

void. However, development of existing or new claims would be allowed under the Proposed JMH CAP 

for the areas that had not been withdrawn from mineral location. The net impact is expected to be greater 

than that of the No Action Alternative because more of the area with the highest interest for gold 

development would be withdrawn if existing claims were not found to be valid. 

Proposed withdrawals include the area of highest potential for diamond occurrence in the planning area, 

resulting in no surface disturbance for diamond exploration. The impact on diamond exploration and 

mining would be similar to that of Alternative 2 because the area with the highest occurrence potential 

area would be withdrawn from mineral location. 

4.8.4 Potential Impacts on Salable Minerals 

Suitable construction materials are lacking on the lands that remain open to development of salable 

minerals, with the exception of Steamboat Mountain, which is capped by volcanic rock. Demand for 

material in the planning area is expected to increase during the planning period, commensurate with the 

increase in oil and gas development and the needs of the Wyoming Department of Transportation 

(WYDOT) for reconstruction of U.S. Highway 191 and State Highway 28. Currently, sand and gravel for 

oil and gas development come from outside the planning area. Other construction materials, such as those 

used for constructing road base, are located during selection of the road alignment. Reconstruction of U.S. 

Highway 191 and State Highway 28 would require about 25 acres of disturbance in addition to the 4 acres 

of existing disturbance associated with WYDOT’s pit along State Highway 28. WYDOT has a need for a 

10-acre site along the east side of U.S. Highway 191 within the planning area for a hot batch plant by the 

year 2003. The other 15 acres of disturbance would be associated with mineral material sites located 

elsewhere along U.S. Highway 191 and State Highway 28. Development of the mineral material sites is 

expected within the latter 10 years of the planning period. 

Potentially usable clays occur primarily in the southern portion of the planning area. With the surface use 

constraints that exist in this area and the abundance of clay products available from other sources, no 

development of this resource is expected within the planning area during the planning period. 

4-120 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.8.4.1 Common to All Alternatives 

All sales, permits, and community use pits must be conducted under the requirements of the Mineral 

Material Sales Act of 1947 and must comply with BLM regulations for operation of quarries or pits, 

including reclamation standards. 

4.8.4.2 No Action Alternative 

Areas closed to mineral material sales under the Green River RMP would remain closed under the No 

Action Alternative. More than 215,000 acres of the planning area are closed to mineral material sales, 

including ACECs, WSAs, certain cultural sites, and special status plant species sites. The permanent 

closure of Steamboat Mountain was deferred in the Green River RMP, but this area is considered open for 

mineral material sales under the No Action Alternative. For areas open to mineral sales, mining and 

reclamation plans would be required, and use and management would be in conformance with other 

resource objectives. Each sale of mineral materials or establishment of a community use pit would 

require a site-specific evaluation. Sales and mining would be allowed as long as no unacceptable impacts 

occurred to other resources. This would limit development of salable minerals in areas with other 

sensitive resources, such as special status plant species. Seasonal restrictions could also be placed on 

development activities to avoid time-sensitive impacts on wildlife, such as effects on greater sage-grouse 

leks or elk calving areas. In general there are few deposits of gravel within the planning area that are 

suitable for use as construction materials. Most construction materials used in the planning area are 

transported to projects from outside sources. The impacts on mineral material sales under the No Action 

Alternative include the lost opportunity for resource development in closed areas and the additional costs 

associated with resource protection requirements and access restrictions on mineral sales. These impacts 

could be significant where site-specific requirements resulted in a mineral development’s not being 

economically viable. 

4.8.4.3 Alternative 1 

Approximately 164,000 acres of the planning area would be closed to mineral sales under this alternative, 

including ACECs, WSAs, certain cultural sites, and special status plant species sites. For areas open to 

mineral sales, mining and reclamation plans would be required, and use and management would be 

required to comply with regulatory standards. Each sale of mineral materials or establishment of a 

community use pit would require a site-specific evaluation. Sales and mining would be allowed, unless 

there were demonstrated impacts on other resources that could not be reclaimed or mitigated. The impact 

of Alternative 1 on the use of mineral materials would be increased opportunity for mineral material sales, 

based on reduced costs associated with fewer restrictions for resource protection and more areas available 

in comparison with the No Action Alternative. 

4.8.4.4 Alternative 2 

The planning area would be closed to mineral material sales under Alternative 2, except where 

development is required to meet other planning objectives, such as road construction under the approved 

transportation plan. The impacts on development of mineral materials related to decreased opportunity 

for mining cannot be projected from available information, but less area would be available for 

development of mineral materials under this alterative than under any other alternative considered in this 

analysis. The loss of area with development potential from mineral sales would result in significant 

impacts where there was an economic interest in obtaining mineral materials. 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 4-121 
Chapter 4 Final EIS 

4.8.4.5 Alternative 3 

In addition to the areas closed to mineral material sales under the No Action Alternative, the lava portion 

of the Steamboat Mountain ACEC and the area within one-half mile of greater sage-grouse leks would be 

closed. More than 255,000 acres would be closed under this alternative. Although this provides more 

area where mineral material sales would be permitted than under the No Action Alternative and 

Alternative 1, the overall amount of mining would be reduced based on the closure of the most desirable 

resource portion of Steamboat Mountain ACEC. Some limited talus and landslide deposits could be 

developed for construction materials, provided that the site-specific analysis required for the sale did not 

identify any unacceptable impacts. The overall impact on development of mineral materials under this 

alternative would be greater than that under the No Action Alternative because additional closures would 

be implemented in the areas most favorable for development of the resource. 

4.8.4.6 Proposed JMH CAP 

In addition to the areas closed to mineral materials sales under the No Action Alternative, the lava portion 

of Steamboat Mountain, the Pinnacles Geologic Feature, and the area within one-half mile of greater 

sage-grouse leks, would be closed to mineral material sales. Steamboat Mountain ACEC and the 

Steamboat Mountain Management Area would be open to mineral material sales only when required to 

meet other planning objectives. More than 490,000 acres would be closed under this alternative. Other 

sales in the planning area would be carried out where needed to meet planning objectives for the area 

(e.g., construction of recreational facilities). Some limited talus and landslide deposits could be 

developed for construction materials, provided that the site-specific analysis required for the sale did not 

identify any unacceptable impacts. The overall impact on development of mineral materials under this 

alternative would be greater than that under the No Action Alternative because additional closures would 

be implemented in the areas most favorable for development of the resource. 

4.8.5 Potential Impacts on Alternative Energy Development 

Alternative energy developments, such as wind farms and solar arrays, could be developed in the 

planning area as long as a proposed development was compatible with the planning criteria under the 

respective alternative. However, there are currently no specific proposals to develop these resources in 

the planning area, and future demand cannot be anticipated. The planning area is not located near any 

major population centers that would provide large-scale markets for produced power but is near an 

electric transmission line running from the power generating plant near Jim Bridger Mine to the 

northwestern United States. A specific analysis of any future proposed development would have to be 

performed based on its location, size, and type. The significance of future potential impacts currently 

cannot be determined. 

4.9 VISUAL RESOURCES 

Visual resources are the features of the landscape that contribute to the scenic quality of an area. The four 

VRM classes (as defined in Chapter 3) provide for planning, designing, and evaluating projects by 

identifying permissible levels of landscape alteration while protecting overall scenic quality. 

4.9.1 Potential Impacts on Visual Resources 

The VRM classifications establish objectives that prescribe the amount of change allowed in the 

characteristic landscape. Impacts on resources and resource users resulting from implementation of the 

VRM classifications are discussed in those particular resource sections. This section describes potential 

4-122 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 4 

impacts on visual resources resulting from the implementation of management actions for other resource 

management categories. 

An impact on visual resources would be considered significant if an activity or development occurred in 

an area that would be incompatible with the VRM classification objective. 

For analysis purposes, it is assumed that VRM classifications would be incorporated into all project 

planning. Specific activities or developments that would not be compatible with VRM objectives would 

avoid those areas or would be modified and designed to meet the objectives. Activities or developments 

on state or private inholdings would not be significantly different so that proposed VRM classifications 

for surrounding public lands could not be achieved or maintained. 

4.9.1.1 Common to All Alternatives 

The planning area would be managed to maintain or improve scenic quality by managing the impacts of 

human activities and other intrusions on the visual landscape. The VRM classes provide the design 

standards for all surface disturbing projects. Projects would be designed, sited, screened, or painted to 

reduce adverse visual impacts regardless of the VRM classification. 

WSAs would be managed as VRM Class I areas to preserve the natural setting and existing character of 

the landscape, having a beneficial impact on the visual resources of the area. The interim management 

policy for WSAs provides for temporary uses and limits surface disturbing activities to accommodate 

valid existing rights. This policy, together with the VRM Class I objective, would ensure the preservation 

of the wilderness characteristics of these areas. 

4.9.1.2 No Action Alternative 

WSAs would be managed as VRM Class I areas to preserve the natural setting and existing character of 

the landscape. The Oregon Buttes ACEC and the western portion of the Greater Sand Dunes ACEC, 

which fall within WSAs, would also be managed as VRM Class I areas. The areas adjacent to WSAs, 

Steamboat Mountain ACEC (southern portion), and the remaining ACECs would be managed as VRM 

Class II areas. Steamboat Mountain ACEC (northern portion), Split Rock, Eden Valley, portions of 

White Mountain, and the portion of the Red Desert Watershed within the planning area would be 

managed as VRM Class III areas. All areas not managed as VRM Class I, II, or III for this alternative 

would be managed as VRM Class IV (Map 13). 

Management of land and water resources would not have significant impacts on visual resources. The 

implementation actions generally limit the extent of surface disturbing activities or vegetation removal 

that could affect the character of the landscape. Range improvements and water developments would be 

compatible in VRM Class III and Class IV areas. Any improvements or developments proposed for areas 

of VRM Class II would result in only a low level of change to the landscape and would not likely attract 

the attention of the casual observer; thus, impacts would be negligible. Management actions that served 

to maintain or enhance land and water resources would provide beneficial impacts by improving overall 

visual quality. 

Heritage sites such as White Mountain Petroglyphs, National Historic and National Scenic Trails, Boars 

Tusk, Crookston Ranch, and Tri-Territory Marker contribute to the character of the landscape. Managing 

and protecting these heritage resources in the planning area, including protection of Native American 

respected places, would directly benefit visual resources. Consultation with Native American tribal 

representatives could result in changes to a project design and location that would otherwise be 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 4-123 
Chapter 4 Final EIS 

compatible with VRM objectives, which could either benefit or adversely affect the scenic quality of the 

area. 

Management of travel and access could have adverse impacts on visual resources by facilitating access 

and use within the planning area. Road construction and vehicle use can remove vegetation and alter the 

physical characteristics of the landscape. Impacts would be reduced by identifying and controlling highly 

traveled routes and providing for orderly development that is compatible with VRM objectives. The 

OHV designations would be compatible with VRM objectives. Any adverse impact on visual resources 

from surface disturbance or vegetation removal caused by OHV use would be minimal, provided that 

users adhered to the OHV designations. 

The use of the planning area by recreationists, and the actions proposed for managing the recreation 

resources, would not have any adverse impact on the overall character of the landscape. The expansion of 

facilities at the Sand Dunes OHV recreation site would be designed to blend into the existing landscape of 

the area. The projected increase in recreationists using the planning area could affect the scenic quality of 

localized areas that experienced increased camping or other use. Any adverse impact would likely be 

insignificant because these small areas would be closed if resource damage occurred. 

Oil and gas development and production facilities could have adverse impacts on visual resources in 

VRM Class II areas. The significance of this impact would depend on the amount of development 

projected to occur within Class II areas and the success of mitigation (siting, painting, and screening) to 

reduce visual effects. The addition of structures, particularly wells and power lines, to the landscape 

could have long-term adverse effects on scenic quality in the planning area; however, the visual intrusion 

of these structures would be site-specific and would not affect viewers outside the viewshed of each well 

site. Facilities in VRM Class III areas would not significantly impact the scenic quality of these areas, 

provided that the facilities did not dominate the view of the casual observer. Oil and gas development 

facilities would be compatible with VRM Class IV objectives, but mitigation measures would also be 

required as necessary to ensure that adverse visual impacts would be minimal. 

Surface disturbing activities associated with the construction of facilities and linear ROWs for pipelines, 

transmission lines, communication lines, and oil and gas development could adversely impact visual 

resources. Land clearing and grading activities necessary for construction remove vegetation, which 

could temporarily and sometimes permanently alter the characteristics of the landscape. Belowground 

utilities and aboveground pipelines would be compatible with VRM Class III and Class IV designations 

and could be approved within Class II designations provided that adequate mitigation could be 

implemented, the results of which would not attract the attention of the casual observer. Aboveground 

power lines would not be allowed in the Red Desert Watershed Management Area, benefiting the 

viewshed in this area. 

Site-specific nonlinear ROWs for microwave, transmitter, and other communication towers would be 

compatible with VRM Class IV designations. Communication sites would be allowed on Essex Mountain 

and Pacific Butte, having an adverse effect on visual resources, particularly in areas identified as 

respected places by Native Americans. 

Withdrawing lands from certain resource uses would have beneficial impacts on scenic quality by limiting 

or prohibiting surface disturbing activities. Areas of notable scenic quality that would be withdrawn from 

mineral location include the White Mountain Petroglyphs, Greater Sand Dunes ACEC, Crookston Ranch, 

Tri-Territory Marker, and South Pass Summit. Surface disturbance associated with mining claims could 

have the potential to affect visual settings; however, fewer than 100 acres within the planning area would 

be assumed to be disturbed over the planning period as a result of locatable mineral activity. Thus, any 

adverse impact would likely be insignificant. Where mining activities would disturb more than 5 acres of 

4-124 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 4 

land outside a special management area, a plan of operations would be required and a resource evaluation 

would be completed, thereby minimizing the potential impact on the character of the landscape. 

Special management area management prescriptions (Map 13) would provide protection to visual 

resources by limiting or controlling surface disturbing activities. These areas are classified as VRM Class 

I and Class II; thus, any allowable visual intrusion would preserve or retain the existing landscape. This 

would have beneficial effects on the character and scenic quality of the landscape. 

4.9.1.3 Alternative 1 

WSAs would be managed as VRM Class I areas to preserve the natural setting and existing character of 

the landscape. The Oregon Buttes ACEC and the western portion of the Greater Sand Dunes ACEC, 

which fall within WSAs, would also be managed as VRM Class I areas. The areas adjacent to WSAs and 

the South Pass Historic Landscape ACEC, the Greater Sand Dunes ACEC, and the White Mountain 

Petroglyphs ACEC would be managed as VRM Class II areas. No areas would be managed as VRM 

Class III. All areas not managed as VRM Class I or II for this alternative would be managed as VRM 

Class IV (Map 25). 

This alternative would provide more opportunities to use and develop the planning area; thus additional 

surface disturbance and construction of facilities would be anticipated. More than half of the planning 

area would be classified as VRM Class IV. This would result in more effects on visual resources than 

would occur under the No Action Alternative. 

The management of land and water resources under this alternative, like similar management under the 

No Action Alternative, would not have significant impacts on visual resources. Although more range 

improvements and water development projects would be expected, adverse impacts on the scenic quality 

of the planning area would be negligible because these projects would result in minimal change to the 

landscape and would not likely attract the attention of the casual observer. Beneficial impacts would be 

greatly reduced because of fewer actions designed to enhance land and water resources. 

Heritage sites contribute to the character of the landscape and would be managed much as they would 

under the No Action Alternative. The area within one-quarter mile of Native American respected places 

would be protected from surface disturbing and disruptive activities. An adverse impact on visual 

resources and the viewers of these resources could occur if the character of the landscape of any respected 

place were altered to the extent that it lost its significance. Consultation with Native American tribal 

representatives could result in changes to a project design and location that would otherwise be 

compatible with the VRM objective, which could either benefit or adversely affect the scenic quality of 

the area. Benefits would be less than those under the No Action Alternative. 

The OHV designations would be compatible with VRM objectives. Any adverse impact on visual 

resources in VRM Class II areas from surface disturbance or vegetation removal caused by OHVs would 

be minimal, provided that OHV users adhered to OHV designations. 

Management of recreation resources would not have any adverse impact on the character of the 

landscape. The types of recreation activities occurring throughout the planning area would be compatible 

with VRM objectives. The resource user would likely be affected by visual intrusions on the landscape 

that could occur in a majority of the planning area. However, visual appeal is subjective; thus, the 

significance of any impact would vary among observers. 

Oil and gas development and production facilities could have adverse impacts on visual resources in 

VRM Class II areas, as they would under the No Action Alternative. However, the overall extent of any 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 4-125 
Chapter 4 Final EIS 

impact on Class II areas would be slightly less than that of the No Action Alternative because there would 

be less Class II land area with the change in VRM class in the Steamboat Mountain area. The addition of 

structures, particularly wells and power lines, to the landscape could have long-term adverse effects on 

the scenic quality of the planning area; however, the visual intrusion of these structures would be 

compatible with the VRM objectives, and mitigation measures would also be required as necessary to 

ensure that adverse visual impacts would be minimal. 

Surface disturbing activities associated with the construction of facilities and linear ROWs for pipelines, 

transmission lines, communication lines, and oil and gas development would not have significant adverse 

impacts on visual resources because the areas where development would likely occur would be 

compatible with VRM Class IV objectives. Aboveground power lines would not be allowed in the Red 

Desert Watershed Management Area, which would benefit the viewshed in this area. 

Site-specific nonlinear ROWs for microwave, transmitter, and other communication towers would be 

compatible with VRM Class IV designations and thus would be allowed in many locations in the 

planning area. Communication sites would be considered for Steamboat Mountain, Essex Mountain, and 

Pacific Butte. This could have an adverse effect on visual resources, particularly in areas identified as 

respected places by Native Americans. 

Although most of the planning area would be open to mineral location, areas of notable scenic quality, 

including White Mountain Petroglyphs, Crookston Ranch, Tri-Territory Marker, and South Pass Summit, 

would be withdrawn from mineral location. As under the No Action Alternative, surface disturbance 

associated with mining claims could affect visual settings. Fewer than 100 acres within the planning area 

would be assumed to be disturbed over the planning period because of locatable mineral activity; thus, 

any adverse impact would likely be insignificant. Where mining activities would disturb more than 5 

acres of land outside a special management area or in a VRM Class II area, a plan of operations would be 

required and a resource evaluation would be completed, thereby minimizing the potential impact on the 

character of the landscape. 

Special management areas would be classified as VRM Class I and Class II areas and would provide 

protection to visual resources by limiting or controlling surface disturbing activities. No visual intrusion 

would be allowed unless the existing landscape could be preserved or retained, having overall beneficial 

effects on the character and scenic quality of the area. However, the overall extent of any impact on the 

planning area would be slightly less than that of the No Action Alternative because there would be less 

Class II land area with the removal of the Class II designation from the Steamboat Mountain ACEC. 

4.9.1.4 Alternative 2 

WSAs would be managed as VRM Class I areas to preserve the natural setting and existing character of 

the landscape. The Oregon Buttes ACEC and the western portion of the Greater Sand Dunes ACEC, 

which fall within WSAs, would also be managed as VRM Class I areas. Other areas managed as VRM 

Class I include all other ACECs, the Red Desert Watershed, Indian Gap, the Pinnacles Geographic Area, 

and portions of White Mountain. All sensitive habitat areas, wetlands, riparian areas, floodplains, split 

rock, and the Continental Peak/South Pass Connecting Side Trail would be managed as VRM Class II 

areas. All areas not managed as VRM Class I or II for this alternative would be managed as VRM Class 

III. No areas would be managed as VRM Class IV (Map 36). 

This alternative would provide fewer opportunities to develop the planning area; thus, surface disturbance 

and construction of facilities would be curtailed. Approximately 85 percent of the planning area would be 

classified as VRM Class I and Class II; thus, beneficial impacts on visual resources would be anticipated 

through preservation and retention of the existing character of the landscape. 

4-126 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 4 

As under the No Action Alternative, management of land and water resources under this alternative 

would not have significant impacts on visual resources. Although range improvements and water 

development projects would be expected, they would be fewer in number than under the No Action 

Alternative, and adverse impacts on the scenic quality of the planning area would be negligible because 

these projects would result in minimal change to the landscape and would not likely attract the attention 

of the casual observer. Beneficial impacts would be greatest under this alternative because of increased 

efforts to enhance land and water resources. 

Heritage sites contribute to the character of the landscape and would be managed much as they would 

under the No Action Alternative. Nomination of specific sites to the NRHP, and related management 

actions, would benefit scenic quality by providing additional protection to any viewshed that contributed 

to the sites’ eligibility. The protection of Native American respected places would also directly benefit 

visual resources. Consultation with Native American tribal representatives could result in changes to a 

project design and location that would otherwise be compatible with the VRM objective, benefiting the 

scenic quality of these areas. 

As under the No Action Alternative, management of travel and access could have adverse impacts on 

visual resources by facilitating access and use within the planning area. Road construction and vehicle 

use can remove vegetation and alter the physical characteristic of the landscape. Impacts would be less 

extensive than under the No Action Alternative because of implementation of a transportation plan 

specific to the planning area. Moreover, closing a majority of the planning area to OHV use would 

minimize related impacts on visual resources, provided that users adhered to OHV designations. 

As under the No Action Alternative, management of recreation resources under this alternative would not 

have any impact on the character of the landscape. The types of recreation activities occurring throughout 

the planning area would be compatible with VRM objectives. 

Oil and gas development and production facilities could have adverse impacts on visual resources in 

VRM Class I and Class II areas. Facilities in VRM Class III areas would not significantly impact the 

scenic quality of the area, provided that the facilities would not dominate the view of the casual observer. 

Surface disturbing activities associated with the construction of facilities and linear ROWs could 

adversely impact visual resources. However, impacts would be the least extensive under this alternative 

because of the large amount of area subject to NSO stipulations, which would limit the level of 

development occurring in the planning area and thereby reduce related impacts on visual resources. In 

addition, aboveground power lines would not be allowed in the Red Desert Watershed Management Area, 

benefiting the viewshed in this area. Belowground utilities and aboveground pipelines would be 

compatible with VRM Class III areas and could be approved within Class II designations provided that 

adequate mitigation could be implemented, the results of which would not attract the attention of the 

casual observer. Site-specific nonlinear ROWs for microwave, transmitter, and other communication 

towers would also be compatible with VRM Class III classifications. 

The planning area would be withdrawn from mineral location; thus, no adverse impacts on visual 

resources from such activities would be expected. 

Special management areas would be classified as VRM Class I and Class II areas and would provide 

protection to visual resources by prohibiting any visual intrusion that would not preserve or retain the 

existing landscape. Management of additional areas that would be designated as special management 

areas would have beneficial effects on the scenic quality of the landscape. 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 4-127 
Chapter 4 Final EIS 

4.9.1.5 Alternative 3 

WSAs would be managed as VRM Class I areas to preserve the natural setting and existing character of 

the landscape. The Oregon Buttes ACEC and the western portion of the Greater Sand Dunes ACEC, 

which fall within WSAs, would also be managed as VRM Class I areas. The remaining ACECs, areas 

adjacent to the WSAs, the portion of the Red Desert Watershed within the planning area, and the 

Continental Peak/South Pass Connecting Side Trail would be managed as VRM Class II areas. Unique 

geological features and landforms, including Boars Tusk, Split Rock, and portions of White Mountain, 

would also be managed as VRM Class II areas. Eden Valley would be managed as a VRM Class III 

area. All areas not managed as VRM Class I, II, or III for this alternative would be managed as VRM 

Class IV (Map 47). 

This alternative would provide opportunities to use and develop the planning area; thus, surface 

disturbance and construction of facilities that could adversely impact visual resources would be 

anticipated. Approximately two-thirds of the planning area would be classified as VRM Class I and Class 

II; thus, beneficial impacts on visual resources would be greater than under the No Action Alternative but 

less than under Alternative 2. 

As under the other alternatives, management of land and water resources under this alternative would not 

have significant impacts on visual resources. Although range improvements and water development 

projects would be expected, adverse impacts on the scenic quality of the planning area would be 

negligible because these projects would result in minimal change to the landscape and would not likely 

attract the attention of the casual observer. Beneficial impacts would be greater than under the No Action 

Alternative because of increased efforts to enhance land and water resources. 

The impacts on visual resources from management of heritage resources would be similar to those under 

the No Action Alternative and Alternative 2. Nomination of specific sites to the NRHP, and related 

management actions, would benefit scenic quality by providing additional protection to any viewshed that 

contributed to the sites’ eligibility. Protection of Native American respected places would also directly 

benefit visual resources. 

As under the No Action Alternative, management of travel and access could have adverse impacts on 

visual resources by facilitating access and use within the planning area. Road construction and vehicle 

use can remove vegetation and alter the physical characteristics of the landscape. Impacts would be less 

extensive than under the No Action Alternative because of implementation of a transportation plan and 

the closure of more areas to OHV use. Any adverse impact on visual resources from surface disturbance 

or vegetation removal caused by OHVs would be minimal provided that users adhered to OHV 

designations. 

Oil and gas development and production facilities could have adverse impacts on visual resources in 

VRM Class I and Class II areas, similar to those under Alternative 2. However, the significance of this 

impact would depend on the amount of development projected to occur within Class I and Class II areas 

and the extent of mitigation (siting, painting, screening) applied to the proposed activity to protect scenic 

quality. Impacts would be greater than under Alternative 2 because of the removal of the NSO stipulation 

and changes to OHV restrictions within the greater sage-grouse winter range. Facilities in VRM Class III 

areas would not significantly impact the scenic quality of these areas, provided that the facilities would 

not dominate the view of the casual observer and would be compatible with VRM Class III objectives. 

Construction of facilities and linear ROWs could adversely impact visual resources; however, impacts 

would be minimized by limiting these activities to areas identified for such use. Belowground utilities 

and aboveground pipelines would be compatible with VRM Class III and Class IV and could be approved 

4-128 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 4 

within Class II designations provided that adequate mitigation could be implemented, the results of which 

would not attract the attention of the casual observer. Aboveground power lines would not be allowed in 

the Red Desert Watershed Management Area, benefiting the viewshed in this area. This would reduce 

adverse impacts on the scenic value of the area. 

Communication sites would be compatible with VRM Class IV designations. Areas closed to 

communication sites, as well as Class I areas and Class II areas that required mitigation to reduce sight 

intrusion, would benefit scenic quality. As under the No Action Alternative, communication sites on 

Essex Mountain and Pacific Butte could have an adverse effect on visual resources, particularly in areas 

identified as respected places by Native Americans. 

Although most of the planning area would be open to mineral location, areas of notable scenic quality 

would be withdrawn from mineral location, as under the No Action Alternative. Fewer than 100 acres 

within the planning area would be assumed to be disturbed over the planning period as a result of 

locatable mineral activity; thus, any adverse impact on visual resources from surface disturbance or 

mining facilities would likely be insignificant. Where mining activities would disturb more than 5 acres 

of land outside a special management area or in a VRM Class II area, a plan of operations would be 

required and a resource evaluation would be completed, thereby minimizing potential adverse impacts on 

the character of the landscape. 

Management of recreation resources could adversely impact the viewshed of the National Historic Trail. 

Limiting recreational mining activity to a 5-acre site in the Dickie Springs-Oregon Gulch Gold Placer 

Mining District area would concentrate such mining activities and increase vehicle travel to the site, 

which could subsequently create dust plumes visible from the trail. Although this would increase the 

difficulty of managing the viewshed, impacts would likely be minimal because of the limited amount of 

recreational mining activity that occurs in the planning area. Adhering to VRM class requirements would 

ensure that recreational activities would not cause significant impacts on visual resources. 

As under Alternative 2, special management areas would be classified as VRM Class I and Class II and 

would provide protection to visual resources by prohibiting any visual intrusion that would not preserve 

or retain the existing character of the landscape. Management of additional areas designated as special 

management areas under this alternative would have beneficial effects on the scenic quality of the 

landscape. 

4.9.1.6 Proposed JMH CAP 

WSAs would be managed as VRM Class I areas to preserve the natural setting and existing character of 

the landscape. The Oregon Buttes ACEC and the western portion of the Greater Sand Dunes ACEC, 

which fall within WSAs, would also be managed as VRM Class I areas. The interim management policy 

for WSAs provides for temporary uses and limits surface disturbing activities to accommodate valid 

existing rights. This policy, together with the VRM Class I objective, would ensure the preservation of 

the wilderness characteristics of these areas. All ACECs, the Steamboat Mountain Management Area, the 

Pinnacles Geologic Feature, the areas adjacent to the WSAs, portions of White Mountain, and the West 

Sand Dunes Archaeological District would be managed as VRM Class II areas. Split Rock, Eden Valley, 

portions of White Mountain, and the portion of the Red Desert Watershed within the planning area would 

be managed as VRM Class III areas. All areas not managed as VRM Class I, II, or III for this alternative 

would be managed as VRM Class IV (Map 59). 

The planning area would be managed to maintain or improve scenic quality by managing the impacts of 

human activities and other intrusions on the visual landscape. The VRM classes provide the design 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 4-129 
Chapter 4 Final EIS 

standards for all surface disturbing projects. Projects would be designed, sited, screened, or painted to 

reduce adverse visual impacts regardless of the VRM classification. 

Management of land and water resources would not have significant impacts on visual resources. The 

implementation actions generally limit the extent of surface disturbing activities or vegetation removal 

that could affect the character of the landscape. Range improvements and water developments would be 

compatible with VRM Class III and Class IV objectives. Any improvements or developments proposed 

for VRM Class II areas would result in only a low level of change to the landscape and would not likely 

attract the attention of the casual observer; thus, impacts would be negligible. Beneficial impacts could 

be slightly greater than under the No Action Alternative because of increased efforts to enhance land and 

water resources. 

Heritage sites such as White Mountain Petroglyphs, National Historic and National Scenic Trails, Boars 

Tusk, Crookston Ranch, and Tri-Territory Marker contribute to the character of the landscape. Managing 

and protecting these heritage resources in the planning area, including the protection of Native American 

respected places, would directly benefit visual resources. Consultation with Native American tribal 

representatives could result in changes to a project design and location that would otherwise be 

compatible with the VRM objective, which could either benefit or adversely affect the scenic quality of 

the area. 

Management of travel and access could have adverse impacts on visual resources by facilitating access 

and use within the planning area. Road construction and vehicle use can remove vegetation and alter the 

physical characteristics of the landscape. Impacts would be reduced by identifying and controlling highly 

traveled routes and providing for orderly development that is compatible with VRM objectives. The 

OHV designations would be compatible with VRM objectives. Any adverse impact on visual resources 

from surface disturbance or vegetation removal caused by OHV use would be minimal provided that 

users adhered to OHV designations. Implementation of a transportation plan specific to the planning area 

would help reduce impacts compared with the No Action Alternative. 

The use of the planning area by recreationists, and the actions proposed for managing the recreation 

resources, would not have any adverse impact on the character of the landscape. The expansion of 

facilities at the Sand Dunes OHV recreation site would be designed to blend into the existing landscape of 

the area. The projected increase in recreationists using the planning area could affect the scenic quality of 

localized areas that experienced increased camping or other use. Any adverse impact would likely be 

insignificant because these small areas would be closed if resource damage occurred. 

Surface disturbing activities associated with the construction of facilities and linear ROWs for pipelines, 

transmission lines, communication lines, and oil and gas development could adversely impact visual 

resources. Land clearing and grading activities necessary for construction remove vegetation, which could 

temporarily and sometimes permanently alter the characteristics of the landscape. Belowground utilities 

and aboveground pipelines would be compatible with VRM Class III and Class IV designations and could 

be approved within Class II designations provided that adequate mitigation could be implemented, the 

results of which would not attract the attention of the casual observer. Aboveground power lines would 

not be allowed in the Red Desert Watershed Management Area, which would benefit the viewshed in this 

area. 

Oil and gas development and production facilities could have adverse impacts on visual resources in 

VRM Class II areas. The significance of this impact would depend on the amount of development 

projected to occur within Class II areas and the success of mitigation (siting, painting, screening) to 

reduce visual effects. The addition of structures, particularly wells and power lines, to the landscape 

could have long-term adverse effects on the scenic quality of the planning area; however, the visual 

4-130 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 4 

intrusion of these structures would be site-specific and would not affect viewers outside the viewshed of 

each well site. Facilities in VRM Class III areas would not significantly impact the scenic quality of the 

area provided that the facilities would not dominate the view of the casual observer. Oil and gas 

development and production facilities would be compatible with VRM Class IV objectives, but mitigation 

measures would also be required as necessary to ensure that adverse visual impacts would be minimal. 

These impacts could be reduced in Area 3 (Figure A17-1) of the fluid mineral leasing implementation 

strategy (Appendix 17). The majority of Area 3 would be closed to new oil and gas leasing, which could 

result in fewer visual intrusions in this area. Over the long term, impacts in Area 3 would be minimized 

because all leases in this area would expire within an 11-year time period. 

Site-specific nonlinear ROWs for microwave, transmitter, and other communication towers would be 

compatible with VRM Class IV designations. Adequate mitigation measures (siting, painting, screening) 

would be implemented where possible. Communication sites would be allowed on portions of Essex 

Mountain and Pacific Butte. This would have an adverse effect on visual resources, particularly in areas 

identified as respected places by Native Americans, although adverse effects would be less than those 

under the No Action Alternative. 

Withdrawing lands from certain resource uses would have beneficial impacts on scenic quality by limiting 

or prohibiting surface disturbing activities. Areas of notable scenic quality that would be withdrawn from 

mineral location include the White Mountain Petroglyphs, Greater Sand Dunes ACEC, Crookston Ranch, 

Tri-Territory Marker, and South Pass Summit. Surface disturbance associated with mining claims could 

affect visual settings; however, fewer than 100 acres within the planning area would be assumed to be 

disturbed over the planning period as a result of locatable mineral activity. Thus, any adverse impact 

would likely be insignificant. Where mining activities would disturb more than 5 acres of land outside a 

special management area, a plan of operations would be required and a resource evaluation would be 

completed, thereby minimizing potential impact on the character of the landscape. 

Special management area management prescriptions would provide protection to visual resources by 

limiting or controlling surface disturbing activities. These areas are classified as VRM Class I and Class 

II; thus, any allowable visual intrusion would preserve or retain the existing landscape. This would have 

overall beneficial effects to the character and scenic quality of the landscape. 

4.10 SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREAS 

Special management areas (SMA) require special management prescriptions to ensure that the areas and 

their resources are managed and protected from irreparable damage. These areas include WSAs, ACECs, 

special recreation management areas (SRMA), and other areas, including watersheds. 

4.10.1 Potential Impacts on Special Management Areas 

SMAs provide management for unique natural, historic, scenic, or recreational resources in the planning 

area, having a beneficial impact on resources and nonenvironmental effects on resource users. Impacts on 

resources and resource users resulting from implementation of SMA management prescriptions are 

discussed in those particular resource sections. This section describes potential impacts on SMAs 

resulting from the implementation of management actions for other resource management categories. 

An impact on SMAs would be considered significant if a level of development or activity occurred that 

would be incompatible with the SMA objectives and management prescriptions. A significant impact 

would result if an activity or development would impair the suitability of WSAs for preservation as 

wilderness or if resources were adversely affected to the point that the current SMA no longer met the 

criteria for designation. 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 4-131 
Chapter 4 Final EIS 

For analysis purposes, it is assumed that all areas existing and proposed as ACECs meet the relevance and 

importance criteria. It is also assumed that the WSAs would remain under wilderness review and that 

wilderness designation or nondesignation would not occur during the planning period. The WSAs would 

continue to be managed under the Interim Management Policy and Guidelines for Lands Under 

Wilderness Review. Activities or developments on state or private inholdings would not significantly 

affect the criteria necessary to maintain designations, nor would they be significantly affected by SMA 

management prescriptions. 

4.10.1.1 Common to All Alternatives 

The existing SMAs would continue to be managed to preserve and protect the integrity and character of 

the specific areas, in accordance with ACEC policies and WSA interim management policies. All 

management actions and resource uses would focus on the protection of sensitive environmental 

resources and the health and safety of the user. 

Management of land and water resources would not have significant impacts on SMAs. Special 

management area values include geologic features, fragile plant species habitat, cultural and historical 

values, visual values, recreation values, and unique wildlife habitat. The implementation actions 

generally limit the extent of surface disturbing activities, vegetation removal, and season of use, providing 

protection of wildlife habitat and locations of special status plant species. Livestock grazing 

implementation actions would be evaluated and modified as needed to be consistent with the management 

prescriptions of SMAs. These land and water implementation actions generally coincide with the 

management objectives of SMAs. 

Heritage sites, such as White Mountain Petroglyphs, Boars Tusk, Killpecker Sand Dunes, South Pass, and 

National Historic and National Scenic Trails, are part of or are located within existing SMA boundaries. 

Managing and protecting these heritage resources, including the protection of related Native American 

respected places, would not impact the management prescriptions of SMAs. Implementation actions for 

managing heritage resources would be complementary to SMA objectives. 

Land adjustments and exchanges of state lands within WSAs and other SMAs identified in the Green 

River RMP would be pursued. Acquiring state inholdings would likely result in beneficial impacts on the 

resources in SMAs because BLM could implement cohesive management prescriptions and avoid 

fragmentation of these areas. 

Management of recreation resources would have beneficial impacts on SMA resources. The WSAs and 

ACECs are popular recreation destinations; thus, the preparation of recreation site plans and placement of 

interpretive signs would have beneficial impacts on both the resource and the user. Recreational 

management actions could have an overall indirect beneficial effect on SMA resources through public 

education via interpretive materials on the importance of protecting and preserving unique resources. The 

preparation of recreation project plans for the National Historic Trails, Crookston Ranch, Boars Tusk, and 

White Mountain Petroglyphs would benefit the users of these resources by providing interpretive 

materials on historical and cultural sites of interest. 

WSAs would be managed as VRM Class I areas to preserve the natural setting and existing character of 

the landscape, having a beneficial impact on SMA resources. The interim management policy for WSAs 

provides temporary uses and limits surface disturbing activities. This policy, together with the VRM 

Class I objective, would ensure the preservation of the wilderness characteristics of these areas. 

The implementation prescriptions proposed for managing SMAs would have direct beneficial effects on 

the resources of those SMAs and thus would indirectly benefit the continued management of these areas 

4-132 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 4 

as SMAs. As stated above, the potential impacts of implementing these management prescriptions are 

discussed separately for each resource management category. 

4.10.1.2 No Action Alternative 

Managing wildlife and the associated restrictions on OHV use could have some indirect impacts on some 

SMAs caused by limiting access to otherwise popular recreational OHV sites. At the same time, these 

actions could prove to be beneficial in the management of soil erosion and compaction because the 

seasonal restrictions are in place during a time of wet conditions. Although the actions could have 

beneficial and adverse impacts, these are expected to be minimal because of the seasonal nature of these 

restrictions. 

Managing travel and access throughout the planning area could have beneficial impacts on SMA 

resources by identifying and controlling highly traveled routes and providing for orderly development that 

would be compatible with SMA objectives. The OHV designations would be compatible with SMA 

management prescriptions. Any impact on the integrity and maintenance of the designated area from 

surface disturbance or vegetation removal caused by OHVs would be minimal, provided that OHV users 

adhered to OHV designations. 

Surface disturbing activities associated with the construction of facilities and linear ROWs for pipelines, 

transmission lines, communication lines, and oil and gas development could adversely impact SMAs. 

Such activities could affect the integrity and continued maintenance of the area as an SMA and would be 

visually apparent to the users of the areas. However, with the implementation of management 

prescriptions for SMAs, including the interim management guidelines for WSAs that prohibit 

impairment, any impact would be insignificant. 

Withdrawing lands from mineral location and revoking existing withdrawals would impact SMA 

resources and resource users. The oil shale and coal classification would be revoked, and upon its 

revocation, all SMAs, with the exception of White Mountain Petroglyphs, the Greater Sand Dunes 

ACEC, special status plant sites, Crookston Ranch, Tri-Territory Marker, and South Pass Summit, would 

be open for mineral location (Map 5), potentially having an adverse effect on SMA resources. However, 

a plan of operations would be required and a resource evaluation would be completed for any mining 

activity within an SMA, thereby minimizing potential impacts on the characteristics of the area that 

support its special designation. 

The VRM classifications could have beneficial effects through the protection of viewsheds associated 

with historic resources, such as South Pass Historic Landscape, and with sites of concern to Native 

Americans, such as White Mountain Petroglyphs. The VRM Class II designation for these locations, the 

southern portion of Steamboat Mountain ACEC, the remaining ACECs, and areas adjacent to the WSAs 

would limit the design and placement of structures to blend in with the landscape. Much of the Red 

Desert Watershed Management Area would be managed as a VRM Class III area to retain the existing 

character of the landscape. These classifications would have a beneficial effect by maintaining the 

resource integrity for which the areas were designated. 

4.10.1.3 Alternative 1 

Managing travel, access, and OHV use throughout the planning area would have impacts similar to those 

under the No Action Alternative. However, impacts could be greater because of less restrictive OHV 

management actions (i.e., fewer seasonal closures and less area limited to designated roads and trails). 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 4-133 
Chapter 4 Final EIS 

Adverse impacts from surface disturbing activities associated with the construction of facilities and linear 

ROWs for pipelines, transmission lines, communication lines, and oil and gas development would be 

greater than under the No Action Alternative. These activities could affect the criteria for SMA 

designation, potentially resulting in significant impacts on SMA resources. Implementation of 

management prescriptions for WSAs, including the interim management guidelines that prohibit 

impairment, would greatly reduce adverse impacts in those areas. Implementation of other SMA 

management prescriptions would reduce adverse impacts; however, adverse impacts are not expected to 

be reduced to a level where they would be insignificant. 

The withdrawal of lands from mineral location would have the same impacts as those under the No 

Action Alternative, except that the Greater Sand Dunes ACEC would be open for mineral location. This 

would have adverse effects on the Greater Sand Dunes ACEC. However, a plan of operations would be 

required and a resource evaluation would be completed for any mining activity within the SMA, thereby 

minimizing potential impacts on the characteristics of the ACEC that support its special designation. 

Effects from VRM classifications would be the same as those under the No Action Alternative, except 

that much of the Red Desert Watershed Management Area would be managed as VRM Class IV. This 

might have significant adverse impacts on the existing character of the landscape by compromising the 

resource integrity for which the area was designated. 

4.10.1.4 Alternative 2 

Greater beneficial impacts on SMA resources would occur due to the management of travel and access 

throughout the planning area through creation of a transportation plan. The plan would identify and 

control highly traveled routes, providing for orderly development that would be compatible with ACEC 

and WSA objectives, and provide maximum protection for sensitive resources. The OHV designations 

would be compatible with SMA management prescriptions. Managing travel and restricting OHV use 

within the greater sage-grouse winter range could result in greater impacts on SMAs than would occur 

under the No Action Alternative by generating heavier use in SMAs. Any impact on the integrity and 

maintenance of designated SMAs from surface disturbance or vegetation removal caused by OHVs would 

be minimal provided that OHV users adhered to OHV designations. 

Adverse impacts on SMA resources from surface disturbing activities associated with the construction of 

facilities and linear ROWs for pipelines, transmission lines, communication lines, and oil and gas 

development would be the least extensive under this alternative because of ROW avoidance or exclusion 

and controlled surface use or NSO prescriptions for all SMAs. 

All SMAs would be closed to coal and other solid mineral exploration, leasing, and development and 

withdrawn from mineral location. No new leases for fluid minerals would be offered in any SMA. These 

actions would have significant beneficial impacts on the SMAs by protecting the resources from the 

surface disturbance associated with mineral development activities. 

The VRM classifications under this alternative would have greater beneficial effects on SMA resources 

than would those under the No Action Alternative because all SMAs would be classified as Class I. 

Additions to and expansions of ACECs would significantly benefit the resources within these areas 

because of the amount of land area and management prescriptions associated with these designations. 

The proposed expansion of the Greater Sand Dunes ACEC to include the paleosol deposition area would 

ensure protection to significant geological and archeological components of the study of early human 

habitation of North America. This area meets the relevance criteria of significant historic and cultural 

value and the importance criteria of having a locally significant quality that makes the area rare, 

4-134 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 4 

irreplaceable, and unique. This area would be further evaluated as a research natural area (RNA) and 

maintained for the primary purpose of research and education. The RNA would primarily be used for 

nonmanipulative research and baseline data gathering. Another RNA would be proposed for the dunal 

ponds within the Sand Dunes WSA portion of the Greater Sand Dunes ACEC. These ponds are a unique 

water resource that supports various forms of aquatic and terrestrial wildlife and would also be managed 

for minimal human and animal disturbance, thus benefiting these resources. 

The proposed expansion of the Steamboat Mountain ACEC would ensure protection of important wildlife 

habitat, a unique vegetation type, and significant heritage resources. These areas meet the relevance and 

importance criteria for wildlife and cultural values of national significance and contain unique habitat 

features found nowhere else in the planning area. The basin big sagebrush/lemon scurfpea vegetation 

type within the expanded ACEC area would be evaluated for designation as an RNA, which would be 

managed for minimum human disturbance. The RNA would be established and maintained for the 

primary purpose of protecting qualities that make the basin big sagebrush/lemon scurfpea fragile, 

sensitive, rare, and vulnerable to adverse change. 

The Special Status Plant Species ACEC would be expanded into the JMH CAP planning area to include 

BLM-administered land occupied by all Wyoming BLM special status plant species and any potential 

habitat for these species. This would provide beneficial effects to these species by providing protective 

measures for their propagation and survival. 

The cushion plant community would meet the relevance criteria for rare and endemic plants and plant 

communities and would be designated an ACEC. This ACEC would be managed as an RNA for 

scientific research and education to learn more about these unique plant species and associations. This 

would represent a significant beneficial impact for these species by raising awareness of the species and 

providing protective measures for their propagation and survival. 

Management of the Pinnacles Geographic Area, which includes the Pinnacles Geologic Feature ACEC, 

would significantly benefit the natural resources within this area. Access to the parcel of state land 

adjacent to this area would be provided via an existing road; the presence and any future maintenance of 

this road would not impact the manageability of the Pinnacles Geographic Area. The proposed 

management action of pursuing land exchanges for improving management of resources and minimizing 

habitat fragmentation would apply to this parcel of state land, thereby improving the manageability of the 

area. There are no existing mining claims within the Pinnacles Geographic Area, which would eliminate 

any impact on the manageability of the area from existing or future claims. The proposed implementation 

actions for this alternative include the buy-back and exchange of leases located in areas of sensitive 

resources, and no new leases would be offered in sensitive resource areas. Therefore, the manageability 

of this area would be compatible with management actions for other resources in the planning area. 

Activities to support livestock operations, such as water developments and range improvements, would be 

allowed within the Pinnacles Geographic Area, provided that the construction, use, and maintenance of 

the facilities were in compliance with the management prescriptions for this area. 

4.10.1.5 Alternative 3 

Managing travel and access throughout the planning area through creation of a transportation plan could 

have greater beneficial impacts on SMA resources than under the No Action Alternative by identifying 

and controlling highly traveled routes, providing for orderly development that would be compatible with 

SMA objectives and providing maximum protection for sensitive resources. The OHV designations 

would be compatible with SMA management objectives and prescriptions. Any impact on the integrity 

and maintenance of the designated area from surface disturbance or vegetation removal caused by OHVs 

would be minimal provided that OHV users adhered to OHV designations. 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 4-135 
Chapter 4 Final EIS 

The effects of surface disturbing activities associated with the construction of facilities and linear ROWs 

for pipelines, transmission lines, communication lines, and oil and gas development would be minimal 

because of management prescriptions of controlled surface use and NSO in the majority of SMAs (Map 

39 and Map 40). 

Withdrawal of lands from mineral location under this alternative would have the same impacts on the 

SMA resources and resource users as that under the No Action Alternative. 

The VRM classifications under this alternative would have greater beneficial effects on SMA resources 

than would those under the No Action Alternative because all SMAs would be classified as either Class I 

or Class II. 

Additions to and expansions of ACECs would significantly benefit the resources within these areas 

because of the amount of land area and management prescriptions associated with these designations. 

The proposed expansion of the Greater Sand Dunes ACEC to include the paleosol deposition area would 

ensure protection of significant geological and archeological components of the study of early human 

habitation of North America. The proposed expansion of the Steamboat Mountain ACEC to include 

Indian Gap and the face of Steamboat Mountain would ensure protection of important wildlife habitat, a 

unique vegetation type, and a significant heritage resource. Designation and management of cushion 

plant communities as an ACEC and the proposed expansion of the Special Status Plant Species ACEC 

into the JMH CAP planning area to include BLM-administered land occupied by all Wyoming BLM 

special status plant species would provide protective measures for these species’ propagation and 

survival. However, the benefits of protection of resources from ACEC expansions would be less than 

under Alternative 2 because less area would be designated as SMAs and no further evaluation of areas as 

RNAs would occur. 

Management of the Pinnacles Geographic Area would significantly benefit the natural resources within 

this area. Access to the parcel of state land adjacent to this area would be provided via an existing road; 

the presence and any future maintenance of this road would not impact the manageability of the Pinnacles 

Geographic Area. The proposed management action of pursuing land exchanges for improving 

management of resources and minimizing habitat fragmentation would apply to this parcel of state land, 

thereby improving the manageability of the area. There are no existing mining claims within the 

Pinnacles Geographic Area, which would eliminate any impact on the manageability of the area from 

existing or future claims. No new leases would be offered in the Pinnacles Geographic Area; therefore, 

the manageability of this area would be compatible with management actions for other resources in the 

planning area. Activities to support livestock operations, such as water developments and range 

improvements, would be allowed within the Pinnacles Geographic Area, provided that the construction, 

use, and maintenance of the facilities were in compliance with the management prescriptions for this area. 

4.10.1.6 Proposed JMH CAP 

The existing SMAs would continue to be managed to preserve and protect the integrity and character of 

the specific areas in accordance with ACEC policies and WSA interim management policies. All 

management actions and resource uses would focus on the protection of the sensitive environmental 

resources and the health and safety of the user. 

Management of land and water resources would not have significant impacts on SMAs. The 

implementation actions generally limit the extent of surface disturbing activities, vegetation removal, and 

season of use, providing protection of wildlife habitat and locations of special status plant species. 

Livestock grazing implementation actions would be evaluated and modified as needed to be consistent 

4-136 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 4 

with the management prescriptions of SMAs. These land and water implementation actions generally 

coincide with the management objectives of SMAs. 

Heritage sites, such as White Mountain Petroglyphs, Boars Tusk, Killpecker Sand Dunes, South Pass, and 

National Historic and National Scenic Trails, are part of or are located within existing SMA boundaries. 

Managing and protecting these heritage resources, including the protection of related Native American 

respected places, would not impact the management prescriptions of SMAs. Implementation actions for 

managing heritage resources would be complementary to SMA objectives. 

Managing travel and access throughout the planning area through creation of a transportation plan would 

have beneficial impacts on SMA resources by identifying and controlling highly traveled routes, 

providing for orderly development that would be compatible with ACEC and WSA objectives, and 

providing maximum protection for sensitive resources. The OHV designations would be compatible with 

SMA management prescriptions. Any impact on the integrity and maintenance of the designated area 

from surface disturbance or vegetation removal caused by OHVs would be minimal, provided that OHV 

users adhered to OHV designations. 

Land adjustments and exchanges of state lands within WSAs and other SMAs identified in the Green 

River RMP would be pursued. Acquiring state inholdings would likely result in beneficial impacts on the 

resources in SMAs because BLM could implement cohesive management prescriptions and avoid 

fragmentation of these areas. 

Management of recreation resources would have beneficial impacts on SMA resources. The WSAs and 

ACECs are popular recreation destinations; thus, the preparation of recreation site plans and placement of 

interpretive signs would have beneficial impacts on both the resource and the user. Recreational 

management actions could have an overall indirect beneficial effect on SMA resources through public 

education via interpretive materials on the importance of protecting and preserving unique resources. The 

preparation of recreation project plans for the National Historic Trails, Crookston Ranch, Boars Tusk, and 

White Mountain Petroglyphs would benefit the users of these resources by providing interpretive 

materials on historical and cultural sites of interest. 

Surface disturbing activities associated with the construction of facilities and linear ROWs for pipelines, 

transmission lines, communication lines, and oil and gas development could adversely impact SMA 

resources. These activities could have adverse impacts because they could affect the integrity and 

continued maintenance of the area as an SMA and would be visually apparent to the users of SMAs. 

However, with the management prescriptions for SMAs, including the interim management guidelines for 

WSAs that prohibit impairment, the appropriate actions to meet objectives would be provided and any 

impact would be insignificant. Furthermore, SMAs could be further protected in Area 3 (Figure A17-1) 

of the JMH CAP fluid mineral leasing implementation strategy (Appendix 17). The majority of Area 3 

would be closed to new oil and gas leasing, which could reduce potential impacts on SMAs in this area. 

Over the long term, impacts in Area 3 would be minimized because all leases in this area would expire 

within an 11-year time period. 

Withdrawing lands from mineral location and revoking existing withdrawals would affect SMA resources 

and resource users. The oil shale and coal classification would be revoked, and upon its revocation, all 

SMAs, with the exception of White Mountain Petroglyphs, the western portion of the Greater Sand Dunes 

ACEC, special status plant sites, Crookston Ranch, Tri-Territory Marker, and South Pass Summit, would 

be open for mineral location (Map 53), potentially having an adverse effect on SMA resources. However, 

a plan of operations would be required and a resource evaluation would be completed for any mining 

activity within an SMA, thereby minimizing potential impact on the characteristics of the area that 

support its special designation. The WSAs would be managed as VRM Class I areas to preserve the 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 4-137 
Chapter 4 Final EIS 

natural setting and existing character of the landscape, having a beneficial impact on SMA resources. The 

interim management policy for WSAs provides for temporary uses and limits surface disturbing activities. 

This policy, together with the VRM Class I objective, would ensure the preservation of the wilderness 

characteristics of these areas. 

The VRM classifications could have beneficial effects through the protection of viewsheds associated 

with historic resources, such as South Pass Historic Landscape, and with sites of concern to Native 

Americans, such as White Mountain Petroglyphs. The VRM Class II designation for these locations, the 

Steamboat Mountain ACEC, the remaining ACECs, and the area adjacent to WSAs would limit the 

design and placement of structures to blend in with the landscape. Much of the Red Desert Watershed 

Management Area would be managed as VRM Class III to retain the existing character of the landscape. 

These classifications would have a beneficial effect by maintaining the resource integrity for which the 

areas were designated. 

The Pinnacles Geographic Area, including the geologic feature, would be managed as part of the Red 

Desert Watershed Management Area. The Pinnacles Geologic Feature would be an exclusion area for 

ROWs, closed to salable mineral activities, and classified as a VRM Class II area. These restrictions 

would protect resources within this area, preserving unique geologic features from surface disturbing and 

disruptive activities. 

The implementation prescriptions for SMAs would have direct beneficial effects on the resources of those 

SMAs and thus would indirectly benefit the continued management of these areas as SMAs. As stated 

above, the potential impacts of implementing these management prescriptions are discussed in the 

separate resource management categories. 

The West Sand Dunes Archaeological District is a significant heritage resource and is eligible for 

inclusion in the NRHP under Criterion D as a result of the scientific information the area has been 

demonstrated to possess. Establishment of the West Sand Dunes Archaeological District as an SMA 

under this alternative focuses attention on management prescriptions intended to protect these scientific 

values while still allowing activities in the area. The management approach recognizes that the most 

important scientific information will likely be found in buried soil horizons, sometimes called paleosols, 

and that traditional surface inventories are not likely to find the most important archeological 

manifestations. Establishing the SMA also provides some approaches designed to find deposits and 

guidance for managing important deposits, to preserve or retrieve the scientific information they contain. 

4.11 AIR RESOURCES 

Air resources managed by the BLM include air pollutant concentrations, visibility, and atmospheric 

deposition. Air quality is mainly determined by air pollutant emissions, meteorology, and terrain. Air 

quality impacts are based on federal and state laws and regulations. National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) and FLPMA require that federal activities not violate federal laws and regulations. The 

conformity clause of the 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act further require that federal activities be 

substantially in conformance with state and local air quality regulations. Air quality in the JMH CAP 

planning area (and throughout Wyoming) is regulated by the Wyoming Department of Environmental 

Quality (WDEQ). 

4.11.1 Potential Impacts on Air Quality 

WDEQ Air Quality Division (AQD) regulates air quality impacts in terms of their potential for exceeding 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) 

increments, and Wyoming Ambient Air Quality Standards (WAAQS) as described in Chapter 3 of this 

4-138 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 4 

document. Potential impacts would be significant if the NAAQS or WAAQS were exceeded, an existing 

air quality violation were further aggravated, PSD increments for Class I or Class II areas were exceeded, 

increased toxin concentrations were above designated thresholds, atmospheric deposition impacts were 

above terrestrial voluntary guidelines (3–5 kg total nitrogen per hectare/year; 5 kg total sulfur per 

hectare/year) or above aquatic levels of acceptable change (10 percent change in acid neutralizing 

capacity), or visibility impacts on sensitive areas were above the designated 0.5 and 1.0 deciview (dv) 

change threshold. A significant impact on air resources might require mitigation before a permit could be 

issued by the state. 

Air quality modeling of regional impacts was performed in 1999 for the Pinedale Anticline Project in 

Sublette County. The JMH planning area was included in the impact analysis of this air quality modeling. 

In examining whether the BLM activities in the JMH planning area would result in the exceedence of any 

of these air quality standards, it has been assumed that the results of that modeling remain valid. A 

detailed description of this air quality analysis is given in the Pinedale Anticline Oil and Gas Project Final 

Environmental Impact Statement and associated documents. 

The air quality modeling for the Pinedale Anticline Project included an analysis of emissions from the 

projected construction, well drilling, and operation of 500 to 700 wells in the Pinedale area. The 

modeling also included a cumulative analysis of emissions from projected development of 7,211 wells in 

surrounding areas in the model domain of southwestern Wyoming, north-central Utah, and northwestern 

Colorado. Impacts were analyzed in terms of local impacts of individual wells or well fields on their 

immediate vicinity (near-field impacts) and in terms of effects on distant Clean Air Act Class I areas (farfield impacts). 

4.11.1.1 Common to All Alternatives 

Many land use activities on BLM land result in emissions to the air. Air emissions are associated with oil 

and gas exploration and production activities for which the BLM leases land and minerals. Vehicles from 

daily traffic, OHVs, recreationists, hunters, industry, and livestock operators using BLM lands are also air 

emission sources. 

Oil and gas operations result in air emissions associated with site construction, well drilling and 

completion, and operation of production facilities, including separators, dehydrators, tanks, and 

compressors. Workover and repair operations could also result in short-term, temporary (fugitive) 

emissions. The primary pollutants that would be emitted during oil and gas operations include carbon 

monoxide (CO), volatile organic compounds (VOC), sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOX), and 

particulate matter (PM). Drilling, completion, and repair activities all result in short-term emissions, 

while emissions associated with operation of production facilities are ongoing throughout the life of a 

producing well. 

Input information for the Pinedale Anticline Project air quality modeling included meteorological data 

and emission source information throughout the model domain. Simulations were run to evaluate the 

contribution of existing sources, projected Pinedale Anticline sources (500 to 700 wells and compressors), 

and cumulative sources (7,211 wells and compressors) in the region. The cumulative impact modeling 

included existing and reasonably foreseeable new sources. The CALPUFF modeling system was used for 

the cumulative (far-field) impacts. The model simulations predicted regional concentrations of pollutants 

and calculated air quality impacts on the sensitive areas (PSD Class I and sensitive Class II areas) 

throughout the region (Figure A15-13). 

Emission rate estimates from the Pinedale Anticline Project included assumptions for projected oil and 

gas development in the JMH CAP planning area, including emission factors, number of wells, and 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 4-139 
Chapter 4 Final EIS 

horsepower (hp) of compression. In 1999, it was assumed that 110 new wells would be drilled in the 

JMH CAP planning area and that approximately 3,480 hp of compression (based on 60 hp per producing 

well) would be used. Only NOX emissions were calculated for far-field impacts because particulate 

matter (PM10) and SO2 were expected to be negligible. The emission factors used were 0.065 tons of 

NOX per well per year, for wells, and 1.5 grams NOX per brake-horsepower hour, for compressors. 

Except for the number of wells, which is discussed later, these are still considered to be reasonable 

assumptions. 

The model predictions of air quality impacts from the projected Pinedale Anticline sources were 

significantly less than existing sources for all pollutants. Furthermore, the predicted emissions from 

cumulative sources were in compliance with the NAAQS and the WAAQS for all pollutants. The 

projected maximum impact of cumulative sources for annual NOX emissions was 0.03 micrograms per 

cubic meter (μg/m3

), which was less than 1 percent of background concentration (9 mg/m3) and well 

below the ambient standards (Figure A15-1). 

In the Pinedale Anticline cumulative impact analysis, 110 wells and compressors were within the JMH 

CAP planning area. This is 1.5 percent of the 7,211 total sources. The Hydrocarbon Occurrence and 

Development Potential Report for the JMH CAP planning area (Appendix 13) projected a maximum of 

132 producing wells over the planning period, which would represent a 1.8 percent increase if the 

cumulative sources were unchanged. Even though it would be reasonable to assume that there are new 

sources in the model domain since 1999, it is also likely that not all estimated wells or compressors 

continue to operate. Because the annual NOX concentration from cumulative sources was determined to 

be 0.03 μg/m3 the difference between 110 and 132 wells in the JMH CAP planning area is unlikely to 

result in an appreciable change in the concentration. Because the cumulative impacts predicted by the 

Pinedale Anticline modeling are significantly less than background concentrations, ambient air quality 

standards, and PSD requirements, and because the changes since 1999 are small, additional air quality 

modeling to account for the revised Hydrocarbon Occurrence and Development Potential Report for the 

JMH CAP planning area is not necessary. 

The Pinedale Anticline Project modeling also calculated visibility impairment in PSD Class I areas in the 

model domain. Visibility was estimated in terms of change in deciview from background visibility (this 

measure of visibility was described in Chapter 3). The model results reported two thresholds of visibility 

change: days with greater than 1.0 dv change and days with greater than 0.5 dv change. The U.S. Forest 

Service (USFS) uses 0.5 dv as a threshold of acceptable change in visibility in sensitive areas, whereas a 

1.0 dv change is the threshold in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regional haze 

regulations. The model results for cumulative emissions predicted that the PSD Class I area nearest to the 

Pinedale Anticline Project, Bridger Wilderness, would experience 9 days of visibility with a change of 

greater than 0.5 dv. There were no areas where visibility change exceeded 1.0 dv. As noted above, the 

model input includes weather data. The visibility results indicated that some of these 9 days of greater 

than 0.5 dv change in visibility were attributable to meteorological conditions. These preliminary model 

results suggest that impacts from cumulative emission sources could be significant. However, because 

emission sources within the JMH CAP planning area represent only 1.8 percent of those analyzed for the 

Pinedale Anticline, visibility impacts from proposed activities within the JMH CAP planning area are not 

anticipated to be significant. As noted above, the analysis for the Pinedale Anticline included only 110 

wells versus 132 wells for the JMH CAP planning area; however, given the change in pollutant 

concentrations previously described, the addition of 22 wells would likely have little effect on the 

visibility modeling results. 

The air pollutant emissions used in the above discussion are comparable to those expected from the 

maximum projected development alternative (Alternative 1) for the JMH CAP planning area. Because no 

significant impacts on air resources were indicated under this scenario, no significant impacts would be 

4-140 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 4 

expected under the lesser development scenarios of the No Action Alternative, Alternative 2, Alternative 

3, or the Proposed JMH CAP. 

4.12 SOCIOECONOMICS 

The socioeconomic analysis focuses on three resource uses of the planning area: livestock grazing, 

recreation, and oil and gas development. The area of economic influence used for this analysis includes 

the counties of Sweetwater, Fremont, and Sublette, even though most of the planning area is located 

within Sweetwater County. The potential impacts discussed under this section are relative to this area of 

influence. 

4.12.1 Significance Criteria 

Significance criteria for socioeconomic impacts were determined by analyzing long-term trends and 

fluctuations for certain important economic variables, including total employment, total earnings, and 

mineral ad valorem taxes associated with natural gas production. This analysis evaluated the long-term 

trends to determine the approximate changes likely to occur in these variables under existing conditions. 

Annual deviations from the trend over this 20-year period are considered the threshold of what can be 

tolerated by the regional economy for these three variables. Any changes beyond these thresholds would 

likely have significant impacts on local communities. 

Figure 13 summarizes total annual employment for the study area between 1979 and 1999 and shows that 

total employment followed a slightly increasing trend (5 percent) during the study period. The trend 

analysis also shows that the regional economy has experienced cyclical fluctuations in employment. 

Therefore, although total employment increased over time, it is reasonable to assume that in any given 

year, total employment may have deviated by 10 percent above the trend to 12 percent below the trend 

(+4,600 jobs to 

–5,400 jobs). The error bars on the graph show a 10 percent confidence interval for each data point. 

Deviations in total employment, as measured by the historical trend, were used to define the threshold of 

significance for this analysis. Thus, if employment impacts due to changes in management associated 

with the JMH CAP planning area did not exceed an increase or decrease of 5 percent of the trend, the 

impact would not be considered significant. But it should be noted that the threshold for determining 

significance was reduced by at least 50 percent from the observed historical trend to ensure that 

fluctuations in employment resulting from management actions were carefully examined. 

A similar analysis was performed on total earnings. Figure 14 summarizes the trend in real earnings for 

the study area between 1979 and 1999. Total earnings in the study area averaged $1.4 billion per year 

between 1979 and 1999 in inflation-adjusted dollars. During this time, total earnings followed a declining 

trend, falling by 8 percent. In addition to experiencing an overall decline in total earnings, the area has 

endured cyclical fluctuations in total real earnings ranging from 8 percent above the trend to 13 percent 

below the trend. Given this trend, the threshold of significance for total earnings was determined to be 

+/–3 percent of the trend (+/–$35 million). 

The historic trend associated with mineral ad valorem taxes for gas production for the study area is 

summarized in Figure 15. The graph shows the estimated value in inflation-adjusted dollars of ad 

valorem taxes associated with gas production. During this time (1985–2000), ad valorem taxes fluctuated 

substantially from the trend (–$14 million to +$10 million). Given the importance of mineral ad valorem 

taxes to local government entities and the fluctuating nature of gas production and prices, the significance 

threshold for this variable was decreased to 5 percent above or below the trend (+/–$5 million). 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 4-141 
Chapter 4 Final EIS 

4.12.2 Analysis Methods 

The potential economic impacts of alternatives associated with the JMH CAP planning area were 

estimated using an input-output (I/O) model developed for southwest Wyoming by the University of 

Wyoming. I/O modeling is a mathematical accounting of the flow of dollars and commodities through a 

region’s economy. These types of models provide estimates of how a given amount of a particular 

economic activity translates into jobs and income in the region. 

4.12.2.1 Data Sources 

The I/O model used for the JMH analysis was an updated version of the model developed for the 

Southwest Wyoming Resource Evaluation Report. The model uses 1996 data for Lincoln, Sublette, 

Sweetwater, and Uinta Counties. Although this model does not include Fremont County, this county’s 

economy is very similar to the economic characteristics included in the model. Therefore, the model 

should provide a reasonable estimate of the structure of the economy for the study area. The I/O model 

predicts aggregate changes in employment and earnings across all counties in the study area. It is not 

possible to predict where these impacts would occur within each of the counties. 

There may be certain businesses in Fremont County that are not represented in Sublette and Sweetwater 

Counties. For example, Fremont County has a livestock auction and certain implement dealers that serve 

ranchers using the JMH area. Although this consideration presents a challenge in using the Southwest 

Wyoming I/O model for this analysis, it was not considered a fatal flaw because expenditures associated 

with livestock auctions and implement dealers, made by ranchers using the JMH CAP planning area, are 

quite small relative to the agriculture sector in the area. Therefore it was determined that adding Fremont 

County to the model would not produce significantly different results (i.e., benefits) that would outweigh 

the costs of such an exercise. 

All data used with the Wyoming I/O model were adjusted for inflation and converted to 1996 dollars 

before model runs were completed. After completion of the model runs, dollar values were converted to 

constant 2001 dollars for the 20-year study period (2003–2021) and discounted using a 7 percent real 

discount rate, as recommended by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The OMB 

recommendation for using a real discount rate of 7 percent for constant-dollar benefit-cost analysis, 

approximates the marginal pretax rate of return on an average investment in the private sector in recent 

years. 

The Wyoming I/O model requires a series of inputs and assumptions specific to the study area. This 

includes the value of production resulting from land uses within JMH under each alternative. Interviews 

were conducted with BLM staff and cooperating agency partners to obtain information on current uses 

and how these uses might change under each alternative. This provided a physical quantitative measure 

of inputs necessary for the economic impact analysis (e.g., number of gas wells, AUMs, recreational 

visitor days.). Table 4-13 summarizes the primary data and sources used to estimate physical inputs for 

the I/O model. 

4-142 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 4 

Table 4-13. Economic Model Inputs 

Use Primary Data Inputs Data Source 

Oil and Gas 

Exploration and 

Development 

• Historic production 

• Historic and forecasted prices 

• Development cost estimates 

• Hydrocarbon Occurrence and 

Development Report 

• Wyoming Geological Survey 

• U.S. Department of Energy 

• Interviews with local oil and gas 

companies 

• BLM 

Grazing • Historic AUMs for cattle and sheep 

within JMH 

• Historic cattle and sheep prices 

(1996–2001) 

• BLM 

• Wyoming Agriculture Statistics 

Recreation • Estimated recreation visitor days per 

recreational activity 

• Estimated recreational expenditures 

per activity 

• BLM–RMIS Database 

• Wyoming Game and Fish 

• Wyoming Tourism Board 

• Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle 

Coalition 

The estimates of inputs, including prices, were used to evaluate the potential sales from uses of the JMH 

CAP planning area under each alternative. This is the direct sales estimate that serves as the input into the 

Southwest Wyoming I/O model to obtain an estimate of total economic impact for each alternative 

(changes in direct, indirect, and induced income and employment). Further details on the economic 

impact analysis are provided in Appendix 16. 

4.12.2.2 Alternatives Assumptions 

The management prescriptions under each alternative could impact the uses within JMH. The estimate of 

socioeconomic impacts for these management prescriptions required a series of assumptions regarding 

future uses under each alternative. The following subsections discuss the assumptions used for this 

analysis. 

Oil and Gas Development 

An estimate of future oil and gas exploration and development was taken from the Hydrocarbon 

Occurrence and Development Report. Table 4-14 summarizes the total well estimates for each alternative 

taken from this report. Oil and gas exploration and development would be expected to increase from 

current conditions. This includes the conventional wells listed in Table 4-14 in addition to 25 to 50 

coalbed gas development wells to be drilled under the various alternatives. Alternative 1 would allow the 

greatest potential for oil and gas exploration and development relative to the No Action Alternative, 

whereas Alternative 2 would be the most restrictive to this activity and provide the opportunity for BLM 

to purchase existing leases from, or exchange existing leases with, willing leaseholders in areas that 

should be closed to leasing for protection of sensitive resources (Appendix 16). It is assumed that under 

Alternative 2 special legislation from Congress authorizing the purchase or exchange of leases would be 

in place. The Proposed JMH CAP has the same controls on leasing and development rates as Alternative 

3 and would have similar development levels and impacts. 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 4-143 
Chapter 4 Final EIS 

Table 4-14. Estimated Oil and Gas Development for JMH 

Alternative Exploration Wells Development Wells Well Total New Producing Wells 

1 156 108 264 132 

2 86 77 163 90 

3 115 90 205 107 

No Action 126 95 221 114 

Proposed JMH 

CAP 115 90 205 107 

Grazing 

The 5-year historic average was used as a basis in developing the grazing assumptions used under each 

alternative. Grazing use was assumed to remain near the 5-year historic average of 11,602 AUMs 

(10,649 cattle and 953 sheep) except under Alternative 1, where it was assumed that grazing use would 

gradually increase during the study period to the fully permitted active use of 26,830 AUMs (23,627 

cattle and 3,203 sheep). 

Permittees have the opportunity to increase grazing use to fully permitted active use, but during the past 5 

years grazing has averaged about half this permitted use. Historic use was likely impacted by a variety of 

factors, including weather and range condition in addition to changing economic factors that affected the 

ability of ranchers to use their allotted AUMs in any given year. Economic factors include fluctuating 

cattle prices, changes in interest rates, cost changes associated with farm machinery and supplies, importexport polices, and changes in consumer demand for beef and beef substitutes. Although permittees 

could use their full preference under any alternative if the Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands 

(Appendix 10) are met, the assumption of increasing grazing use under Alternative 1 was for analysis 

purposes only. 

The wildlife objectives proposed by WGFD for herd units that encompass the JMH CAP planning area 

could also impact grazing use during the study period. The elk herd objective for JMH has increased to 

1,200 from the old objective of 500. This could affect the availability of forage for domestic livestock 

and make the possibility of increasing AUM use to fully permitted amounts less likely over the 20-year 

study period. 

Recreation 

Recreational use by alternative was estimated with a series of assumptions. These assumptions drive the 

changes in recreation associated with elk and greater sage-grouse hunting. Elk hunting is expected to 

increase, following recent hunting trends and assumptions on elk dispersion and access, under 

Alternatives 1 and 3 for the first part of the study period. Under the No Action Alternative, Alternative 1, 

and Alternative 3, greater sage-grouse hunting is expected to decline during the first part of the study 

period and then be eliminated as populations continue to decline. Greater sage-grouse hunting is 

expected to remain constant at current levels under Alternative 2. Recreational use associated with 

antelope and mule deer hunting was assumed to stay constant at the 5-year historic average for all 

alternatives. 

The estimated recreation visitor days (RVD) associated with hunting deserve some additional discussion. 

Although management actions are aimed at managing herd units that are important for hunting, these 

actions may or may not affect the number of hunting days spent in the JMH CAP planning area. A 

management action that causes herd numbers to decline may actually increase the number of hunting days 

spent in the area (i.e., hunters spend more days hunting fewer animals). Thus, there may be a weak 

4-144 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 4 

correlation between management actions that would increase or decrease herds and the number of hunting 

days actually spent in JMH. 

OHV use would be expected to increase by 2.5 percent per year for the first half of the study period for 

the No Action Alternative and the Proposed JMH CAP because of improvements proposed for the Sand 

Dunes Recreation Area and increased interest in the planning area. However, OHV use would not be 

expected to follow this trend during the later part of the study period under these alternatives. Under 

Alternatives 2 and 3, OHV use would be expected to remain constant at the 3-year historic average or 

begin to decline because of access limitations and no proposed improvements to the Sand Dunes 

Recreation Area. Other recreational uses would be expected to increase between 1 and 2 percent per year 

under the various alternatives based on the prescribed management action. Further discussion of the 

recreational assumptions used for this analysis is provided in Appendix 16. 

4.12.3 Impacts Common to All Alternatives 

Under all alternatives, increased development activities are expected to generate economic benefits to the 

local communities near JMH. Most benefits would be the result of increased oil and gas development, 

although continued benefits would be realized through grazing and recreational activities. All activities 

are expected to support on average more than 120 jobs per year. 

Although the modeling efforts do not indicate where the employment impacts would occur, it can be 

deduced that they would be focused in Sweetwater County, within the location of larger population 

centers like Rock Springs and Green River. Although the analysis shows an increase in the number of 

jobs supported by activities within JMH under all alternatives, it is not expected that these activities 

would create a boom type situation in these communities, such as occurred during the mid-1970s. This is 

because the expected employment supported by activities within JMH would be a combination of new 

jobs and the support of existing jobs in the local area. Therefore, although employment would likely 

increase under all alternatives, it is not expected to increase to the full estimate of average employment 

and thus would not cause significant changes in population for communities such as Rock Springs and 

Green River. 

Potential earnings are also expected to increase under all alternatives during the 20-year study period 

because of gas development, grazing, and recreation in JMH, with gas accounting for more than 90 

percent of total earnings under all alternatives. On an annual basis, total real earnings would increase by 

between $2.4 million and $3.3 million under the various alternatives. This equates to less than 1 percent 

of total real earnings in the study area for 1999 and is thus not considered significant. 

Increased gas production within JMH will provide a positive fiscal impact to local communities in the 

form of increased mineral tax revenues. This includes federal mineral royalties, state severance taxes, and 

ad valorem taxes on production collected by the counties. Mineral tax revenues are estimated to increase 

by between $85 million and $114 million over the 20-year study period as a result of increased gas 

production in JMH. Although local government entities benefit from the mineral tax revenues collected 

on gas production within the JMH CAP planning area, the greatest impact would be due to increases in ad 

valorem taxes that are collected by the counties. 

It is unknown what the gas production levels would be in the study area over the next 20 years. For 

comparison purposes, average production in the three-county area was assumed to follow historic 

production trends over the past 20 years. If gas production follows a similar trend, expected ad valorem 

taxes associated with production in JMH could account for approximately 3 to 4 percent of average ad 

valorem taxes associated with gas production in the study area. It is likely that most of this impact would 

occur in Sweetwater County, given the location of the planning area and drilling activities. Sweetwater 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 4-145 
Chapter 4 Final EIS 

County, on average, has realized an estimated $18 million per year (1996$) in ad valorem taxes through 

gas production between 1985 and 2001. Assuming that gas production could be sustained at similar 

levels over the next 20 years, potential ad valorem taxes associated with production in JMH could account 

for approximately 6 to 8 percent of average ad valorem taxes on gas production in Sweetwater County, 

providing an important economic benefit to this area. 

4.12.4 Potential Impacts on Employment 

Potential impacts on employment are summarized in Figure 16 (see page F-11). The average annual 

employment supported by activities in JMH would range from 129 jobs per year under Alternative 2 to 

187 jobs per year under Alternative 1. The figures indicate the dependence of jobs associated with oil and 

gas development for all alternatives. 

4.12.4.1 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, the average annual employment supported by activities in the JMH 

CAP planning area would approach 160 jobs. This accounts for less than 1 percent of total employment 

in the study area in 1999. 

4.12.4.2 Alternative 1 

Alternative 1 would have the greatest potential for increased employment of any alternative, representing 

a 15 percent increase from the No Action Alternative. Average annual employment supported by 

activities under Alternative 1 would be estimated to reach 187 jobs, with more than 80 percent of this 

employment occurring in the oil and gas industry. However, employment impacts would not be 

considered significant because Alternative 1 would be expected to support only 27 more jobs per year 

than the No Action Alternative. This increase in employment under Alternative 1 would be well below 

the established employment threshold (+4,600 jobs to –5,400 jobs) and thus would be considered 

insignificant for the regional economy. 

4.12.4.3 Alternative 2 

Alternative 2 would be expected to support, on average, 129 jobs per year. The reduction of 33 jobs per 

year, on average relative to the No Action Alternative would not be considered significant relative to 

threshold values. 

4.12.4.4 Alternative 3 

Annual employment supported by activities under Alternative 3 would be expected to average 151 jobs 

per year, which would be 11 jobs fewer than under the No Action Alternative. The decline in potential 

employment growth under this alternative would not be considered a significant impact when compared 

to threshold values. 

4.12.4.5 Proposed JMH CAP 

Annual employment supported by activities within JMH under the Proposed JMH CAP is estimated to 

average 153 jobs per year. This represents roughly nine fewer jobs supported relative to the No Action 

Alternative. The reduction in potential job growth caused by this alternative is not considered significant. 

4-146 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.12.5 Potential Impacts on Earnings 

The results shown in Figure 17 (see page F-12) represent the increase in potential earnings over the 20-

year study period resulting from gas development, grazing, and recreation in JMH under each alternative. 

Gas development accounts for more than 90 percent of total earnings under each alternative. 

4.12.5.1 No Action Alternative 

Real earnings would likely increase under the No Action Alternative, largely because of the expected 

increase in oil and gas development. It was estimated that over the 20-year study period, activities in the 

JMH CAP planning area would generate $58 million in total real earnings for the regional economy. On 

an annual basis, total real earnings would average $2.9 million per year. This equates to less than 1 

percent of total real earnings in the study area for 1999. 

4.12.5.2 Alternative 1 

Potential increases in total real earnings would be greatest under Alternative 1, which provides for the 

greatest potential for oil and gas development. Total earnings were estimated at $66 million over the 20-

year study. However, the economic impacts associated with Alternative 1 would not be considered 

significant relative to the threshold values. Total earnings under Alternative 1 would average $3.3 million 

per year, which would be a 13 percent increase from the No Action Alternative, or $387,000 per year. 

The annual increase in earnings attributable to Alternative 1 would be well below the significance criteria 

(+/–$35 million) and would thus not be considered a significant impact for the regional economy. 

4.12.5.3 Alternative 2 

Alternative 2 would have the lowest potential for development of any alternative and thus would be 

expected to generate the lowest potential for increased real earnings of any alternative. Total earnings 

would be expected to increase, but at a reduced rate from the No Action Alternative. During the 20-year 

study period, total earnings would be estimated to increase by $48 million, which would be 17 percent 

lower than under the No Action Alternative. On average, total earnings would likely increase by $2.4 

million per year, which would be $495,000 lower than under the No Action Alternative. However, this 

reduction in earnings would not be considered significant because the difference falls well within the 

threshold values. 

4.12.5.4 Alternative 3 

Alternative 3 would have the potential to provide $55 million in total earnings during the 20-year study 

period, which would be 5 percent less than the No Action Alternative would provide. On average, total 

earnings would increase $2.8 million per year, which would be $132,000 lower than under the No Action 

Alternative. However, this impact would not be considered significant because it would be well within 

the established threshold for changes in earnings for the regional economy. 

4.12.5.5 Proposed JMH CAP 

The Proposed JMH CAP has the potential to provide $55.5 million in total earnings during the 20-year 

study period. Potential earnings due to this alternative are 4 percent lower than those under the No Action 

Alternative. On average, total earnings would increase $2.8 million per year, which would be $115,000 

lower than under the No Action Alternative. However, this impact would not be considered significant 

because it would be well within the established threshold for changes in earnings for the regional 

economy. 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 4-147 
Chapter 4 Final EIS 

4.12.6 Potential Fiscal Impacts 

Given the importance of mineral tax revenues to local and state government entities in Wyoming, the 

analysis also considered changes in potential mineral revenues under each alternative. Table 4-15 shows 

the present value of total mineral revenues received as a result of gas production from 2003 to 2022. This 

includes federal mineral royalties, state severance taxes, and ad valorem taxes on production collected by 

the counties. 

Table 4-15. Totala Estimated Mineral Royalties and Taxes

from JMHb (2001 dollars) 

Alternative Ad Valorem Severance Federal Royalties Total Mineral 

Revenues 

Alternative 1 $28,036,652 $26,514,289 $59,620,326 $114,171,267 

Alternative 2 $20,990,289 $19,850,538 $44,636,140 $85,476,967 

Alternative 3 $24,010,141 $22,706,414 $51,057,895 $97,774,450 

No Action $25,016,779 $23,658,393 $53,198,526 $101,873,699 

Proposed JMH 

CAP $24,010,141 $22,706,414 $51,057,895 $97,774,450 a

Total amount for 20-year study period. b

This table summarizes the net present value of estimated mineral royalties and taxes by alternative. Royalties and taxes have

been discounted using a real discount rate of 7 percent as recommended by OMB.

Although local government entities benefit from the mineral tax revenues collected on gas production 

within the JMH CAP planning area, the greatest impact would be due to changes in ad valorem taxes that 

are collected by the counties. Local governments within the study area receive only a percentage of 

federal royalties and severance taxes collected on production originating on public lands. Figure 18 (see 

page F-12) shows the ad valorem taxes resulting each year from potential gas production in JMH. It 

indicates that ad valorem taxes would be greatest for each alternative in 2006, when gas production is 

projected to be the highest. 

4.12.6.1 No Action Alternative 

Additional gas development would have the potential to increase mineral revenues to federal, state, and 

local government entities by $102 million over the 20-year study period. This would include additional 

mineral ad valorem taxes to the counties, which would average $1.2 million per year, with a high of $2.9 

million in inflation-adjusted dollars during 2006. 

4.12.6.2 Alternative 1 

Mineral tax revenues would be expected to be greatest under Alternative 1 because of increased gas 

production, and might exceed $114 million over the 20-year study period. Ad valorem taxes would be 

expected to be $1.4 million per year, with a high of $3.1 million in 2006. Impacts on mineral revenues 

would be considered insignificant relative to the significance criteria (+/–$5 million). Increases in 

mineral ad valorem revenues would be expected to be 12 percent over the No Action Alternative, or 

$151,000 per year. The maximum amount of ad valorem taxes anticipated from production in JMH 

would be in 2006, approximately $196,000 higher under this alternative than under the No Action 

Alternative. This increase would be well within the established thresholds and thus not considered a 

significant impact on the counties. 

4-148 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 4 

4.12.6.3 Alternative 2 

Mineral tax revenues would be expected to total $85 million over the 20-year study period. This includes 

almost $21 million in ad valorem taxes that would go directly to the counties in the study area. Ad 

valorem taxes would be estimated at $1.1 million per year, which represents a 9 percent decrease from the 

No Action Alternative, or approximately $100,000 per year. This impact would not be considered 

significant because it would be well within the established threshold for mineral ad valorem taxes at +$5 

million to –$5 million. 

4.12.6.4 Alternative 3 

Total mineral revenues would be estimated to total $98 million over the 20-year study period. This would 

include $24 million in ad valorem taxes. Gas production would provide $1.2 million per year in ad 

valorem taxes to local counties, which would be approximately $50,000 lower than the No Action 

Alternative. Although mineral ad valorem taxes would be expected to be lower under this alternative 

relative to the No Action Alternative, the impact would not be considered significant according to the 

established thresholds for this area. 

4.12.6.5 Proposed JMH CAP 

Mineral revenues under the Proposed JMH CAP are estimated to total $98 million over the 20-year study 

period, including $24 million in ad valorem taxes. On average, gas production would provide $1.2 

million per year in ad valorem taxes to local counties, which would be approximately $50,000 lower than 

under the No Action Alternative. Although mineral ad valorem taxes would be expected to be lower 

under this alternative relative to the No Action Alternative, the impact would not be considered 

significant according to the established thresholds for this area. 

4.13 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 

Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions. The Council 

on Environmental Quality describes cumulative impacts as follows: 

“...the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action 

when added to other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of 

what agency (federal or nonfederal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative 

impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place 

over a period of time” (40 CFR 1500-1508). 

Cumulative impacts are discussed because the quality of the human environment is the result of many 

different factors acting together. The real effect of any single action cannot be determined by considering 

that action in isolation, but must be determined by considering the likely result of that action when acting 

in conjunction with many others. 

The cumulative impact analysis for this EIS evaluates the potential impacts associated with the JMH CAP 

management alternatives, in combination with the potential impacts associated with other relevant 

activities that have occurred, are occurring, or may occur in the vicinity of the JMH CAP planning area. 

After review of available information, the following types of activities have been identified as having the 

highest likelihood of generating potential cumulative impacts when added to activities associated with the 

JMH CAP management alternatives: 

• BLM land management plans and activities outside the JMH CAP planning area boundary 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 4-149 
Chapter 4 Final EIS 

• Regional oil and gas development activities (e.g., exploration, production, and pipeline

development)

• Regional recreation activities (e.g., big game hunting, OHV) use, dispersed recreation) 

• Economic development activities in Fremont, Sublette, and Sweetwater Counties 

• Activities within the Green River, Sweetwater River, and Great Divide Basins. 

The potential cumulative impacts are described for each potentially affected resource within a defined 

cumulative impact analysis area (CIAA). The CIAAs cover different geographic areas depending on the 

specific resource being evaluated. Evaluation of potential impacts considers incremental impacts that 

could occur from the proposed project, while also considering impacts from past, present and reasonably 

foreseeable actions (RFA) within each of the CIAAs. RFAs are those future action activities that have 

been committed to or that are known proposals that could take place within the 20-year planning period. 

The CIAAs are described in each of the resource sections below and are shown by Maps 73 through 87. 

CIAAs are larger for resources that are mobile or migrate than they are for resources that are stationary. 

For example, the CIAA for big game is based on herd unit boundaries that contain habitats that support 

individual herds year-round. The air quality CIAA is extremely large because it is based on the complex 

interaction between climatic factors, terrain, and the potential for significant impacts in sensitive areas 

within the airshed. Smaller CIAAs were established for resources that are stationary, such as fire, 

minerals, recreation, and visual resources. In some cases, these CIAAs may follow the JMH CAP 

planning area boundaries. 

Activities and development that occur within the CIAAs (including JMH CAP activities) have the 

potential to generate cumulative impacts on the specific resource being analyzed. Maps 73 and 74 show 

existing and reasonably foreseeable oil and gas development projects that could fall within the various 

CIAAs. These projects are also listed in Table 4-16, along with the number of producing wells and 

remaining wells that could still be developed for each of the projects should development reach the 

ultimate level analyzed in the appropriate NEPA document for southwestern Wyoming. These numbers 

represent potential development, based on the NEPA-approved totals. It is likely that these projects 

would not actually drill all the wells that were approved. According to the Green River RMP and Final 

EIS, many existing wells will cease to produce based on historic records, and more than 70 percent of 

existing wells will be plugged and abandoned by year 2010. However, it is anticipated that these will be 

replaced by new wells. Other RFAs that could cause cumulative impacts are listed in Table 4-17. 

Table 4-16. Summary of Oil and Gas Development Projects Previously or Currently Being

Analyzed Under NEPA in Southwestern Wyoming 

Project Date ROD/DR 

Signed 

Producing 

Wells 

Remaining Wells That

Can Still Be Drilled 

Riley Ridge 1/25/84 23 224 

Burley 6/7/94 31 16 

Jonah II Field 4/27/98 129 321 

La Barge Coordinated 

Activity Plan Area 8/16/91 1,135 445 

Soda Unit 4/12/89 3 18 

Castle Creek 10/24/83 8 10 

Moxa Arch 3/7/97 947 1,227 

Hickey Mountain 5/13/87 26 50 

Road Hollow 9/83 4 6 

Fontenelle 8/16/96 1,052 1,141 

Stagecoach 9/27/95 9 59 

4-150 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 4 

Project Date ROD/DR 

Signed 

Producing 

Wells 

Remaining Wells That

Can Still Be Drilled 

East LaBarge 5/29/92 19 9 

Bird Canyon 6/25/93 6 8 

Bravo Unit 7/20/95 7 4 

Mulligan Draw 9/23/92 17 23 

Creston Blue Gap 10/4/94 234 175 

Dripping Rock/Cedar 

Break 4/3/85 24 34 

Sierra Madre 9/21/87 30 16 

Hay Reservoir 6/24/92 40 2 

Jack Morrow Hills Pending 46 205 

Continental 

Divide/Greater 

Wamsutter 7/20/95 328 2,685 

Pinedale Anticline 7/27/2000 85 616 

South Baggs Pending 6 90 

Bitter Creek Shallow 

Gas Project Area Pending 14 0 

Pacific Rim Shallow Gas Pending 0 150 

Copper Ridge Pending 0 89 

Vermillion Basin 8/15/02 0 56 

Jonah Infill Pending 0 1,250 

Desolation Flats Pending 0 385 

South Piney Pending 0 210 

Lower Bush Creek Pending 0 22 

Seminoe Road Pending 0 1,240 

Atlantic Rim 7/26/02 

6/26/02 0 2,000 

Wolverine/Shell 0 1 

Little Monument Pending 0 31 

Total 4,233 12,818 

Table 4-17. Summary of Reasonably Foreseeable Actions 

Project Title Project Description 

Wind Energy Towers Six towers to provide meteorological information, 

with one tower on White Mountain. 

Bridger Coal Company, Coal Lease-by-Application Conversion of surface mining operations to 

underground mining in order to extend the life of 

the mine. 

Hay Reservoir Geophysical Project The south boundary of the proposed project lies 

approximately 20 miles north of I-80. It extends 

northward past Hay Reservoir and ends 3 miles 

north of Five Fingers Butte. Approximately 55% of 

the project area would lie in the Rock Springs 

Field Office, and 45% of the project would lie in 

the Rawlins Field Office. 

Monell CO2 Pipeline Project Proposed CO2 pipeline-related facilities along an 

existing pipeline from the Exxon/Mobil Shute 

Creek CO2 pipeline system in Sweetwater 

County, Wyoming, to the existing Monell Federal 

Unit. Proposed facilities include metering 

equipment, a booster station, and cathodic 

protection. 

PacifiCorp—Point of Rocks to Rock Springs 

Transmission Powerline Project 

Project is completed. 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 4-151 
Chapter 4 Final EIS 

Project Title Project Description 

Jim Bridger Flue Pond Expansion Project Project is completed. 

South Jonah Geophysical Project Geophysical operations using vibroseis method to 

collect subsurface data on 400 square miles of 

public land. 

Quantum Geophysical Project Project is completed. 

Pacific Creek Temporary Surface Pipeline Project is on hold. 

Haystacks Geophysical Project Geophysical operations in the Haystacks area. 

The project has been completed, with the 

exception of minor cleanup planned for spring 

2004. 

Wolverine Exploratory Drilling Proposal Three exploratory wells north of Highway 28 in 

Sweetwater County. Two have been drilled. 

Fall and Late Winter Gathering of Wild Horses The Rock Springs Field Office is proposing to 

gather and remove excess wild horses in the 

Great Divide Basin Wild Horse HMA during the 

time period of February 15 to March 31, 2004. 

Pioneer Pipeline Right-of-Way Pioneer Pipeline has built a 12- to16-inch refined 

petroleum pipeline across federal lands in 

southwest Wyoming. The pipeline extends from 

Sinclair, Wyoming, west to an existing block valve 

in Croydon, Utah. 

FMC’s Proposed Haul Road The modified proposal consists of a paved haul 

road, six pipelines, and 1 fiber-optic line from the 

Westvaco mine/plant site to the Granger plant site. 

FMC is requesting a 400-foot width for 

construction with a 200-foot width during 

operations with certain exceptions (i.e., cut and fill 

areas), and two bridges (cross over Union Pacific 

Railroad tracks and the Black's Fork River). 

4-152 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 4 

Table 4-17. Summary of Reasonably Foreseeable Actions (Continued) 

Project Title Project Description 

Veritas DGC Land Incorporated LaBarge 3D 

Geophysical Project 

The proposed LaBarge 3D project would be 

located west of LaBarge, Wyoming, in portions of 

Sublette and Lincoln Counties. The general 

project boundaries would be LaBarge Creek on 

the south, South Piney Creek on the north, the 

Calpet Highway (State Highway 235 and Sublette 

County Road 134) on the east, and the BLM-U.S. 

Forest Service boundary on the west. 

Eden/Farson Irrigation Project Furnishes an irrigation water supply for 17,010 

acres in the vicinity of the towns of Farson and 

Eden in southwestern Wyoming. Project features 

include improvements to and maintenance of the 

reservoirs and drainage systems. 

Riparian Exclosures Along the Big Sandy River, 

Little Sandy River, Pacific Creek, Jack Morrow 

Creek, and Rock Cabin Creek 

Designed to enhance riparian plant communities 

and fishery habitats as mitigation for sheep to 

cattle conversions. 

Bone Draw Project Designed to increase game fish populations in the 

Big Sandy River. 

Big Sandy Rock Sill Project Provides artificial habitat for increasing fish 

populations. 

4.13.1 Land and Water Resources 

The land and water resource management category encompasses biological and hydrologic resources and 

the users and land use programs related to those resources. The significance criteria and analysis 

assumptions are described within each subcategory. 

4.13.1.1 Fire 

The CIAA used to analyze cumulative impacts on the JMH fire management program is limited to the 

JMH CAP planning area. Due to noncontinuous fuels, low historic fire incidence, and significant fuel 

breaks (e.g., highways, farmland, and county roads), fire management activities within the JMH CAP 

planning area would be specific to the area and would not be significantly influenced by activities 

occurring outside the planning area. Therefore, a description of cumulative impacts can be drawn from 

the analysis, presented previously in this chapter, of the impacts on the fire program resulting from other 

resource programs within the JMH CAP planning area. The discussion below summarizes the cumulative 

impact on the fire program resulting from management actions prescribed for the entire JMH CAP 

planning area. 

Cumulative impacts on fire management are not expected to be significant. Such cumulative impacts 

would occur as a result of the increased development and recreation activities occurring within the 

planning area. As recreation, mineral development, and other construction activities (e.g., power lines 

and pipelines) increase as a whole over the planning area, so do the potential for wildfire occurrence and 

the need for fire suppression activities, which results in increased costs to the fire management program. 

With increased development and attendant infrastructure (power lines, compressors, pipelines, fuel tanks, 

etc.) comes a corresponding increase in the potential for fire suppression within the wildland-urban 

interface (WUI). Suppression activities within WUI areas can be more dangerous, time-consuming, and 

expensive than suppression in undeveloped areas. Particularly critical would be the extra caution required 

for firefighter safety within an active gas field. Fire management costs would increase substantially 

because of increased fire frequency, the additional planning and effort required for fire suppression within 

WUI areas, and the increased value of developed sites compared with undeveloped rangeland. 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 4-153 
Chapter 4 Final EIS 

Cumulative impacts would be greatest under Alternative 1 because of anticipated increases in 

development activities and access. Under Alternative 2, restrictions on development and access would 

reduce the potential for human-caused wildfires and WUI situations, thereby minimizing cumulative 

impacts on fire management. Cumulative impacts under Alternative 3 and the Proposed JMH CAP would 

be slightly greater than under Alternative 2 because of fewer restrictions on development and access. 

4.13.1.2 Water Resources 

The CIAA used to analyze cumulative impacts on watershed resources and water quality extends outside 

the JMH CAP planning area, following sixth order watershed (12 digit) boundaries (Map 75). Major 

watershed boundaries within the JMH CAP planning area can be found on Map 61, Water Resources and 

Watersheds. The CIAA is composed of sixth order watersheds that completely or partially overlap the 

JMH CAP planning area. In addition to these watersheds, four drainages extending outside of the 

planning area were considered: Pacific Creek, Killpecker Creek, Sweetwater River, and the multiple 

drainages of the Red Desert. For Pacific Creek, it was assumed that beyond the confluence between the 

Green River and the Big Sandy, dilution by the Green River would render any influences undetectable. 

For Sweetwater River, the area of detectable influence was assumed to extend to the confluence of Alkali 

Creek, which corresponds with the fifth order (10 digit) hydrologic unit confluence. For the purposes of 

this analysis, detectable influences within the Killpecker Watershed were assumed to extend within the 

main channel of Killpecker Creek to the confluence with Bitter Creek, but would most likely be 

undetectable at that point in all but the most extreme situations of combined disturbance and flow, given 

the ephemeral nature of the channel. Influences within the hydrologically closed Great Divide Basin were 

assumed to extend to the lowest elevations within the basin. The sixth order watersheds and the 

abovementioned four drainages were used as the basic unit of analysis because impacts from management 

actions proposed under the Proposed JMH CAP and other existing activity plans are not expected to have 

cumulative hydrologic influence beyond this scale. Given that hydrologic influence is primarily focused 

in the stream channels and that delineation of the CIAA was based on watershed boundaries, the area of 

analysis is more than sufficient. 

Irrigation diversions will continue to have a noticeable influence on channel dynamics and morphology. 

Pacific Creek, the primary stream system in the JMH CAP planning area, has been under the influence of 

irrigation diversions for close to 100 years. Irrigation diversions will most likely continue to be a 

noticeable influence in the future. 

Development projects and other activities that have been mitigated to the level of no significant impact 

are also assumed to have no significant impact on the cumulative impact area. Although not significant, 

cumulative impacts would occur from all activities within the area of influence that disturb vegetation or 

cause soil compaction or channel overland flows, such as road and well pad construction, livestock 

trampling, and recreational use (especially OHV activity). Such disturbances result in accelerated soil 

erosion and runoff, which increase sediment and nutrient loads to local channels and lead to channel 

destabilization. Mineral development and livestock grazing activities would also result in water 

depletions to the Colorado River and Platte River drainages. This could change the nature of flows, 

which could alter stream dynamics and cause overall degradation of the riparian corridor (see Section 

4.13.1.6 for further details). 

Recreation activities are expected to increase within the JMH CAP planning area, and development 

activities are expected to increase throughout the CIAA, with reasonable foreseeable development of 

approximately 290 wells (see Table 4-16). Oil and gas projects that are located entirely or partially within 

the CIAA, and therefore will have cumulative impacts on watershed resources, include Lower Bush 

Creek, Bravo, Cedar Canyon, Stagecoach Draw, and Jack Morrow Hills (Map 73 and Map 74). 

4-154 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 4 

Appropriate mitigation and project design during site-specific analysis could minimize offsite 

sedimentation but would be dependent on design and maintenance. 

Effects on groundwater quality would depend on the quality and maintenance of wells and the overall 

level of activity. Improper casing and cementing of wells, undetected spills, or leachate from produced 

water or mud pits could introduce contaminants into the groundwater. Existing development combined 

with reasonably foreseeable development would increase the potential for such impacts. 

Cumulative impacts would be greatest under Alternative 1 because of anticipated increases in 

development and livestock grazing, as well as fewer restrictions on such activity. Under Alternative 2, 

increased restrictions on development, recreation, and livestock grazing would reduce the potential for 

surface disturbance and vegetation removal and any subsequent increases in erosion, runoff, and 

sedimentation of surface waters. Cumulative impacts under Alternative 3 and the Proposed JMH CAP 

would be slightly greater than under Alternative 2 because of fewer restrictions on development and 

recreation activities. 

4.13.1.3 Wild Horses 

The CIAA used to analyze cumulative impacts on wild horses includes the entire Divide Basin Wild 

Horse HMA, which extends southeast of the JMH CAP planning area (Map 76). The Divide Basin wild 

horse herd is managed to the boundaries of the HMA, and therefore could be affected by activities 

occurring in this area. 

Cumulative impacts would occur from a combination of activities and uses occurring within the CIAA. 

Map 73 and Map 74 show considerable existing and future oil and gas development projects within the 

southern portion of the HMA. Increasing development and recreation activities, along with livestock 

grazing and existing wildlife, would cause soil disturbances, remove vegetation, degrade and reduce 

available forage, and disturb and displace wild horses. These impacts are not anticipated to be significant, 

given the adaptability of wild horses and the limited amount of vegetation actually removed by 

development activities. Impacts stemming from competition between livestock and wildlife for forage 

resources are expected to be mitigated by WGFD efforts to manage and control wildlife populations and 

by implementation of the Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands. 

Cumulative impacts on wild horse management would also result from the need to continually remove 

wild horses from outside the HMA. Currently, wild horses use habitat outside the established HMA 

boundaries. Total removal of these wild horses is not possible because other horses will move into these 

areas as horses are removed. These “outside HMA” horses will not count toward the AML for the Divide 

Basin Wild Horse HMA, and the need to completely remove them will continue. 

Cumulative impacts would likely be greatest under Alternative 1 because of anticipated increases in 

development and livestock grazing, as well as fewer restrictions on such activity. Under Alternative 2, 

increased restrictions on development, recreation, and livestock grazing would reduce the potential for 

surface disturbance and vegetation removal. However, the proposal to reduce the size of the HMA under 

this alternative could create additional cumulative impacts if the concentration of wild horses in a smaller 

area caused overuse of available forage and water resources. Cumulative impacts under Alternative 3 

would be similar to those under Alternative 2. Although expansion of the HMA under Alternative 3 

could reduce cumulative impacts by providing additional habitat and forage for wild horses, fewer 

restrictions on development and recreation activities under this alternative could partially offset this 

benefit. Cumulative impacts under the Proposed JMH CAP would be slightly greater than under 

Alternative 2 or 3 because fewer restrictions on development and recreation activities would be 

implemented and because the HMA boundaries would not be expanded. 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 4-155 
Chapter 4 Final EIS 

4.13.1.4 Livestock Grazing 

The CIAA used to analyze cumulative impacts on livestock grazing includes all allotments that either 

entirely or partially overlap the JMH CAP planning area (Map 77). Livestock is managed to the 

boundaries of these allotments, and therefore could be affected by activities occurring in these areas. 

Cumulative impacts would occur from a combination of activities and uses occurring within the CIAA. 

In addition to development activities within the JMH CAP planning area, Map 73 and Map 74 show that 

some existing and future oil and gas development projects are located within the eastern portion of the 

CIAA. Increasing development and recreation activities, along with the presence of grazing wildlife, 

would cause soil disturbances, remove vegetation, reduce available forage, and disturb and displace 

livestock. These impacts could degrade rangeland resources on some allotments and thus jeopardize 

compliance with the Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands, which could require some operators to 

alter grazing practices. Implementing appropriate actions for livestock grazing management might be 

necessary to achieve the standards. Such actions could include, but would not be limited to, reduction of 

permitted AUMs, modified turnout dates, livestock water developments, range improvements, shorter 

grazing periods, growing season rest, riparian pastures and exclosures, implementation of forage 

utilization levels, and livestock conversions. For some allotments, reallocation of AUMs among 

livestock, wildlife, and wild horses could be required to ensure that adequate forage would be available 

for big game. 

Cumulative impacts would likely be greatest under Alternative 1 and Alternative 2. Under Alternative 1, 

anticipated grazing use is assumed to increase over the planning period to the fully permitted active use 

amount (26,830 AUMs), which when combined with other uses and development activities, could cause 

considerable degradation of rangeland resources. Under Alternative 2, greater restrictions on grazing 

activities could adversely affect livestock operators and increase operational costs. 

4.13.1.5 Vegetation 

The CIAA for vegetation comprises the expanded impact analysis area used and analyzed in the Green 

River RMP (Map 78), which includes the entire Rock Springs Field Office. The cumulative analysis 

conducted as part of the Green River RMP for this area has been updated as part of the analysis for this 

plan and includes consideration of all vegetation types, including unique plant communities and special 

status plant species. 

The majority of cumulative effects on vegetation within the CIAA would result from surface disturbing 

activities that remove vegetation, such as mineral development and associated wells, roads, pipelines, and 

facilities; rangeland improvements; and other such activities (e.g., geophysical exploration). Vegetation 

treatments in the form of prescribed burns could also affect vegetative resources. All effects would 

depend on the amount and timing of activities and whether the amount of activity within the CIAA 

outpaced the success of reclamation and revegetation efforts in disturbed areas. Impacts are not likely to 

be significant because of the varied spacing of activities and reclamation and revegetation efforts; 

however, they are likely to be long term, even with successful reclamation, because most of the native 

shrub communities (e.g., sagebrush) that would be impacted require in excess of 20 years to reestablish to 

predisturbance conditions. 

Oil and gas development would have the greatest effects on vegetation resources through removal of 

vegetation by construction of roads and well pads. Areas of intense development, such as those northwest 

and southeast of the JMH CAP planning area (Map 73), would have more severe localized impacts on 

vegetative resources. Overall, the amount of disturbance is negligible compared to the amount of total 

vegetative resources within the CIAA because (1) the majority of affected vegetation types are common 

4-156 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 4 

and widely distributed throughout the region and (2) as more wells are being drilled, reclamation of 

construction size to permanent size and reclamation of abandoned well acres would begin to increase. 

The implementation of BLM’s Mitigation Guidelines (Appendix 5), restrictions on surface use, 

implementation of the Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands and DPC objectives, and monitoring 

efforts would provide protection to vegetative resources and help reduce overall effects. Special status 

plant species, under the ESA and Wyoming BLM sensitive species guidance, would be protected by sitespecific mitigation, including exclusion or avoidance of all surface disturbing activities, resulting in 

minimal impacts, if any, on such species. 

Effects on vegetation from rangeland improvements or other possible surface disturbing activities are 

considered minor compared to the effects of oil and gas development and would result in only localized, 

short-term adverse effects on vegetative resources. 

Effects from vegetation treatments in the form of prescribed burns and mechanical and chemical 

treatments would include a short-term increase in annual weeds and other invasive species and a shortterm decrease in vegetation production. Long-term effects, however, would benefit vegetation through an 

increase in grass species and vegetation production from conversion of high-density sagebrush to 

sagebrush/grass communities. 

The differences in the projected amount of surface disturbance among the management alternatives 

(approximately 800 acres) do not affect the overall analysis of cumulative effects on vegetative resources 

within the CIAA. 

4.13.1.6 Wildlife 

The CIAA for effects on wildlife in general is the JMH CAP planning area. Effects are discussed in 

Section 4.4.6 of this document. The CIAAs for big game (elk, pronghorn antelope, and mule deer), 

greater sage-grouse, and fisheries are all unique and are discussed in each section below. 

The majority of cumulative effects on wildlife habitat within all CIAAs would result from surface 

disturbing and disruptive activities, such as mineral development and associated wells, roads, pipelines, 

and facilities; rangeland improvements; and other such activities (e.g., geophysical exploration). Effects 

would be in the form of habitat fragmentation and animal displacement (short or long term). Vegetation 

treatments in the form of prescribed burns could also affect wildlife resources, particularly greater sagegrouse. All effects would depend on the amount and timing of activities and whether the amount of 

activity within the CIAA outpaced the success of reclamation and revegetation efforts in disturbed areas. 

Loss of vegetation due to development activities would result in a reduction in available habitat and 

quality of habitat and could result in increasing forage competition among grazing animals. Habitats 

could be made unavailable to wildlife because of human disturbance factors such as traffic, noise, or 

increases in livestock during sensitive time periods such as winter, parturition, nesting, and early rearing 

of young. Impacts on wildlife could be significant if activities were concentrated in areas of sensitive 

wildlife habitat and/or if increased development and surface disturbance altered existing migration 

corridors to the extent that access to important habitat areas was greatly reduced. 

Effects on wildlife from rangeland improvements or other possible surface disturbing activities generally 

result in localized, short-term adverse effects on wildlife. However, water developments in areas 

previously not used would increase forage consumption in those areas. Impacts could be significant if 

these developments were created in crucial winter range or other sensitive habitats. Any loss of habitat 

function or habitat value in these vital, high, or BLM sensitive species habitats would be considered a 

significant impact. 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 4-157 
Chapter 4 Final EIS 

Effects from vegetation treatments in the form of prescribed burns would include a short-term increase in 

annual weeds and a short-term decrease in vegetation production. Long-term effects, however, would 

benefit most wildlife through an increase in grass and forb species and vegetation production from 

conversion of high-density sagebrush to sagebrush/grass communities. 

Rocky Mountain Elk. The CIAA for elk is the Steamboat Elk Herd Unit Area (Map 79). The 

Steamboat elk herd is very susceptible to displacement by human activities because of the lack of hiding 

and escape cover within the elk herd unit area. The majority of crucial winter range and parturition 

habitat within the herd unit is located within the JMH CAP planning area, thus signifying the importance 

of this area to the viability of the entire herd. 

As discussed in Section 4.4.6, several studies have shown that persistent disturbance in elk sensitive 

habitats shifts the areas of use, weakens the tendency of elk to return to the disturbed area, and results in 

selection of habitat with equal or poorer quality and security. If animals returned to disturbed habitat, 

populations were generally lower (50 percent) and use of the habitat was unpredictable (Powell 2003; 

Kuck et al. 1985; Van Dyke and Klein 1996; Johnson and Wollrab 1987). 

Mineral development would cause the greatest adverse effects on the Steamboat elk herd through direct 

loss of habitat and animal displacement. Activities occurring within the JMH CAP planning area (HS 

Natural Gas and Nitchie Gulch projects) and those within the elk CIAA (the Bravo Unit, Hay Reservoir, 

Lower Bush Creek, Stagecoach, Continental Divide/Greater Wamsutter, and Bridger Coal projects, and 

the Monell and Shell pipelines) constitute existing and reasonably foreseeable activities within the elk 

CIAA. Given what has been documented about the Steamboat elk herd in Chapter 3 and elsewhere in this 

chapter, along with the above determinations, these activities would likely cause displacement of animals 

and the selection of alternate habitats of suboptimal quality. The location of the Bravo Unit project would 

likely severely inhibit elk movement between winter range located just east of the project area and within 

the JMH CAP planning area. The locations of the Monell pipeline and the Continental Divide/Greater 

Wamsutter and Bridger Coal projects are expected to severely inhibit elk movement and/or displace elk 

from winter range between the Bridger Coal project and the Continental Divide/Greater Wamsutter 

project and within the JMH CAP planning area. The locations of the HS Natural Gas, Nitchie Gulch, and 

Cedar Canyon projects, in addition to existing leases within the migratory corridor (connectivity area) of 

the JMH CAP planning area, could inhibit elk movement from parturition areas to winter range located 

west and south of the JMH CAP planning area across Highway 191 and similar habitat within the JMH 

CAP planning area. 

Depending on the timing of activities and the location of surface disturbance within the CIAA, the 

potential exists for long-term disruption of migration corridors between key habitats. If migration were 

disrupted and an increased amount of direct loss of habitat occurred within key habitats over the short 

term, particularly within the JMH CAP planning area, it is highly likely that long-term displacement of 

elk from these habitats would occur, resulting in a significant impact on the Steamboat elk herd. 

JMH CAP Alternative 1 would result in the highest amount of surface disturbing and disruptive activities 

within the JMH CAP planning area because this alternative has the highest estimate of development 

activities and minimal restrictions on these activities within big game habitats. Alternative 1 would likely 

result in significant adverse effects on the Steamboat elk herd, possibly resulting in complete 

abandonment of the area. JMH CAP Alternative 2 would result in the least amount of surface disturbing 

and disruptive activities within the JMH CAP planning area because the area would be virtually closed to 

the majority of mineral activities and because of the closure of all big game sensitive habitats. Alternative 

2 would ensure that the majority of big game habitat within the elk herd unit was protected, thus ensuring 

continued viability of the herd. The Proposed JMH CAP fluid mineral leasing implementation strategy 

could result in significant adverse effects on the Steamboat elk herd. The significance of these effects 

4-158 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 4 

would depend on the amount, timing, and duration of development activities. There is a high potential for 

existing leases to block migration corridors and a clear lack of alternate habitats, (particularly parturition 

areas) for elk to move into as a result of development in Area 3. 

Pronghorn Antelope. The CIAA for pronghorn antelope constitutes the Sublette and Red Desert Herd 

Unit Areas (Map 80). As stated in Chapter 3, the Sublette and Red Desert herds were below objective in 

2002. The majority of antelope crucial winter range occurs within the southern portions of both herd 

areas, with a large portion of it around Rock Springs and along the Interstate 80 corridor. 

As stated in Section 4.4.6, there are no known published studies on pronghorn antelope reactions to roads 

and/or disruptive human activities. Roads, fences, and pipelines do, however, fragment habitat and can 

impede or block antelope movement. The density at which these occur could have a significant effect on 

antelope migration and use of habitat. 

Mineral development would have the greatest adverse effects on the Sublette and Red Desert pronghorn 

antelope herds through habitat fragmentation resulting from the proliferation of roads, pipelines, and 

wells. Of the two pronghorn populations, road proliferation has and would impact the Sublette herd unit 

the most. Currently, all occupied habitats have been affected, especially crucial winter ranges, where 

road densities average more than 2 miles of road in each square mile of crucial winter habitat (USDI 

1999). Road proliferation would continue to occur with oil and gas projects in both herd units. These 

projects include Stagecoach, Moxa Arch, Fontenelle, LaBarge CAP, Pinedale Anticline, Jonah, Cedar 

Canyon, Nitchie Gulch, HS Natural Gas, and the Continental Divide/Greater Wamsutter projects. The 

locations of Stagecoach, Fontenelle, LaBarge CAP, Moxa Arch, Cedar Canyon, and Continental 

Divide/Greater Wamsutter could greatly reduce, or even eliminate, migration corridors throughout 

antelope crucial winter range in the CIAA. 

Densities of existing active wells are also relatively high throughout the Sublette Herd Area, and the 

majority of the wells proposed would be drilled in the Sublette Herd Area. The new wells would further 

contribute to overall antelope habitat fragmentation. 

Depending on the timing of activities and the location of surface disturbance within the CIAA, the 

potential exists for disruption of crucial winter range continuity and migration corridors between key 

habitats. 

The differences between the JMH CAP alternatives do not greatly affect the overall analysis of 

cumulative effects on pronghorn antelope within the CIAA. 

Mule Deer. The CIAA for mule deer constitutes the portions of the Sublette and South Wind River Herd 

Unit Areas and all of the Steamboat Herd Unit Area (Map 81). As stated in Chapter 3, the Steamboat 

herd was below objective in 2002. The South Wind River herd was also below objective in 2002, but the 

Sublette herd was above objective in 2002. The majority of the parturition habitat for the Sweetwater 

herd is within the JMH CAP planning area, thus signifying the importance of this area to the viability the 

herd. Approximately 50 percent of the crucial winter range for the Steamboat herd unit is within the JMH 

CAP planning area and the remainder is just south of the JMH CAP planning area. The majority of the 

crucial range for the Sublette herd is directly northwest of the JMH CAP planning area and within the 

CIAA. 

As demonstrated in Section 4.4.6, there are few published studies on mule deer reactions to roads and/or 

disruptive human activities; however, like elk, mule deer tend to avoid areas of disruptive activity and are 

more sensitive to activity in open versus forested habitat. 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 4-159 
Chapter 4 Final EIS 

Mineral development would have the greatest adverse effects on mule deer habitats within the CIAA 

through direct loss of habitat and animal displacement. Activities occurring within the JMH CAP 

planning area (HS Natural Gas and Nitchie Gulch projects) and those within the mule deer CIAA (Cedar 

Canyon, Bravo Unit, Hay Reservoir, Lower Bush Creek, Stagecoach, Continental Divide/Greater 

Wamsutter, Pinedale Anticline, Jonah, Fontenelle, and Bridger Coal projects, and the Monell and Shell 

pipelines) constitute existing and reasonably foreseeable activities within the mule deer CIAA. Activities 

within the JMH CAP planning area and Cedar Canyon project area would likely cause displacement of 

animals and selection of suboptimal habitats. The location of the Cedar Canyon project would likely 

inhibit mule deer movement between parturition areas and winter range located just southeast of the 

project area and within the JMH CAP planning area. Wyoming State Highway 28 is the only existing 

project and there are no proposed projects that would impede or disrupt movement from crucial winter 

range between the JMH CAP planning area and crucial winter range northwest and northeast of the JMH 

CAP planning area. 

Depending on the timing of activities and the location of surface disturbance within the CIAA, the 

potential exists for long-term disruption of migration corridors between key parturition habitats. If 

migration were disrupted and an increased amount of direct loss of habitat occurred within parturition 

habitats over the short term, particularly within the JMH CAP planning area, it is highly likely that longterm displacement of mule deer from these habitats would occur, resulting in a significant impact on mule 

deer herds. 

JMH CAP Alternative 1 would result in the highest amount of surface disturbing and disruptive activities 

within the JMH CAP planning area because it has the highest estimate of development activities and 

minimal restrictions on these activities within big game habitats. Alternative 1 would likely result in 

significant effects on the mule deer herds. JMH CAP Alternative 2 would result in the least amount of 

surface disturbing and disruptive activities within the JMH CAP planning area because the area would be 

virtually closed to the majority of mineral activities and because of the closure of all big game sensitive 

habitats. Alternative 2 would ensure that the majority of the parturition habitat within the mule deer 

CIAA was protected, thus ensuring the continued viability of the herds. The Proposed JMH CAP fluid 

mineral leasing implementation strategy would likely have significant adverse effects on mule deer herds. 

The significance of these effects would depend on the amount, timing, and duration of development 

activities. There is high potential for existing leases to block migration corridors and a clear lack of 

alternate habitats of equal quality for mule deer to move to as a result of the concentrated timing of 

development in Area 3. 

Greater Sage-Grouse. The CIAA boundary for greater sage-grouse includes the Upper Green River 

Basin, as recommended by the WGFD Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Plan (2003) for local 

working groups (Map 82). The greater sage-grouse CIAA differs from that recommended for the local 

working group in that it has been cut off at I-80 because of the assumption that greater sage-grouse do not 

migrate across this barrier. Greater sage-grouse leks are spread throughout the CIAA. 

The majority of cumulative effects on greater sage-grouse habitat within the CIAA would result from 

surface disturbing and disruptive activities, such as mineral development and associated infrastructure 

(e.g., wells, roads, pipelines, compressors, and facilities), rangeland improvements, and other activities 

(e.g., geophysical exploration). These activities would result in direct loss of habitat, habitat 

fragmentation, and animal displacement (short or long term), depending on the amount, location, and 

timing of activities. 

Mineral development would have the greatest effects on greater sage-grouse habitats within the CIAA. 

Activities occurring within the Bravo Unit, Hay Reservoir, Lower Bush Creek, Continental 

Divide/Greater Wamsutter, Pinedale Anticline, Jonah, LaBarge CAP, Moxa Arch, and Fontenelle oil and 

4-160 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 4 

gas projects constitute existing and reasonably foreseeable mineral activities within the greater sagegrouse CIAA. Given what has been shown in this document (in Chapter 3 and elsewhere in this chapter) 

about greater sage-grouse populations and the effects of human activities on them, these activities are 

located in the areas of greater sage-grouse lek concentration and would likely cause long-term 

displacement of animals through habitat loss and lek abandonment, thus contributing to current 

population declines and resulting in a significant impact on greater sage-grouse. Seasonal limitations for 

reduction of disturbance applied within a specified distance of leks (generally up to 2 miles) during 

breeding and nesting time have not prevented the 70 percent decline in populations in the area during the 

past 50 years and would not prevent further habitat loss from occurring. Adoption of the greater sagegrouse management recommendations in the Proposed Alternative and Appendix 6 should reduce, and 

could possibly stop, the rate of decline of greater sage-grouse in the JMH CAP planning area. 

Vegetation treatments in the form of prescribed burns could also affect greater sage-grouse through 

removal of large areas of sagebrush, conversion of sagebrush habitats, and increases in invasive species. 

Provided that the use of vegetation treatments is carefully evaluated before implementation, effects of 

treatments should not lead to long-term displacement of greater sage-grouse and could improve habitat for 

greater sage-grouse in some areas. 

The JMH CAP No Action Alternative and Alternatives 1 and 3 would lead to the continued decline of 

greater sage-grouse populations because they contain only seasonal protections of greater sage-grouse 

habitat. JMH CAP Alternative 2 and the Proposed JMH CAP would provide a greater amount of 

protection to the species and would stop or slow population declines in the area, and ensure that habitat 

was preserved for future use. 

Fisheries. The CIAA boundary for fisheries includes all land inside the JMH CAP planning area; all 

Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) Level 12 watersheds that immediately adjoin or overlap the JMH CAP 

planning area; and all HUC Level 12 watersheds adjacent to Pacific Creek, the Big Sandy River from Big 

Sandy Reservoir to the confluence with the Green River, and the Sweetwater River and its tributaries 

from the U.S. Forest Service boundary to the Field Office boundary (Map 83). 

The health of fisheries within the CIAA is directly related to the overall health and functional capabilities 

of riparian resources, which in turn are a reflection of watershed health. Any activities that affect the 

ecological condition of the watershed and its vegetative cover would directly affect the aquatic 

environment. It is assumed that any substantial disturbance to soils or changes in vegetative cover would 

have an adverse effect on watershed health and water quality and would therefore have an adverse effect 

on associated fisheries. The degree of impact attributed to any one disturbance or series of disturbances is 

influenced by location within the watershed, time and degree of disturbance, existing vegetation, and 

precipitation. General effects of surface disturbances on water resources and fisheries are discussed in 

Sections 4.4.2 and 4.4.6, respectively. 

Oil and gas development projects within the CIAA include Stagecoach, Cedar Canyon, and the Bravo 

Unit. Development projects (Stagecoach and Bravo Unit) that have been mitigated to the level of no 

significant impact are also assumed to have no significant impact on the CIAA. The Cedar Canyon 

project will have minimal to no impact on fisheries because of surface disturbance and timing stipulations 

afforded to all streams and riparian areas on BLM-administered lands. The Cedar Canyon project could, 

however, cause water depletions to the Colorado River through use of water for drilling activities 

(typically deep wells and coalbed gas wells) and thus could contribute to reduced low flows and, on a 

broad scale within the Colorado River Basin, peak discharges that could have negative effects on 

downstream species. Water depletions reduce the ability of the river system to create and maintain 

important habitats for these species by limiting the nutrient supply and productivity, and therefore the 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 4-161 
Chapter 4 Final EIS 

food supply, brought about by high spring flows. No depletions to the Platte River system are expected 

because no RFAs were identified within the CIAA that contributes to that system. 

Fish species migration in Pacific Creek has been and continues to be blocked by dams and diversions as 

part of the Eden/Farson Irrigation Project (and irrigation projects in general in this area). This affects all 

fish species that need to migrate up the creek for spawning, including flannelmouth sucker, a sensitive 

species. The irrigation project also alters natural flows of the river. 

RFAs that benefit fisheries include riparian exclosures along the Big Sandy River and the Little Sandy 

River, which would enhance riparian plant communities and fishery habitats as mitigation for sheep and 

cattle conversions; the Bone Draw project, which would increase game fish populations in the Big Sandy 

River; and the Big Sandy Rock Sill project which would provide some artificial habitat for increasing fish 

populations in the Big Sandy River. 

4.13.2 Heritage Resources 

The heritage resource CIAA consists primarily of the JMH CAP planning area, that portion the South 

Pass Historic Landscape ACEC outside the JMH CAP planning area, and that portion of the Point of 

Rocks to South Pass City expansion era road outside of the planning area (Map 84). The entire South 

Pass Historic Landscape ACEC consists of a corridor where four National Historic Trails cross through 

the area. The Point of Rocks to South Pass City expansion era road represents one of the roads that linked 

communities along the railroad with newly developing settlements. 

Effects on heritage resources within the JMH CAP planning area are analyzed in Section 4.5. Increases in 

surface disturbing activities, erosion, vibration from vehicles and equipment, soil compaction, and 

landscape alteration could result in a loss of potential information, integrity, and cultural values. Any 

potential effect on heritage resources would be lessened or eliminated to the extent possible through 

restrictions on surface disturbing activities, and through consultation processes with the SHPO and with 

Native American tribal representatives. 

Potential cumulative impacts on the South Pass Historic Landscape ACEC could result from increased 

activity in that area. Because the majority of the area surrounding the South Pass Historic Landscape 

ACEC is managed as the Wind River Front, the Oregon Buttes and Honeycombs WSAs, and the Red 

Desert Watershed, it is not anticipated that any significant cumulative impacts on the South Pass Historic 

Landscape ACEC would occur. 

Potential cumulative impacts on the Point of Rocks to South Pass City expansion era road could result 

from increased use of the road inside and outside of the JMH CAP planning area. The road’s physical 

integrity could be affected by increased use due to industrial activity and recreational use. It is not 

anticipated that impacts would be significant because of the protections afforded this resource. 

The differences between the alternatives do not greatly affect the overall analysis of cumulative effects on 

heritage resources within the CIAA. 

4.13.3 Travel, Access, and Realty 

The travel management, access, and realty CIAA consists primarily of the JMH CAP planning area, the 

entire Red Desert Watershed Management Area, the North and South Table Mountains, the Cedar Canyon 

ACEC, and a portion of White Mountain (Map 85). The entire Red Desert Watershed Management Area 

contains a ROW window that might affect travel management, access, and realty resources. The North 

and South Table Mountain area is an NSO area, and no facilities, such as communication towers or other 

4-162 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 4 

ROWs, would be allowed within these features. Cedar Canyon and a portion of White Mountain are 

proximate to the JMH CAP planning area. White Mountain provides opportunity for communication sites 

and other structures to be placed within the area. 

Potential adverse cumulative effects within the CIAA could arise from factors such as the restrictions 

placed on access and OHV use, and the locations and management of WSAs. These potential concerns 

limit the location of activities and development, including communication sites; alternative forms of 

energy, such as wind energy towers; and potential power lines. Roads associated with oil and gas 

development projects would also be restricted within the CIAA, particularly in the Red Desert Watershed 

Management Area, Cedar Canyon, and North and South Table Mountain because of restrictions in each 

area. All restrictions would reduce the potential for ROW locations, limit access, and limit OHV use, 

resulting in overall negative cumulative effects within the CIAA. Effects would not be considered 

significant, however, because opportunities for ROWs, reasonable public access, and OHV use would still 

be available. Long linear facilities such as cross-country pipelines or power line transmission lines, 

would likely be routed around the JMH CAP planning area and portions of the CIAA. In particular, the 

exclusion area within the South Pass Historic Landscape ACEC and limitations on facilities in the Red 

Desert Watershed would require reroutes. However, the major ROW windows established in the Green 

River RMP to the east and south of the CIAA would provide opportunity to locate these types of 

facilities. 

Impacts would be least extensive under Alternative 1 because of fewer restrictions on seasonal access, 

OHV use, ROWs, and other surface disturbing activities. Impacts would be greatest under Alternatives 2 

and 3 because of an increase in restrictions on seasonal access, OHV use, ROWs, and other surface 

disturbing activities. Under the Proposed JMH CAP, cumulative impacts would be greater than under the 

No Action Alternative because of increased restrictions on seasonal access, OHV use, ROWs, and other 

surface disturbing activities. The development of a transportation plan in Alternatives 2 and 3 and the 

Proposed JMH CAP would reduce cumulative impacts by facilitating management of travel and access. 

4.13.4 Recreation Resources 

The CIAA for recreation resources is the JMH CAP planning area. The analysis area was not expanded 

outside of the JMH CAP planning area. Effects on recreation resources within the JMH CAP planning 

area are analyzed in Section 4.7. 

Cumulative impacts would occur as a result of increased recreation demand and uses to the point where 

conflicts would occur between development activities and unconfined dispersed recreation opportunities. 

Development activities could degrade certain recreation settings, resulting in the degradation of some 

recreational experiences due to increased visual impacts, noise, and concerns for public health and safety. 

Some hunting opportunities could also diminish in areas where development occurs, because of the 

displacement of animals and because of measures applied to protect public health and safety. 

Development and restrictions could reduce recreation opportunities for some users; however, the same 

restrictions could also enhance the experience of other users. 

Under Alternative 1, cumulative impacts on recreation would increase because of increased development 

activities and fewer land resource restrictions, and because of public health and safety concerns. Under 

Alternatives 2 and 3 and the Proposed JMH CAP, impacts on recreation would likely decrease because of 

anticipated decreases in development activities, increased land resource protections, and decreases in oil 

and gas development. Mitigation could offset some impacts on one user group, while potentially 

increasing impacts on others. 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 4-163 
Chapter 4 Final EIS 

4.13.5 Minerals and Alternative Energy Resources 

The CIAA for minerals and alternative energy resources consists of the JMH CAP planning area because 

activities and resources occurring within the JMH CAP planning area are not expected to affect minerals 

and alternative energy resources outside of the JMH CAP planning area. Effects on mineral and 

alternative energy resources within the JMH CAP planning area are analyzed in Section 4.8. 

The evaluation of cumulative impacts on resource development activity includes consideration of the 

relative changes in resource development in the planning area and nearby areas that are operated and 

serviced by the same economic interests. The projected activity levels in the planning area are compared 

to resource development and related economic activity in the other parts of the three-county area in the 

assessment of cumulative impacts on mineral and energy resources. 

Oil and gas development is expected to increase from current conditions under the JMH CAP No Action 

Alternative. However, some growth in development would be prohibited or curtailed as a result of 

conflicts with environment-related resource values. Production would be expected to increase slightly 

from current levels. Restrictions on ROWs could limit operator ability to develop and move product from 

within the planning area and could also disrupt regional planning associated with gas collection and 

delivery systems. 

Under JMH CAP Alternative 1, restrictions on leasing would be eased, with new leasing allowed to 

follow industry interest except in WSAs. Lease stipulations would consider legally protected resources 

but would not have additional restrictions, such as surface disturbance and timing restrictions. In 

addition, restrictions on ROWs and access would be eased throughout the planning area, which would 

increase geophysical exploration as well as improving the ability to move product to market. Local 

lessees and operators would greatly benefit from increased land availability and production. 

Under JMH CAP Alternative 2, a number of restrictions on leasing and access would limit mineral 

development throughout the planning area. This includes lease stipulations, seasonal restrictions, and 

NSO requirements. Restrictions could have a significant impact on local lessees and operators. 

Under JMH CAP Alternative 3, the amount of acreage available for leasing would increase relative to the 

No Action Alternative. However, restrictions on access could limit growth in mineral development 

throughout the planning area. This includes lease stipulations, seasonal restrictions, and NSO 

requirements. In addition, restrictions on ROWs could limit the ability to develop and move product from 

within the planning area. Although the restrictions are not expected to be as significant as those under 

Alternative 2, the restrictions that could be applied through adaptive management actions could have a 

significant impact on local lessees and operators if the activity restrictions extended far into the future. 

Closure to or restrictions on leasing within Area 3 of the JMH CAP fluid mineral leasing implementation 

strategy (Appendix 17) could have a significant impact on individual operators by limiting growth in 

mineral exploration and development, causing a loss of opportunity to obtain new leases and inability of 

operators to block up leases or unitize existing leases in this area. Other restrictions, such as lease 

stipulations, seasonal restrictions, and NSO requirements, could further impact growth potential through 

associated compliance costs. 

4.13.6 Visual Resources 

The visual resource CIAA consists primarily of the JMH CAP planning area and expands out to include 

that portion of the South Pass Historic Landscape ACEC not located within the JMH CAP planning area 

4-164 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 4 

(Map 86). The entire South Pass Historic Landscape ACEC represents four National Historic Trails 

through the area and encompasses their associated viewsheds. 

Effects on visual resources within the JMH CAP planning area are analyzed in Section 4.9. No effects on 

visual resources on that portion of the South Pass Historic Landscape ACEC not located within the JMH 

CAP planning area are expected to occur because of VRM designations within the ACEC and 

surrounding areas (Wind River Front, the Oregon Buttes and Honeycombs WSAs, and the Red Desert 

Watershed). 

Cumulative impacts that enhance visual resources would likely decrease, and impacts that degrade visual 

resources would increase, under Alternative 1, because of fewer protections afforded to important and 

sensitive resources, increased development of oil and gas resources, and fewer restrictions on linear 

facilities. VRM Class II values in the Greater Sand Dunes ACEC area could be in jeopardy, because 

increased oil and gas development would add additional production facilities that could result in a VRM 

class reduction. Cumulative impacts that enhance visual resources would likely increase under 

Alternatives 2 and 3 and the Proposed JMH CAP, while impacts that degrade these resources would 

decrease. This is due to additional protections afforded to important and sensitive resources, decreased 

development of oil and gas resources, and increased restrictions on linear facilities. 

4.13.7 Special Management Areas and Other Management Areas 

The CIAA boundary for special management areas and other management areas includes the entire JMH 

CAP planning area and those portions of the Red Desert Watershed Management Area and South Pass 

Historic Landscape ACEC outside of the JMH CAP planning area (Map 87). 

Effects on special management areas and other management areas within the JMH CAP planning area are 

analyzed in Section 4.10. 

No potential cumulative impacts from existing or reasonably foreseeable development that would affect 

the designation or management of the South Pass Historic Landscape ACEC are expected because of 

strict restrictions on activities within the entire ACEC and management of areas surrounding the ACEC 

(Wind River Front, the Oregon Buttes and Honeycombs WSAs, and the Red Desert Watershed). 

Potential cumulative effects from oil and gas development projects and associated wells, roads, and 

pipelines could occur in the Red Desert Watershed Management Area. The Bravo Unit, Lower Bush 

Creek, and a small portion of the Hay Reservoir and Continental Divide/Greater Wamsutter projects are 

located within the management area. Cumulative impacts could include degradation of visual resources, 

soils, watershed resources, and vegetation caused by development activities. Restrictions on surface 

disturbance, such as VRM Class II and III, preferred routes for ROWs, and areas of controlled surface 

use, within the Red Desert Watershed would reduce possible effects to a minimal level. 

Cumulative impacts would be the greatest under Alternative 1 because of increased development 

activities. Impacts could be significant if they changed the characteristics protected by the SMA 

designation. Impacts would be least extensive under Alternative 2 because of decreased development 

activities. Impacts under Alternative 3 and the Proposed JMH CAP would be slightly greater than under 

Alternative 2 because of fewer restrictions on development activities. 

4.13.8 Air Resources 

The CIAA boundary for air includes the area for which the air quality modeling of regional impacts was 

performed in 1999 for the Pinedale Anticline Project in Sublette County. 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 4-165 
Chapter 4 Final EIS 

Potential cumulative impacts on air quality would result from emissions from oil and gas development on 

existing leases in the planning area, development of new leases outside the core area, and operation of 

existing wells and compressors throughout the planning area. Wildland fires and prescribed burns would 

result in emissions of particulates and polyaromatic hydrocarbons, as well as reduced visibility. 

Vehicular activity could also produce emissions that would degrade air quality. 

Preliminary results from air quality impact analyses for proposed projects near the JMH CAP planning 

area predicted that the PSD Class I area nearest to the Pinedale Anticline Project, Bridger Wilderness, 

would experience 9 days of visibility with a change of greater than 0.5 dv, suggesting that cumulative 

impacts on visibility could be significant. Other types of impacts are not anticipated to be significant. 

Assumptions used in far-field modeling of air quality for the Pinedale Anticline Project included 

maximum development for the JMH CAP planning area. Because there would be no significant impact 

on air resources (except for cumulative visibility impacts greater than 0.5 dv) under this maximum 

scenario (see Table 4-18 below), there would also be no significant impact expected under the lesser 

development scenarios (the No Action Alternative, Alternative 2, Alternative 3, or the Proposed JMH 

CAP). 

4-166 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 4 

Table 4-18. Summary of Potential Air Quality Impacts From

Pinedale Anticline EIS

Air Quality

Component Comment 

Air Pollutant Concentrations 

Criteria Air 

Pollutants 

• Near-field total concentrations are in compliance with applicable NAAQS and 

WAAQS 

o Particulate matter concentrations 14–33% of standards 

o NO2 concentration 9% of standard 

o SO2 concentrations 10–17% of standards 

• Near-field project concentrations are well below applicable PSD Class II 

increments 

o PM10 concentrations 1–10% of increments 

o NO2 concentration .6% of increment 

o SO2 concentration 0–.02% of increments 

• Far-field total concentrations are in compliance with applicable NAAQS and 

WAAQS 

o Particulate matter concentrations 12–16% of standards 

o NO2 concentration 9% of standard 

o SO2 concentrations 10–17% of standards 

• Far-field project concentrations are well below applicable PSD Class I 

increments 

o PM10 concentrations 0–2.3% of increments 

o NO2 concentration 0–.5% of increment 

o SO2 concentration 0–.04% of increments 

Visibility 

Days with > 1.0 

dv 

• Potential visibility impacts from the Pinedale Anticline Project were less than 

the FLAG visibility threshold 

• Potential cumulative visibility impacts were less than the FLAG visibility 

threshold 

Days with > .5 

dv 

• Potential visibility impacts from the Pinedale Anticline Project were less than 

the USFS/NPS visibility threshold 

• Potential cumulative visibility impacts were greater than the USFS/NPS 

visibility threshold 

o 9 days in Bridger Wilderness 

o 2 days in Fitzpatrick Wilderness 

o 2 days in Popo Agie Wilderness 

o 2 day in Wind River Roadless Area 

Atmospheric Deposition 

Lake Chemistry 

Level of 

Acceptable 

Change (LAC) 

• Cumulative decreases in ANC were less than the lake chemistry LAC for 

sensitive lakes 

o 6.8% of LAC for Black Joe Lake 

o 8.6% of LAC for Deep Lake 

o 6.7% of LAC for Hobbs Lake 

o 4.3% of LAC for Ross Lake 

o 6.7% of LAC for Lower Saddlebag Lake 

4.13.9 Socioeconomics 

The CIAA boundary for socioeconomics is made up of Sublette, Sweetwater, and Fremont Counties, 

which include the JMH CAP planning area. The greatest potential for cumulative socioeconomic impacts 

is associated with increased oil and gas development throughout the region. Significant increases in 

regional oil and gas development activity in a short period of time can cause notable changes in 

employment and income. These variables can in turn cause significant deviations in population trends, 

which have detrimental effects on community services, social structures, and lifestyles. Increased oil and 

gas development within the JMH CAP planning area is not expected to add significantly to impacts 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 4-167 
Chapter 4 Final EIS 

associated with changes in regional oil and gas development. This is because the amount of development 

that would occur within the JMH CAP planning area is relatively small compared with other regional 

development activity plans. Thus, while socioeconomic impacts could occur because of increased oil and 

gas development, it is not expected that development within the JMH CAP planning area would 

significantly add to these impacts. 

Socioeconomic impacts can also result from changes in recreation and grazing activities. For instance, 

declines in recreation due to increased conflicts, degradation of recreational experiences, or restrictions on 

access can have detrimental impacts on social and economic resources in the area. In addition, 

cumulative impacts on livestock grazing could have negative socioeconomic impacts through a reduction 

in available forage or an increase in operational costs. 

4-168 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 4 

Table 4-1. Summary of Visual Resource Management Classifications 

Area 

No Action 

Alternative 

Alternative 

1 

Alternative 

2 

Alternative 

3 

Proposed

JMH CAP 

VRM CLASS I 

WSAs X X X X X 

ACECs + expansions X 

Oregon Buttes ACEC (included 

in WSA) X X X X X 

Red Desert Watershed X 

Indian Gap X 

Boars Tusk + 1-mile buffer X 

Portion of White Mountain X 

Freighter Gap X 

Pinnacles Geographic Area X X 

Total Affected Area (in acres) 119,340 119,340 409,940 128,300 119,340 

VRM CLASS II 

ACECs + expansions (except 

Oregon Buttes ACEC) X X 

Steamboat Mountain 

Management Area X 

Steamboat Mountain ACEC 

(southern portion) X 

Greater Sand Dunes ACEC X X 

South Pass Historic Landscape 

ACEC X X 

White Mountain Petroglyphs 

ACEC X X 

Split Rock X X 

Red Desert Watershed 

Management Area X 

Areas adjacent to WSAs X X X X 

West Sand Dunes 

Archaeological District X 

Continental Peak/South Pass 

Connecting Side Trail X X 

Wetlands, riparian areas, 

and 100-year floodplains + 

500-foot buffer X 

Portion of White Mountain X X 

Pinnacles Geologic Feature X 

Elk crucial habitat X 

Deer crucial habitat X 

Antelope crucial habitat X 

Elk birthing areas X 

Deer birthing areas X 

Raptor nest sites + 1⁄2- to 1-mile 

buffer X 

Greater sage-grouse 

concentration areas X 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 4-169 
Chapter 4 Final EIS 

Table 4-1. Summary of Visual Resource Management Classifications (Continued) 

Area 

No Action 

Alternative 

Alternative 

1 

Alternative 

2 

Alternative 

3 

Proposed

JMH CAP 

Greater sage-grouse winter 

range1 X 

Mountain plover aggregation 

areas X 

Connectivity area X 

Boars Tusk X 

Total Affected Area (in acres) 181,230 146,050 177,800 265,720 199,980 

VRM CLASS III 

Remainder of the planning 

area not designated as VRM 

Class I or Class II X 

Steamboat Mountain ACEC 

(northern portion) X 

Red Desert Watershed 

Management Area X X 

Portion of White Mountain X X 

Split Rock (portion not Class II) X X 

Eden Valley X X X 

Total Affected Area (in acres) 117,110 0 34,600 6,090 67,240 

VRM CLASS IV 

Remainder of the planning 

area not designated as VRM 

Class I, Class II, or Class III X X X X 

Total Affected Area (in acres) 204,660 356,950 0 222,230 235,780 

4-170 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 4 

Table 4-2. Summary of Special Management Area Designations 

Area 

No Action 

Alternative 

Alternative 

1 

Alternative 

2 

Alternative 

3 

Proposed

JMH CAP 

RESEARCH NATURAL AREA 

Paleosol deposition area X 

Basin big sagebrush/lemon 

scurfpea (within Steamboat 

Mountain ACEC) X 

Cushion plant community X 

Dunal ponds (flockets) X 

Total Affected Area (in acres) 0 0 33,110 0 0 

ACEC REMOVALS, EXPANSIONS, and DESIGNATIONS 

Steamboat Mountain ACEC 

removal X 

Steamboat Mountain ACEC 

expansion X X X 

Greater Sand Dunes ACEC 

expansion X X 

Special Status Plants ACEC 

expansion X X 

Cushion Plant Community 

ACEC designation X X 

Pinnacles Geologic Feature 

ACEC designation X 

Total Affected Area (in acres) 0 48,350 129,190 39,070 3,980 

OTHER SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA DESIGNATIONS 

West Sand Dunes 

Archaeological District X 

Total Affected Area (in acres) 0 0 0 0 19,840 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 4-171 
Chapter 4 Final EIS 

Table 4-3. Summary of Oil and Gas Leases 

Area 

No Action 

Alternative 

Alternative 

1 

Alternative 

2 

Alternative 

3 

Proposed

JMH CAP 

CLOSED TO NEW LEASES 

Core area X 

WSAs X X X X X 

ACECs + expansions X 

Red Desert Watershed 

Management Area X 

Pinnacles Geographic Area X X 

Wetlands, riparian areas, and 

100-year floodplains + 500-foot 

buffer X 

National Historic Trails + 

1⁄4-mile buffer X 

Expansion Era Roads + 1⁄4-mile 

buffer X 

Tri-Territory Marker X 

Slopes > 20 percent X 

Special Status Plants ACEC X 

Greater sage-grouse 

concentration areas X 

Greater sage-grouse winter 

range1 X 

Raptor nest sites + 1⁄2- to 1-mile 

buffer X 

Mountain plover aggregation 

areas X 

Elk crucial habitat X 

Deer crucial habitat X 

Antelope crucial habitat X 

Elk birthing areas X 

Deer birthing areas X 

Connectivity area X 

Area 3 (Appendix 17) X 

Sensitive resources X 

Total Affected Area (in acres) 210,050 119,340 584,420 128,300 316,570 

OPEN TO LEASING CONSIDERATION 

Remainder of the planning 

area not closed to new leases X X X X X 

Total Affected Area (in acres) 412,290 503,000 37,920 494,040 305,770 

1

Only sagebrush vegetation is expected to be suitable habitat. 

4-172 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 4 

Table 4-4. Summary of Coal and Sodium Exploration 

Area 

No Action 

Alternative 

Alternative 

1 

Alternative 

2 

Alternative 

3 

Proposed

JMH CAP 

CLOSED TO EXPLORATION 

Entire planning area X 

WSAs X X X X 

Oregon Buttes ACEC (included 

in WSA) X X X X 

Steamboat Mountain ACEC + 

expansion X 

Steamboat Mountain ACEC 

(outside area with coal 

recommendation) X X 

Steamboat Mountain 

Management Area (outside 

area with coal 

recommendation) X 

South Pass Historic Landscape 

ACEC (visible portion) X X X 

White Mountain Petroglyphs 

vista X X X 

Pinnacles Geographic Area X 

Boars Tusk X X X X 

Crookston Ranch X X X X 

Tri-Territory Marker X X X X 

Wetlands, riparian areas, 

and 100-year floodplains + 

500-foot buffer X X X 

Special status plants X X 

Special Status Plants ACEC X 

Cushion Plant Community 

ACEC X 

Raptor nest sites (active) X X X 

Greater sage-grouse leks + 

1⁄4-mile buffer X X 

Greater sage-grouse leks + 

1⁄2-mile buffer X 

Total Affected Area (in acres) 272,440 119,430 622,340 306,500 319,830 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 4-173 
Chapter 4 Final EIS 

Table 4-5. Summary of Coal Occurrence and Development Potential 

Area 

No Action 

Alternative 

Alternative 

1 

Alternative 

2 

Alternative 

3 

Proposed

JMH CAP 

CLOSED TO FEDERAL COAL LEASING CONSIDERATION 

Entire coal development 

potential area X 

Sand Dunes WSA X X X X 

Greater Sand Dunes ACEC 

(western portion) X X X X 

Total Affected Area (in acres)1 4,960 4,960 53,310 4,960 4,960 

OPEN TO FEDERAL COAL LEASING CONSIDERATION WITH NO SURFACE OCCUPANCY 

Boars Tusk X X X X 

Crookston Ranch X X X X 

Total Affected Area (in acres)1 70 70 0 70 70 

OPEN TO FEDERAL COAL LEASING CONSIDERATION FOR SUBSURFACE MINING WITH 

CONTROLS ON SURFACE ACTIVITIES AND FACILITIES 

Greater Sand Dunes ACEC 

(eastern portion) X X X X 

Steamboat Mountain ACEC X 

Steamboat Mountain ACEC + 

expansion X X 

Steamboat Mountain 

Management Area X 

Tri-Territory Marker X X X X 

Raptor nest sites + 1⁄2- to 

1-mile buffer X X X 

Raptor nest sites + 1⁄4-mile 

buffer X 

Total Affected Area (in acres)1 17,980 9,780 0 18,310 20,590 

1

Acres are only those within the coal development potential area; the remainder of the planning area is not available for coal 

leasing consideration. 

4-174 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 4 

Table 4-6. Summary of Salable Mineral Development (Mineral Material Sales) 

Area 

No Action 

Alternative 

Alternative 

1 

Alternative 

2 

Alternative 

3 

Proposed

JMH CAP 

CLOSED TO MINERAL MATERIAL SALES 

Entire planning area X 

WSAs X X X X 

Oregon Buttes ACEC X X X X 

White Mountain Petroglyphs 

ACEC X X X X 

Greater Sand Dunes ACEC X X X 

Greater Sand Dunes ACEC + 

expansion X 

Steamboat Mountain ACEC X 

Steamboat Mountain ACEC + 

expansion X X 

Steamboat Mountain 

Management Area1 X 

Lava rock portion of 

Steamboat Mountain X X 

South Pass Historic 

Landscape ACEC (visible 

portion) X X X 

South Pass Historic 

Landscape (visible portion— 

1-mile viewshed) X 

South Pass Summit X X X X 

Pinnacles Geologic Feature X 

Pinnacles Geographic Area X 

Boars Tusk X X X X 

Crookston Ranch X X X X 

Raptor nest sites (active) X X X X 

Greater sage-grouse leks + 

1⁄2-mile buffer X 

Greater sage-grouse leks + 

1⁄4-mile buffer X 

Potential greater sage-grouse 

nesting habitat2 X 

Special status plants X X X 

Special Status Plants ACEC X 

Total Affected Area (in acres) 215,820 164,510 622,340 255,600 490,540 

1

Steamboat Mountain Management Area (minus the lava rock portion) could be open to mineral material sales when required to 

meet other planning objectives within JMH. 

2

Only 50 percent of the area is expected to be suitable nesting habitat. 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 4-175 
Chapter 4 Final EIS 

Table 4-7. Summary of Locatable Mineral Development 

Area 

No Action 

Alternative 

Alternative 

1 

Alternative 

2 

Alternative 

3 

Proposed

JMH CAP 

WITHDRAWN FROM ALL MINERAL LOCATION 

Entire planning area X 

Oil shale classification lands (to 

be revoked) X X X X 

White Mountain Petroglyphs 

ACEC X X X X 

Greater Sand Dunes ACEC 

(western portion) X X X X 

Steamboat Mountain diamonds X X 

South Pass Summit X X X X 

Tri-Territory Marker X X X X 

Crookston Ranch X X X X 

Boars Tusk X 

Indian Gap X 

Pinnacles Geologic Feature X 

Public water reserves X X X X 

Special status plants X X X 

Special Status Plants ACEC X 

Raptor nest sites (active) X 

Greater sage-grouse leks + 

1⁄2-mile buffer X 

Elk birthing areas (northern) X X 

Total Affected Area (in acres) 151,980 151,980 622,340 160,230 155,190 

WITHDRAWN FROM NON-METALLIC MINERAL LOCATION 

Coal classification lands (to be 

revoked) X X X X 

Total Affected Area (in acres) 160,410 160,410 0 342,410 345,740 

4-176 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 4 

Table 4-8. Summary of Surface Disturbance and Seasonal Limitations 

Area 

No Action 

Alternative 

Alternative 

1 

Alternative 

2 

Alternative 

3 

Proposed

JMH CAP 

NO SURFACE OCCUPANCY 

Oregon Buttes ACEC X X X 

South Pass Historic 

Landscape ACEC (visible 

portion) X X 

South Pass Historic 

Landscape (visible portion— 

5-mile viewshed) X 

Greater Sand Dunes ACEC + 

expansion X 

Greater Sand Dunes ACEC 

(developed recreation sites and 

OHV parking lot) X X 

White Mountain Petroglyphs 

vista X X X X 

Boars Tusk X X X X X 

Crookston Ranch + 300-foot 

buffer X 

Crookston Ranch + 100-foot 

buffer X X X X 

Indian Gap + 100-foor buffer X X X X X 

Tri-Territory Marker X X X X X 

Slopes > 20 percent X 

Pinnacles Geographic Area X 

Special status plants X X 

Special Status Plants ACEC X X 

Special status plants potential 

habitat X 

Cushion Plant Community 

ACEC X 

Greater sage-grouse winter 

range1 X 

Greater sage-grouse leks + 

1⁄2-mile buffer X 

Greater sage-grouse 

concentration areas X 

Raptor nest sites (active) X X X 

Raptor nest sites + 1⁄2- to 1-mile 

buffer X 

Elk birthing areas X 

Deer birthing areas X 

Sensitive resources X 

Total Affected Area (in acres) 74,640 830 337,330 63,840 99,060 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 4-177 
Chapter 4 Final EIS 

Table 4-8. Summary of Surface Disturbance and Seasonal Limitations (Continued) 

Area 

No Action 

Alternative 

Alternative 

1 

Alternative 

2 

Alternative 

3 

Proposed

JMH CAP 

CONTROLLED SURFACE USE 

Wetlands, riparian areas, and 

100-year floodplains + 

500-foot buffer X X 

Wetlands, riparian areas, and 

100-year floodplains + 

250-foot buffer X 

Wetlands, riparian areas, and 

100-year floodplains + 

1⁄4-mile buffer X X 

Areas adjacent to WSAs X 

Portion of White Mountain X 

West Sand Dunes 

Archaeological District X 

Remaining ACECs + 

expansions X 

ACECs (except Oregon 

Buttes ACEC) X 

Steamboat Mountain 

Management Area X 

Steamboat Mountain ACEC 

+ expansion3 X 

Steamboat Mountain crucial 

overlap3 X 

South Pass Historic 

Landscape ACEC (portion 

not visible) X X 

South Pass Historic 

Landscape (portion not 

visible—5-mile viewshed) X 

South Pass Historic 

Landscape viewshed (1-mile 

buffer) X 

Pinnacles Geologic Feature X 

National Historic Trails + 

1⁄4-mile buffer X X X X 

Expansion Era Roads + 1⁄4-mile 

buffer X X X X 

VRM Class II areas X 

Slopes > 20 percent X X 

Slopes > 25 percent X X 

Greater sage-grouse leks + 

1⁄4-mile buffer X X X 

Potential greater sage-grouse 

nesting habitat2 X 

Greater sage-grouse winter 

range1 X 

Special status plants X 

Special status plants potential 

habitat X X X X 

Sensitive resources X 

Total Affected Area (in acres) 244,280 132,860 63,970 243,570 427,930 

4-178 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 4 

Area 

No Action 

Alternative 

Alternative 

1 

Alternative 

2 

Alternative 

3 

Proposed

JMH CAP 

SEASONAL LIMITATIONS 

Elk crucial habitat X X X X 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 4-179 
Chapter 4 Final EIS 

Table 4-8. Summary of Surface Disturbance and Seasonal Limitations (Continued) 

SEASONAL LIMITATIONS 

Deer crucial habitat X X X X 

Antelope crucial habitat X X X X 

Elk birthing areas X X X 

Deer birthing areas X X X 

Raptor nest sites + 1⁄4-mile 

buffer X 

Raptor nest sites + 1⁄2- to 

1-mile buffer X X X 

Greater sage-grouse leks + 

1⁄4-mile buffer X X X 

Greater sage-grouse nesting 

area + 2-mile buffer X 

Greater sage-grouse potential 

nesting habitat2 X X X 

Greater sage-grouse winter 

concentration areas X 

Greater sage-grouse winter 

range1 X X 

Mountain plover aggregation 

areas X 

Mountain plover aggregation 

areas + 1⁄4-mile buffer X X X 

Total Affected Area (in acres) 388,760 273,470 261,390 399,690 476,850 

1

 Only sagebrush vegetation is expected to be suitable habitat.

2 Only 50 percent of the area is expected to be suitable nesting habitat.

3

 Applies to portions of ACEC + expansion area that are not NSO for elk and deer birthing.

4-180 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 4 

Table 4-9. Summary of Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) Use Designations 

Area 

No Action 

Alternative 

Alternative 

1 

Alternative 

2 

Alternative 

3 

Proposed

JMH CAP 

OPEN 

Greater Sand Dunes 

Recreation Area X X X X X 

Total Affected Area (in acres) 10,020 10,020 10,020 10,020 10,020 

CLOSED 

WSAs X X X X X 

Oregon Buttes ACEC X X X X X 

White Mountain Petroglyphs 

ACEC X X X X X 

Wetlands, riparian areas and 

100-year floodplains + 

500-foot buffer X 

Crookston Ranch X X X X X 

Boars Tusk X X X X X 

Paleosol deposition area X 

Pinnacles Geographic Area X X 

Pinnacles Geologic Feature 

ACEC X 

Pinnacles Geologic Feature X 

Slopes > 25 percent X 

Slopes > 20 percent X 

Geologic hazards X 

Greater sage-grouse 

concentration areas X 

Greater sage-grouse winter 

range1 X 

Greater sage-grouse leks + 

1⁄2-mile buffer X 

Raptor nest sites + 1⁄2- to 1-mile 

buffer X X 

Elk birthing areas X 

Deer birthing areas X 

Special status plants X X X 

Special Status Plants ACEC X X 

Total Affected Area (in acres) 122,590 122,590 445,200 189,580 123,940 

LIMITED TO DESIGNATED ROADS AND TRAILS 

Red Desert Watershed 

Management Area X X X 

Steamboat Mountain ACEC X 

Steamboat Mountain ACEC 

+ expansion area X X 

Steamboat Mountain 

Management Area X 

South Pass Historic 

Landscape ACEC (visible 

portion) X X 

South Pass Historic 

Landscape (visible portion— 

1-mile viewshed) X 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 4-181 
Chapter 4 Final EIS 

Table 4-9. Summary of Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) Use Designations (Continued) 

Area 

No Action 

Alternative 

Alternative 

1 

Alternative 

2 

Alternative 

3 

Proposed

JMH CAP 

LIMITED TO DESIGNATED ROADS AND TRAILS 

South Pass Historic 

Landscape ACEC X 

Pinnacles Geologic Feature X X 

Cushion Plant Community 

ACEC X 

Remainder of the planning 

area not designated as Open 

or Closed X 

Total Affected Area (in acres) 176,660 21,480 167,120 149,540 213,810 

LIMITED TO EXISTING ROADS AND TRAILS 

Remainder of the planning 

area not designated as 

Open, Closed, or Limited to 

Designated Roads and 

Trails. X X X X 

Total Affected Area (in acres) 313,070 468,250 0 273,200 274,570 

LIMITED TO SEASONAL ACCESS2 

Elk crucial habitat X X X X 

Deer crucial habitat X X X X 

Antelope crucial habitat X X X X 

Elk birthing areas X X X 

Mule deer birthing areas X X X 

Raptor nest sites + 1⁄2- to 1-mile 

buffer X X X 

Raptor nest sites + 1⁄4-mile 

buffer X 

Greater sage-grouse winter 

concentration areas X 

Greater sage-grouse winter 

range1 X X 

Greater sage-grouse nesting 

area + 2-mile buffer X 

Greater sage-grouse leks + 

1⁄4-mile buffer X X X 

Greater sage-grouse potential 

nesting habitat3 X X X 

Mountain plover aggregation 

areas X 

Mountain plover aggregation 

areas + 1⁄4-mile buffer X X X 

Steamboat Mountain X X 

Total Affected Area (in acres) 398,980 273,470 261,390 476,750 476,750 

1 Only sagebrush vegetation is expected to be suitable habitat. 

2 Seasonal access limitations for the No Action Alternative and Proposed JMH CAP would be implemented on an as-needed 

basis. 

3 Only 50 percent of the area is expected to be suitable nesting habitat. 

4-182 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 4 

Table 4-10. Summary of Rights-of-Way (ROW) Limitations 

Area 

No Action 

Alternative 

Alternative 

1 

Alternative 

2 

Alternative 

3 

Proposed

JMH CAP 

EXCLUSION AREAS 

WSAs X X 

Steamboat Mountain 

(southern portion) X 

Face of Steamboat Mountain X 

White Mountain Petroglyphs 

ACEC X X X X 

White Mountain Petroglyphs 

vista X 

Oregon Buttes ACEC X X X 

South Pass Historic 

Landscape ACEC (visible 

portion) X X 

South Pass Historic 

Landscape (visible portion— 

5-mile viewshed) X 

Pinnacles Geologic Feature 

ACEC X 

Paleosol deposition area X 

Pinnacles Geographic Area X X 

Pinnacles Geologic Feature X 

Greater sage-grouse leks + 

1⁄2-mile buffer X 

Greater sage-grouse 

concentration areas X 

Greater sage-grouse winter 

range1 X 

Mountain plover aggregation 

areas + 1⁄4-mile buffer X 

Special Status Plants ACEC X X 

Cushion Plant Community 

ACEC X 

Special status plants 

potential habitat X X 

Tri-Territory Marker X X X X X 

Indian Gap X X 

Indian Gap +100-ft. buffer X 

Total Affected Area (in acres) 23,770 40 336,590 156,080 40,200 

AVOIDANCE AREAS 

Boars Tusk X X X X X 

Crookston Ranch X X X X X 

Indian Gap X X 

Oregon Buttes ACEC X X 

Steamboat Mountain ACEC X 

Steamboat Mountain ACEC 

+ expansion area X X 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 4-183 
Chapter 4 Final EIS 

Table 4-10. Summary of Rights-of-Way (ROW) Limitations (Continued) 

Area 

No Action 

Alternative 

Alternative 

1 

Alternative 

2 

Alternative 

3 

Proposed

JMH CAP 

AVOIDANCE AREAS 

Steamboat Mountain 

Management Area X 

South Pass Historic 

Landscape ACEC X X 

South Pass Historic 

Landscape ACEC (portion 

not visible) X X 

South Pass Historic 

Landscape (portion not 

visible) X 

Greater Sand Dunes ACEC 

+ expansion area X 

Greater Sand Dunes ACEC 

+ 1-mile buffer X X X 

Greater Sand Dunes ACEC 

+ 1-mile buffer (minus 

paleosol deposition area) X 

White Mountain petroglyphs 

vista X X X X 

West Sand Dunes 

Archaeological District X 

National Historic Trails + 

1⁄4-mile buffer X X X X X 

Expansion Era Roads + 

1⁄4-mile buffer X X X X X 

Greater sage-grouse leks + 

1⁄4-mile buffer X X 

Greater sage-grouse 

potential nesting habitat2 X 

Connectivity area X X 

Cushion Plant Community 

ACEC X 

Special status plants X X X 

Special status plants 

potential habitat X X X 

Total Affected Area (in acres) 171,810 153,810 192,110 77,970 434,330 

1

 Only sagebrush vegetation is expected to be suitable habitat. 

2

 Only 50 percent of the area is expected to be suitable nesting habitat. 

4-184 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS 

Table 4-11. Grazing Utilization 

Species Herd Unit Objective 

Percentage of

Herd Within 

Planning Area 

AUMs Needed Within Planning Area 

No Action 

Alternative 

Action 

Alternatives 

No Action 

Alternative Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 

Elk 500 1,200 75% birth; 55% winter 1,081 2,595 2,595 2,595 

Cattle NA NA NA 10,664 23,627 10,664 10,664 

Sheep NA NA NA 926 3,203 926 926 

Mule Deer 4,000 4,000 50% yearlong 3,167 3,167 3,167 3,167 

75% 

Antelope 6,000 6,000 summer; 2,980 2,980 2,980 2,980 

25% winter 

Wild Horses 415-600 415-600 33% yearlong 2,118 2,118 2,118 2,118 

*Estimates of AUMs were based on animal unit equivalents (AUE) specified in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement f

Management Program for the Salt 

Wells-Pilot Butte Area, 1983. 

*The stated AUMs for cattle and sheep are based on anticipated use (see livestock grazing assumptions in Section 4.4.4) and do not necessarily reflect actuto rangeland conditions. 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Chapter 4 

Table 4-12: Total Traffic Miles by Year for Oil and Gas Development

(in thousands of miles) 

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2

N. A. Large Truck 10 28 28 28 27 20 17 16 15 15 15 15 15 14 14 14 N.A. Medium Duty Truck 66 95 95 93 90 74 66 60 59 59 57 57 54 52 47 47 N.A. Pickup Truck 75 898 899 896 892 584 491 483 442 442 439 440 435 434 427 428 Alt. 1 Large Truck 10 30 30 30 29 22 19 18 18 18 18 18 17 16 15 14 Alt. 1 Medium Duty Truck 66 98 98 96 93 77 69 62 63 63 61 61 57 55 50 48 Alt. 1 Pickup Truck 75 984 985 983 979 670 577 569 570 570 568 568 564 520 514 470 Alt. 2 Large Truck 10 25 25 25 25 17 15 14 14 14 13 13 13 11 10 10 Alt. 2 Medium Duty Truck 66 92 92 90 87 71 63 56 56 56 55 55 51 47 42 42 Alt. 2 Pickup Truck 75 769 770 768 764 455 362 354 355 355 353 353 349 303 255 255 Alt. 3 Large Truck 10 27 27 27 26 19 16 15 15 15 14 14 14 13 13 13 Alt. 3 Medium Duty Truck 66 95 95 93 90 74 66 59 59 59 55 55 52 50 45 45 Alt. 3 Pickup Truck 75 856 856 854 850 541 449 441 442 442 395 396 391 390 383 384 Proposed Large Truck 10 27 27 27 26 19 16 15 15 15 14 14 14 13 13 13 Proposed Medium Duty Truck 66 95 95 93 90 74 66 59 59 59 55 55 52 50 45 45 Proposed Pickup Truck 75 856 856 854 850 541 449 441 442 442 395 396 391 390 383 384 

4-186 Jack Morrow 
Final EIS Chapter 5 

CHAPTER 5—CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) completed the Green River Resource Management Plan (RMP) 

in 1997. Management decisions in the Green River RMP on leasing fluid minerals and on locatable 

minerals were deferred from a portion of the Green River Resource Area referred to as the “core” area. 

These deferrals were necessary because information on potential mineral leasing or locations for mining 

claims was not yet sufficiently developed for making sound management decisions. The core area 

encompasses approximately 90,000 acres. The area to be addressed and analyzed for the Jack Morrow 

Hills Coordinated Activity Plan (JMH CAP) includes about 622,000 acres surrounding and including the 

core area. This represents the cumulative impact analysis area for the activity plan, because management 

of the core area could affect lands outside the core area and vice versa. 

The deferred mineral decisions and management of other resources in and around the core area were 

addressed in an original draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the JMH CAP. On January 22, 

1998, BLM mailed a scoping statement to the media, governmental agencies, environmental 

organizations, industry representatives, individuals, landowners, and grazing permittees. The scoping 

statement explained the general nature of the JMH CAP planning effort and requested initial comments 

concerning the level of analysis, resource information, and concerns. A notice of intent (NOI) to conduct 

public scoping and prepare an EIS was published in the Federal Register on February 5, 1998. More than 

190 comment letters were received during the scoping process. 

Meetings, including scoping, were held with the public on February 10, February 19, and March 19, 

1998, to provide information about the JMH CAP planning effort and to solicit public input. Two field 

tours and one additional open house were held on September 14 and October 27, 1998 (see Table 5-1 for 

a list of all public events). All comments received were considered in further defining the issues in the 

planning area and in developing and analyzing the alternatives for the original draft EIS. The original 

draft EIS was published in June 2000. A public review of the original draft EIS resulted in additional 

resource information and public comments that warranted reformulation and analysis of land management 

alternatives. Completion of the project was thus delayed to evaluate the comments and new information. 

An NOI was published in the Federal Register on December 6, 2001, to formally announce that the BLM 

Rock Springs Field Office (RSFO) was preparing a supplemental draft EIS for the JMH CAP. The notice 

invited the participation of the affected and interested agencies, organizations, and members of the 

general public in determining the scope and significant issues to be addressed in the planning alternatives 

and analyzed in the EIS. Additional public involvement was solicited to help identify issues to be 

addressed in developing a full range of land management alternatives (see Table 5-2 for a list of all public 

events). This chapter describes that process as well as other key consultation and coordination undertaken 

for the preparation of a comprehensive, supplemental draft EIS and final EIS for the JMH CAP. 

Table 5-1. JMH CAP Draft EIS (2000) Public Events 

Date Location Type 

February 10, 1998 Rock Springs Public Meeting 

February 19, 1998 Lander Public Meeting 

March 19, 1998 Rock Springs Public Meeting 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 5-1 
Chapter 5 Final EIS 

Table 5-1. JMH CAP Draft EIS (2000) Public Events (Continued) 

Date Location Type 

September 14, 1998 Field Tour 

Rock Springs Open House 

October 27, 1998 Field Tour 

February 24, 1999 Lander Open House 

February 25, 1999 Rock Springs Open House 

July 18, 2000 Lander Open House 

July 20, 2000 Rock Springs Open House 

July 21, 2000 Field Tour 

August 22, 2000 Lander Hearing 

August 23, 2000 Rock Springs Hearing 

June 29, 2001 Request for speaker at 

Rotary meeting 

Requested by Pati Smith, 

Senator Thomas’s field rep 

and Rotarian 

August 14, 2001 JMH Tour (Sean Whitman, Jody 

Levin, Selia Wallace— 

Senator Thomas’s office) 

September 28, 2001 WSO Briefing with Con Lass of 

Senator Thomas’s office. 

Covered basics. 

Washington Office Generic information 

sharing. JMH mentioned. 

See file. 

October 2, 2001 WSO Meeting to see what WOC 

was thinking concerning 

JMH; their ideas on an 

NCA proposal. 

Table 5-2. JMH CAP Supplemental Draft EIS and Final EIS Public Events 

Date Location Type 

December 11, 2001 Lander, Wyoming Fremont County 

Commissioners Meeting, 

Open House 

December 13, 2001 Rock Springs, Wyoming Open House 

January 8, 2002 Lander, Wyoming Public Scoping Meeting 

January 9, 2002 Rock Springs, Wyoming Meeting w/Cooperators 

Rock Springs, Wyoming Public Scoping Meeting 

January 17, 2002 Rock Springs, Wyoming Kiwanis Meeting 

February 27–28, 2002 Rock Springs, Wyoming Meeting w/Cooperators 

March 27, 2002 Rock Springs, Wyoming Elk Study Presentation 

April 3–4, 2002 Rock Springs, Wyoming Meeting w/Cooperators 

April 9, 2002 Rock Springs, Wyoming Public Meeting 

April 10, 2002 Lander, Wyoming Public Meeting 

April 17, 2002 Rock Springs, Wyoming Sweetwater County 

Democrats 

5-2 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 5 

Table 5-2. JMH CAP Supplemental Draft EIS and Final EIS Public Events (Continued) 

Date Location Type 

April 18, 2002 Laramie, Wyoming Wyoming Geological 

Survey 

May 2, 2002 Rock Springs, Wyoming Meeting w/Cooperators 

May 23, 2002 Rawlins, Wyoming Coordination with EPA 

June 26–28, 2002 Rock Springs, Wyoming Meeting w/Cooperators 

August 7, 2002 Rock Springs, Wyoming Tour with Director Kathleen 

Clarke 

August 8, 2002 Rock Springs, Wyoming Director Clarke Meets with 

Cooperators 

September 19–20, 2002 Rock Springs, Wyoming Meeting w/Cooperators 

November 8, 2002 Rock Springs, Wyoming Meeting w/Cooperators 

February 10, 2003 Rock Springs, Wyoming Meeting w/Cooperators 

March 5, 2003 Rock Springs, Wyoming Meeting w/Cooperators 

March 12, 2003 Rock Springs, Wyoming Open House 

March 13, 2003 Lander, Wyoming Open House 

April 9, 2003 Rock Springs, Wyoming Public Hearing 

April 10, 2003 Lander, Wyoming Public Hearing 

June 25, 2003 Rock Springs, Wyoming Meeting w/Cooperators 

September 10–11, 2003 Rock Springs, Wyoming Meeting w/Cooperators 

February 19, 2004 Rock Springs, Wyoming Meeting w/Cooperators 

5.1 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 

Coordination with other agencies and consistency with other plans for the initial (original) draft EIS were 

accomplished through frequent communications, meetings, and cooperative efforts between the BLM 

interdisciplinary team and involved federal, state, and local agencies and organizations. With the decision 

to prepare a supplemental draft EIS, BLM was provided the opportunity for participation of cooperating 

agencies. Coordination and consistency for the supplemental draft EIS and final EIS were therefore 

primarily accomplished through the assistance of cooperating agencies formally involved in the project 

(see Section 5.1.1 for a list of cooperating agencies and a description of their involvement). 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) was contacted in December 1998 for Endangered Species 

Act Section 7 consultation and threatened and endangered species lists. An updated species list was 

received in October 1999. As a result of this supplemental draft EIS effort, another updated species list 

was received in January 2002. Coordination with USFWS has also occurred throughout the process by 

phone. 

Coordination with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by phone and through various meetings 

has occurred throughout the JMH CAP effort since the original draft EIS. Topics discussed include 

comments on the original draft EIS, the adaptive management strategy, and general project updates. 

5.1.1 Coordination and Consistency 

Coordination with other agencies and consistency with other agency and local and state government plans 

were accomplished through frequent communications and cooperative efforts between BLM and involved 

federal, state, and local agencies. The Wyoming Governor’s Clearinghouse receives 20 copies of this final 

EIS for review to ensure consistency with ongoing state plans. The interdisciplinary team reviews county 

land use plans to ensure consistency. Meetings are held with the respective county planners and 

commissioners to promote greater understanding of goals, objectives, and resources of both the counties 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 5-3 
Chapter 5 Final EIS 

and BLM. Table 5-3 summarizes all coordination actions that BLM undertakes with federal, state, and 

local agencies. 

Table 5-3. Key Coordination Actions 

Agency Coordination/Responsibility 

FEDERAL AGENCIES 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) Coordinates mineral leasing and other activities that 

affect lands administered by the BOR. Reviews the 

JMH CAP for consistency with BOR planning. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Reviews actions affecting threatened or endangered 

species of fish, wildlife, or plants. Section 7 

consultation, coordination, and review. 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Reviews JMH CAP for consistency with USGS planning. 

Minerals Management Service 

(MMS) 

Reviews JMH CAP for consistency with MMS planning. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Forest Service Coordinates mineral leasing and other activities that 

affect lands administered by Forest Service. Reviews 

the JMH CAP for consistency with Forest Service 

planning. Proposed actions would also be discussed 

with the Wyoming State Forestry Division and other 

agencies involved in wildland fire management. 

Coordinates and cooperates with EPA and DEQ on 

monitoring and collection of air quality data. 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service–Wildlife Services 

Coordinate annual management plan for animal damage 

control activities on public lands. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Coordinates with Forest Service and DEQ on monitoring 

and collecting air quality data. Reviews air quality 

monitoring data. Files Federal Register notices. 

STATE AGENCIES 

State of Wyoming Participates in the environmental analysis and 

documentation process by providing information 

concerning environmental issues for which the State of 

Wyoming has jurisdiction by law or special expertise. 

Provides information from state records on matters 

including, but not limited to, JMH CAP project impacts 

on air quality and Class 1 air sheds, fish and wildlife, 

domestic livestock grazing, social and economic 

impacts, minerals, and State of Wyoming permitting 

requirements. 

Cooperates in the development of watershed 

improvement and restoration plans. This includes a 

focus on restoration activities where the state has 

identified water bodies impaired by pollutants for which 

BLM through best management practices can provide 

positive benefits and improvements. 

Wyoming DEQ Coordinates and cooperates on water quality, 

development of monitoring for visibility standards and 

guidelines, and collecting of air quality data. 

Wyoming State Forestry, 

Emergency Management Agency, 

State Fire Marshall’s Office 

Coordinates on management of prescribed fire and 

wildfire. 

Wyoming Game and Fish 

Department 

Coordinates and cooperates on vegetation manipulation 

projects, wildlife habitat management, and special status 

species. 

5-4 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 5 

Table 5-3. Key Coordination Actions (Continued) 

Agency Coordination/Responsibility 

STATE AGENCIES 

Wyoming Department of 

Transportation 

Coordinates and cooperates on transportation planning 

and highway access. 

State Historic Preservation Office Consults on compliance with Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act in accordance with the 

National Programmatic Agreement, as implemented in 

the Wyoming Protocol to that agreement. 

COUNTY AGENCIES 

Fremont County

Sublette County

Sweetwater County 

Participate in the environmental analysis and 

documentation process by providing information 

concerning environmental issues for which each 

specified county has jurisdiction by law or special 

expertise. Provide information on JMH CAP project 

impacts on domestic livestock grazing and social and 

economic impacts relating to each specified county. 

5.1.2 Cooperating Agencies 

The RSFO extended cooperating agency status to the State of Wyoming (including Sublette County, 

Fremont County, and Sweetwater County) for the JMH planning effort. The Wyoming Office of Federal 

Land Policy represents the State of Wyoming, with the following agencies designated as members: 

1. Wyoming State Geological Survey 

2. Wyoming Game & Fish Commission 

3. Wyoming DEQ–Water 

4. Wyoming Oil and Gas Commission 

5. Wyoming State Engineer’s Office 

6. Wyoming State Lands and Investments 

7. Wyoming State Forestry 

8. Wyoming Department of Agriculture 

9. Board of County Commissioners, Sublette County 

10. State Parks and Historic Sites 

11. State Historic Preservation Office 

12. Wyoming Business Council 

13. Wyoming Livestock Board 

14. Sublette County Conservation District 

15. Sweetwater County Conservation District 

16. Popo Agie Conservation District. 

The cooperating agencies were formally invited to participate in the development of the alternatives and 

to provide existing data and other information relative to their disciplines. In addition to numerous 

conference calls, the RSFO held meetings with the cooperating agencies to discuss the overall 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 5-5 
Chapter 5 Final EIS 

development of the JMH CAP and EIS. Table 5-4 provides the dates and purpose of all cooperating 

agency meetings held by the RSFO. 

Table 5-4. Cooperating Agency Meeting Schedule 

Meeting Date Purpose 

January 9, 2002 Discuss approach to the planning process and development of 

alternatives. 

February 27–28, 2002 Discuss approach to the planning process and development of 

alternatives. 

March 11, 2002 Work with BLM interdisciplinary team in developing alternatives. 

March 18, 2002 Work with BLM interdisciplinary team in developing alternatives. 

March 25, 2002 Work with BLM interdisciplinary team in developing alternatives. 

April 3–4, 2002 Discuss approach to the planning process and development of 

alternatives. 

May 2, 2002 Update the cooperating agencies on public comments concerning the 

alternatives and present the preliminary findings of the socioeconomic 

analysis and Reasonably Foreseeable Development scenario for fluid 

minerals. 

June 26–28, 2002 Review clarifications to the alternatives, discuss assumptions used in the 

impacts analysis, and discuss the analysis results. 

September 19–20, 2002 Present and review the Preferred Alternative. 

November 8, 2002 Discuss the Preferred Alternative and present and review the Adaptive 

Management Implementation Strategy. 

February 10, 2003 Discuss upcoming open houses and public hearings. 

March 5, 2003 Discuss methods to improve the process of cooperating agency 

involvement. Discuss upcoming public open houses and public 

comments received to date. 

June 25, 2003 Discuss the major issues raised by the public comments. Discuss future 

cooperator involvement concerning development of the final EIS. 

September 10–11, 2003 Discuss and review the Proposed JMH CAP, adaptive management 

appendix, proposed changes concerning wilderness issues, comment 

response appendix, and cumulative impact analysis. 

February 19, 2004 Discuss changes to the Proposed JMH CAP adaptive management 

strategy and provide an update on general project activities. 

May 20, 2004 Final briefing prior to release of FEIS. 

5.1.3 Native American Interests 

As part of the general scoping process for the original draft EIS, scoping letters were sent to the Northern 

Arapaho, Eastern Shoshone, Shoshone-Bannock, and Ute tribes, and to the Medicine Wheel Alliance. 

These letters described the JMH CAP project and asked for information and input. In addition, in spring 

1998, written communication was initiated with the four tribes. Letters were sent to the tribes requesting 

assistance in obtaining heritage resource management information for the planning area. BLM officials 

Bernard Weynand and Russel Tanner also met with the Medicine Wheel Alliance in June 1998. They 

outlined the JMH CAP planning effort to several elders at the meeting. As a result of this meeting, a tour 

with representatives of the Eastern Shoshone tribe was scheduled to identify the kinds of places that might 

be of concern to Native American peoples. A field tour was conducted with tribal representatives Haman 

Wise and Delphine Clair in September 1998. As a result of this tour, areas noted as “respected places” 

were identified. Management recommendations were identified and used in the alternative formulation 

process. Following the field trips, Haman Wise and Delphine Clair met with BLM staff archaeologists 

Russel Tanner and Terry Del Bene to discuss Native American concerns both in general and as related to 

several specific sites, such as rock art sites, petroglyphs, and altar and stone circle sites. Information 

gathered from these field trips and meetings was used in updating the BLM Heritage Resources database 

and in formulating management recommendations for rock art sites, the Steamboat Mountain area, 

Monument Ridge, Steamboat Rim, and stone circle and altar sites. 

5-6 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 5 

In November 1998, Tanner and Del Bene toured JMH with Eastern Shoshone elder Starr Weed and 

representatives Floyd Osborn and Diana Mitchell. A number of sites known to BLM were visited and 

general discussion occurred regarding management of sites of concern to Native American people. 

Mitchell commented that there should be an interpretive program that would help Native peoples 

appreciate the importance of their heritage. 

In March 1999, letters were sent to the Eastern Shoshone, Northern Arapaho, Shoshone-Bannock, and Ute 

tribes asking for comments on the JMH draft EIS. No responses to these letters were received. 

Since 1986, Native Americans (i.e., Haman Wise, John Tarnesse, and Delphine Clair) have been taken on 

tours of sites in the RSFO area that could be of concern to Native Americans relative to proposed 

developments. The other tribes (Northern Arapaho, Shoshone-Bannock, and Ute tribes) are known to 

have had a major presence in the area in historic times (i.e., 1650–1900) and have been invited to 

participate in all of the tours. However, they either did not respond to the invitation or indicated that the 

Eastern Shoshone could take the “lead.” 

As part of the process for developing the supplemental draft EIS and the final EIS, a letter was sent to the 

Eastern Shoshone Business Council on March 26, 2002, notifying it that BLM was updating information 

for developing the JMH CAP. The letter also provided a history of the Native American consultation 

associated with the earlier JMH CAP planning efforts and requested additional information, comments, 

and concerns regarding all issues (not just heritage resource issues). As of July 2002, no response had 

been received from the Business Council. 

On June 30, 2003, BLM again sent certified letters to the Eastern Shoshone, Northern Arapaho, 

Shoshone-Bannock, Ute, Crow, and Comanche tribal councils asking them to identify places of concern 

to them and requesting the names and contact information for any other persons with whom the councils 

would like BLM to consult concerning sacred sites or other places of concern to members of their tribes. 

BLM followed up on these letters with a series of telephone calls to tribal councils. No new information 

was provided by any of the tribal councils. 

Eastern Shoshone Chairman Vernon Hill responded to BLM telephone contact by scheduling a meeting 

for BLM representatives to meet with the Shoshone and Arapaho Joint Business Council on August 20, 

2003. Five BLM staff persons briefed the council members present at the meeting concerning the 

planning process, the consultation process, known places of concern to Native Americans and other 

issues, including wildlife habitat management. The council members asked a number of questions. 

Although no new information was given to BLM concerning specific places of concern, the meeting 

provided an excellent opportunity for BLM and tribal council members to meet and discuss these issues. 

On September 27 and October 3, 2003, a BLM representative joined public tours of the Jack Morrow 

Hills to discuss places of concern to Native Americans. These tours mainly involved members of the 

Arapaho and Shoshone tribes, including several Arapaho tribal council members. The BLM 

representative discussed known places of concern to Native Americans, including White Mountain 

Petroglyphs and the Indian Gap Trail. Again, no new information was provided to BLM; however, these 

tours provided yet another opportunity for BLM to reach out to Native American people to strengthen 

ongoing consultation relationships. 

On October 16, 2003, a slide show and lecture concerning sites of concern in the Jack Morrow Hills and 

archaeological issues in general was presented for the Eagle Staff Runners (a tribal youth group) at 

Wyoming Indian High School at Ethete, Wyoming. No new information was presented to BLM, but 

previously identified concerns were reinforced. 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 5-7 
Chapter 5 Final EIS 

BLM staff archeologist Russ Tanner was invited to present a slide program to a fifth grade class at 

Wyoming Indian Middle School in Ethete, Wyoming (on the Wind River Reservation), on November 24, 

2003. The slides and lecture concerned both sites in the Jack Morrow Hills and archaeological and 

anthropological issues in general. The 25 students and teachers present asked many good questions. No 

new information was presented to BLM. However, the students indicated a high interest in their own 

cultures, especially rock art sites. 

5.2 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 

5.2.1 Public Meetings 

5.2.1.1 Information Open Houses 

Two open houses were held in Lander and Rock Springs, Wyoming, on December 11 and 13, 2001, 

respectively. There were approximately 115 attendees at the meeting in Lander and 85 at the meeting in 

Rock Springs. After publishing the supplemental draft EIS, two additional open houses were held in 

Rock Springs and Lander, Wyoming, on March 12 and 13, 2003, respectively. There were approximately 

30 attendees at the meeting in Rock Springs and 70 at the meeting in Lander. 

The format of the open houses was informal, with stations organized around the room according to the 

resource areas and issues identified during the workshops and the scoping conducted previously by BLM. 

The stations displayed various geographic information system (GIS) inventory maps for the different 

resources and included the general location and relief maps of the JMH CAP planning area, cultural 

resources, minerals, geological resources, wildlife and vegetation resources, special management areas, 

recreation areas, and the planning process. Attendees viewed the stations and had one-on-one 

conversations with BLM and Booz Allen Hamilton staff about their questions and concerns. All 

attendees were encouraged to provide written comments. 

5.2.1.2 Scoping 

A public scoping notice was prepared and mailed to federal, state, and local agencies; interest groups; and 

members of the general public on December 18, 2001. The mailing lists were compiled from the lists for 

the initial scoping process and original draft EIS, and included a total of 645 entities. The notice invited 

the public to participate in the scoping process and to comment on the planning criteria. 

Public scoping meetings were held in Lander and Rock Springs, Wyoming, on January 8 and 9, 2002, 

respectively. There were approximately 84 attendees at the meeting in Lander and 77 at the meeting in 

Rock Springs. The format for the scoping meetings was similar to that of the information open houses, 

except that handouts were available at each of the stations summarizing the comments and issues 

concerning the specific resource as heard from the public, and a list of questions was posed on the 

management of the resources. A PowerPoint® presentation was also given at two different times during 

the meeting by the Assistant Field Manager of the RSFO. The presentation explained the purpose of 

public scoping and the background of the JHM CAP planning process. 

A total of 325 comment letters were received and entered into a database. There were 1,356 

issues/comments identified from the 325 comment letters. The top issue categories were minerals, 

grazing, and wildlife. A summary of these comments was then compiled as the “Jack Morrow Hills 

Coordinated Activity Plan Final Scoping Report, January 2002,” which can be viewed at: 

www.wy.blm.gov/rsfo. 

5-8 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 5 

5.2.1.3 Preliminary Draft Alternative Meetings 

The RSFO hosted two public meetings to present the preliminary draft alternatives and to request the 

public’s review and comment. The public meetings were held in Rock Springs and Lander, Wyoming, on 

April 9 and 10, 2002, respectively. There were approximately 83 attendees at the meeting in Rock 

Springs and 92 at the meeting in Lander. The format for the preliminary draft alternative meetings was 

similar to that of the information open houses and scoping meetings, except that handouts were available 

on each of the preliminary alternatives. A PowerPoint presentation was given by Booz Allen Hamilton 

overviewing the development of preliminary alternatives, followed by a question and answer session. A 

third-party facilitator was used to promote the involvement of all interested parties. 

5.2.2 Public Hearings 

Two public hearings were held in Rock Springs and Lander, Wyoming, on April 9 and 10, 2003, 

respectively. There were approximately 102 attendees at the hearing in Rock Springs, with 56 providing 

official testimony. Of the 138 attendees at the Lander hearing, 65 provided official testimony. 

The public hearings were conducted to provide the public an opportunity to comment on the JMH CAP 

and EIS. Attendees registered at the door of the hearing facility and indicated whether they would be 

providing official testimony. It was explained to the attendees that the purpose of the hearing was to 

provide an opportunity to receive comments on the JMH CAP and EIS, and that it was not a question and 

answer session. All attendees who provided testimony were asked to proceed to the microphone and 

provide their full name, affiliation (if any), and comments. Because of the number of attendees wishing 

to provide testimony, time limits of 5 and 3 minutes were set for Rock Springs and Lander, respectively. 

All oral comments submitted at the hearings were recorded and included in the official transcript for the 

hearings. 

5.2.3 Public Comments 

A total of 69,471 public comments were received via written, e-mail, Web-based, and oral 

communication (public hearings) from members of the public, governments, governmental agencies, and 

nongovernmental agencies. Comments received at public hearings were considered written comments 

based on the official public transcript taken. All comments were reviewed and evaluated for response as 

outlined in BLM Manual H-1790-1. Detailed responses to substantive comments are provided in 

Appendix 19. All comment letters that contain substantive information are included in their entirety in 

Appendix 19A (presented on enclosed CD). 

The number of comments received via each media source is as follows: 

• 60,288 e-mail comments 

• 53 Web-based comments 

• 9,130 written comments. 

The large majority (>99 percent) of e-mail comments are “form letter” type comments. Of the 60,288 email comments received, 60,020 are form letter comments. The primary resource values and uses 

discussed in the e-mail comments include minerals management, wildlife habitat, recreation, livestock 

grazing, wilderness values, travel and access management, and Native American values. The Web-based 

comments discuss various issues and topics, including existing gold claims, livestock grazing, new road 

construction, off-highway vehicle (OHV) use, travel and access, vegetation reclamation, and Native 

American values. The written comments also included 8,638 “form letter” type comments received in 

postcard format. The written comments include discussion of all resource values and uses. 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 5-9 
Chapter 5 Final EIS 

5.2.4 Mailing List 

The mailing list for public scoping was compiled from the lists for the initial scoping process and original 

draft EIS, and included a total of 645 entities. The mailing list has been continually updated since the 

initial scoping period for the original draft EIS and will be a basis for the distribution of the final EIS (see 

Section 5.3). 

5.2.5 Newsletters 

The February 2002 JMH CAP Update provided basic background information on the JMH CAP project, a 

scoping summary, an outline of the JMH CAP process, an update on JMH CAP alternatives development, 

and a general location map of the JMH CAP planning area. 

The April 2002 JMH CAP Update notified those on the mailing list of the preliminary draft alternative 

meetings on April 9 and 10, 2002, in Rock Springs and Lander, Wyoming. The newsletter also requested 

comments from the public on the preliminary draft alternatives and notified the public of the dates of the 

30-day public comment period. 

The November 2002 JMH CAP Update provided information on the visit to the JMH CAP planning area 

by BLM Director Kathleen Clarke and updated the public on where BLM was in the planning process. 

The newsletter also notified the public that the supplemental draft EIS would be available in CD format or 

hard copy, and that requests for copies should be sent to the RSFO. 

The November 2003 JMH CAP Update included a message from the new Rock Springs Field Manager 

and updated the public on changes they will see between the supplemental draft EIS and the final EIS and 

where the BLM was in the planning process. The newsletter also notified the public that the final EIS 

would be available in CD format or hard copy, and that requests for copies should be sent to the RSFO. 

5.2.6 Web Site 

The BLM Wyoming Web site has a link to the JMH CAP. The public can view current JMH CAP 

information and obtain documents, contacts, and other relevant project information. The Web site 

address is www.wy.blm.gov/rsfo. 

5.3 DISTRIBUTION LIST 

Federal Agencies 

Department of the Interior 

Bureau of Indian Affairs 

Bureau of Land Management 

Bureau of Reclamation 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

U.S. Geological Survey 

National Park Service 

Minerals Management Service 

Office of Environmental Affairs 

5-10 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 5 

Department of Agriculture 

Forest Service 

Natural Resource Conservation Service 

Department of Commerce 

Department of Defense 

Department of Energy 

Department of Housing and Urban Development 

Department of Transportation 

Environmental Protection Agency 

State of Wyoming 

Department of Environmental Quality 

Game and Fish Department 

Geological Survey of Wyoming 

Governor of Wyoming 

State Clearinghouse 

State Department of Transportation 

State Engineer 

State Historic Preservation Office 

University of Wyoming 

Wyoming Recreation Commission 

Wyoming State Forestry 

Federal Elected Officials 

Congresswoman Barbara Cubin 

Senator Craig Thomas 

Senator Mike Enzi 

State Elected Officials 

Senators and Representatives of Fremont, Sublette, and Sweetwater Counties 

Local Governments 

County governments of Fremont, Sublette, and Sweetwater Counties 

Cities of Green River, Rock Springs, Lander, and Superior 

Tribal Councils 

Northern Arapaho 

Eastern Shoshone 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 5-11 
Chapter 5 Final EIS 

Shoshone-Bannock 

Ute Tribal Councils 

Industry 

Anadarko

Black Butte Coal Co.

Bridger Coal Company

Chevron USA, Inc.

ExxonMobil

Hunt Oil

Marathon Oil Co.

Pacific Power

PacifiCorp

Questar Corporation

Questar Pipeline Co.

River Gas Corporation

Texaco Inc.

Texas Gulf, Inc.

Associations and Interest Groups 

American Humane Association 

Animal Protection Institute of America 

Biodiversity Conservation Alliance 

Defenders of Wildlife 

Environmental Defense Fund 

Fund for Animals 

Greater Yellowstone Coalition 

Independent Petroleum Association of Mountain States 

National Wildlife Federation 

Natural Resources Defense Council 

Oregon-California Trails Association 

Petroleum Association of Wyoming 

Public Lands Advocacy 

Rock Springs Grazing Association 

Sierra Club 

Southwest Wyoming Industrial Association 

Sweetwater Economic Development Association (SWEDA) 

The Nature Conservancy 

Wilderness Society 

5-12 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 5 

Wyoming Outdoor Council 

Wyoming Wildlife Federation 

Others 

All individuals who submitted a request 

5.4 LIST OF PREPARERS 

Table 5-5. List of Preparers 

Name Job/Project Title JMH CAP Responsibility 

BLM Rock Springs Field Office 

Michael R. Holbert Field Manager Review 

Stan McKee Field Manager Review 

Ted Murphy Assistant Field Manager Review 

Bernie Weynand Assistant Field Manager Review 

Hank Castillon Assistant Field Manager Support Services 

Rey Adame Public Affairs Officer Public Affairs 

Sherry Blackburn Geologist Solid and Locatable Minerals, 

Geologic Hazards, Groundwater 

Lance Brady GIS Specialist GIS Data 

Fred Crockett Geologist Fluid Minerals 

Renée Dana Resource Advisor Project Coordination 

Susan Davis Petroleum Engineer Fluid Minerals 

Teri Deakins Environmental Protection 

Specialist NEPA Compliance 

Shelly Devoss Physical Scientist 

Surface Disturbance, 

Reclamation, Hazardous 

Materials 

Dennis Doncaster Hydrologist Watershed, Surface Water 

Bob Fischer Engineer Engineering Support, 

Transportation 

Jo Foster Outdoor Recreation Planner 

Recreation, Visual Resources, 

Off-Highway Vehicle Use, 

Wilderness, Transportation 

Jim Glennon Botanist Vegetation, Woodlands, 

Sensitive Plants 

Patricia Hamilton Realty Specialist Lands, Access, Realty 

John Henderson Fisheries Biologist Riparian, Wetlands, Fisheries 

Lorraine Keith Wildlife Biologist Wildlife, Threatened and 

Endangered Species 

John MacDonald Natural Resource Specialist Soils 

Lance Porter Rangeland Management 

Specialist Rangelands 

Jim Procarione Mining Engineer Adaptive Management 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 5-13 
Chapter 5 Final EIS 

Table 5-5. List of Preparers (Continued) 

Name Job/Project Title JMH CAP Responsibility 

Angelina Pryich Writer/Editor Editing 

George Schoenfeld Environmental Scientist 

Surface Disturbance, 

Reclamation, Hazardous 

Materials 

Thor Stephenson Rangeland Management/Wild 

Horse Specialist Wild Horses, Fire 

Dean Stilwell Geologist Fluid Minerals 

Russ Tanner Archaeologist Heritage Resources 

David Valenzuela Geologist 

Assistant Team Leader, Solid 

and Locatable Minerals, 

Geologic Hazards, Groundwater 

BLM Wyoming State Office 

Roy Allen Economist Socioeconomics 

Susan Caplan Physical Scientist Air Quality 

Janet Kurman Environmental Protection 

Specialist Environmental Coordination 

Dale Hanson Paleontologist Paleontology 

Roger Lawrence Visual Information Specialist Illustrations/Cover 

Sheri Morris Printing Specialist Typesetting, Printing 

Larry Neasloney GIS Specialist GIS Technical Assistance, 

Mapping 

Joe Patti Natural Resource Specialist; 

Field Planning Coordinator 

WSO Planning and NEPA 

Technical/Policy Guidance, 

Coordination among Field and 

WSO Staffs 

Cathy Simmons Printing Technician Typesetting, Printing 

Andy Tenney Outdoor Recreation Planner 

Recreation, Visual Resources, 

Off-Highway Vehicle Use, 

Wilderness, Transportation 

Booz Allen Hamilton 

David Baxter Project Manager Project Management 

Dean Bibles Senior Advisor, Public Lands Quality Assurance/Quality 

Control 

Tonia Bleecher Deputy Program Manager, 

Public Lands 

Quality Assurance/Quality 

Control 

Michael Ghazizadeh Geologist Mineral Resources 

Joel Hanson GIS Specialist GIS Data, Mapping 

Greg Kloberdanz Planning Specialist 

Cultural Resources, 

Transportation, Visual 

Resources 

Bryan Klyse Environmental Planner Land and Water Resources, 

NEPA Compliance 

Robert Lane Program Manager, Public Lands Quality Assurance/Quality 

Control 

5-14 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Chapter 5 

Table 5-5. List of Preparers (Continued) 

Name Job/Project Title JMH CAP Responsibility 

Amy Lovelady GIS Specialist GIS Technical Assistance 

Colleen Maguire GIS Specialist GIS Data, Mapping 

Lisa McDonald Economist Socioeconomics 

Kasey Pearson Deputy Project Manager 

Land and Water Resources, 

NEPA Technical/Policy 

Guidance 

Stuart Strum Geologist Mineral Resources 

Lloyd Tabing Planning Specialist 

Special Management Areas, 

Transportation, and Recreation 

Resources 

Marshall Worthey GIS Specialist GIS Data, Mapping 

Margo Goldman Senior Editor Editing 

Louise Price Editor Editing 

Carolyn Quinn Editor Editing 

Ellen Loeb Editor Editing 

Linda Billard Editor Editing 

Jody Belleman Desktop Publisher Desktop Publishing 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 5-15 
Final EIS Acronyms 

ACRONYMS

ACEC Area of Critical Environmental Concern 

ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

AIRFA American Indian Religious Freedom Act 

AML Appropriate Management Level 

AMP Allotment Management Plan 

ANC Acid Neutralizing Capacity 

APD Application for Permit to Drill (an oil or gas well) 

APHIS Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (USDA) 

ARPA Archeological Resource Protection Act 

AUE Animal Unit Equivalent 

AUM Animal unit month 

BBLS Barrels (a measure of the quantity of condensate) 

BCF Billion cubic feet (a measure of quantity of natural gas) 

BEA Bureau of Economic Analysis 

BLM Bureau of Land Management 

CAP Coordinated Activity Plan 

CASTNet Clean Air Status and Trends Network 

CDNST Continental Divide National Scenic Trail 

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality 

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CIAA Cumulative Impact Analysis Area 

COA Condition of Approval 

CRMP Cultural Resource Management Plan 

CSR Channel stability rating 

CSU Controlled Surface Use 

DBH Diameter at Breast Height 

DEQ Department of Environmental Quality 

DPC Desired Plant Community 

EA Environmental Assessment 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

EJ Environmental Justice 

FLPMA Federal Land Policy and Management Act (of 1976) 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan A-1 
Acronyms Final EIS 

FMU Forest management unit 

FR Federal Register 

FTE Full-time equivalent 

GIS Geographic Information System 

GRBAC Green River Basin Advisory Council 

GRRA Green River Resource Area 

GRRMP Green River Resource Management Plan 

HMA Herd Management Area 

HMP Habitat management plan 

IBLA Interior Board of Land Appeals 

IM Instruction Memorandum 

IMPROVE Inter-Agency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments 

JMH Jack Morrow Hills 

KGS Known geologic structure 

KSLA Known sodium leasing area 

LAC Level of Acceptable Change 

MBF Thousand board feet (a measure of timber volume) 

MCF Thousand cubic feet 

MFP Management Framework Plan (pre-FLPMA BLM land use plan) 

MMBF Million board feet (a measure of timber volume) 

MMCF Million cubic feet 

MMS Minerals Management Service 

MOU Memorandum of Understanding 

MSL Mean sea level 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

NADP National Atmospheric Deposition Program 

NCA National Conservation Area 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act (of 1969) 

NHL National Historic Landmark 

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act 

NNL National Natural Landmark 

NOI Notice of Intent 

NPS National Park Service 

NRA National Recreation Area 

NRHP National Register of Historic Places 

A-2 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Acronyms 

NSO No Surface Occupancy (a stipulation on an oil and gas lease) 

NWPS National Wilderness Preservation System 

OHV Off-Highway Vehicle 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

ORV Off-Road Vehicle 

PAH Polyaromatic Hydrocarbon 

PFC Proper Functioning Condition (of riparian/wetland areas) 

PM Particulate Matter 

PRLA Preference Right Lease Application 

PSD Prevention of Significant Determination 

R&PP Recreation and Public Purposes Act 

RAMP Recreation Area Management Plan 

RFA Reasonably Foreseeable Action 

RFD Reasonably Foreseeable Development 

RNA Research Natural Area 

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (1976) 

RMIS Recreation Management Information System 

RMP Resource Management Plan (BLM land use plan under FLPMA) 

ROD Record of Decision 

ROS Recreational Opportunity Spectrum 

ROW Right of Way 

RSFO Rock Springs Field Office 

RVD Recreational Visitor Day 

SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer 

SMA Special Management Area 

SRMA Special Recreation Management Area 

SWEDA Sweetwater Economic Development Association 

T&E Threatened and Endangered 

TCLP Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure 

TCP Traditional Cultural Places 

TDS Total Dissolved Solids 

USDA United States Department of Agriculture 

USDI United States Department of the Interior 

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

USGS U.S. Geological Survey 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan A-3 
Acronyms Final EIS 

VOC Volatile Organic Compound 

VRM Visual Resource Management 

W&SR Wild & Scenic River(s) 

WAAQS Wyoming Ambient Air Quality Standards 

WARMS Wyoming Air Resources Monitoring System 

WGFD Wyoming Game and Fish Department 

WHHA Wild Horse Herd Area 

WO Washington Office 

WS Wildlife Services 

WSA Wilderness Study Area 

WUI Wildland-Urban Interface 

WYDEC Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality 

WYDOT Wyoming Department of Transportation 

WYNDD Wyoming Natural Diversity Database 

A-4 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Glossary 

GLOSSARY

ACTIVE DUNE. A hill or accumulation of sand shaped by wind. A dune is active when constantly 

changing form under wind currents. Generally, an active dune is bare of vegetation. 

ACTIVE LEK. Any lek that has been attended by male sage-grouse during the strutting season. 

ACTIVE RAPTOR NESTING SITE. An active raptor nest is one that has been occupied within the 

past 3 years. 

ACTIVE GREATER SAGE-GROUSE LEK. Any lek that has been attended by male sage-grouse 

during the strutting season. Presence can be documented by observation of birds using the site or by 

signs of strutting activity. 

ACTIVE USE. The current authorized use, including livestock grazing and conservation use. Active use 

may constitute a portion, or all, of permitted use. Active use does not include temporary nonuse or 

suspended use of forage within all or a portion of an allotment. 

ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT. A systematic process for continually improving management policies 

and practices by learning from the outcomes of actions over time. It employs management programs 

that are designed to continuously compare selected policies or practices and is an integrated method for 

addressing uncertainty that focuses on implementing actions, thoroughly monitoring results, and 

modifying actions when warranted. It recognizes that the complex interrelationships of physical, 

biological, and social components of the ecosystem and how they would react to land management 

practices are often not fully understood when land-use management plans are developed. 

ALLOTMENT. An area allocated for livestock use by one or more qualified grazing permittees 

including prescribed numbers and kinds of livestock under one plan of management. 

ANIMAL INN. An information and education program focused on the value of dead, dying, and hollow 

trees for wildlife and fish. Animal Inn is an awareness-building program, not a regulatory program. 

ANIMAL UNIT MONTH (AUM). The amount of forage to sustain one mature cow or the equivalent, 

based on an average daily forage consumption of 26 pounds of dry matter per day. The equivalent 

animal units for other ungulate species, based on a weight conversion (3 percent body weight per day), 

are 10.5 for antelope, 7.6 for deer, 2.1 for elk, 1.2 for moose, 0.9 for wild horses, and 5.2 for sheep. 

APPROPRIATE MANAGEMENT LEVEL (AML). The optimum number of wild horses that 

provides a thriving natural ecological balance on the public range. 

AQUIFER. A saturated, permeable sediment or rock that can transmit significant quantities of water 

under hydraulic gradients. 

AREA OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN (ACEC). Areas within the public lands 

where special management attention is required (when such areas are developed or used or where no 

development is required) to protect and prevent irreparable damage to important historic, cultural, or 

scenic values, fish and wildlife resources, or other natural systems or processes, or to protect life and 

safety from natural hazards. The identification of a potential ACEC shall not, of itself, change or 

prevent change of the management or use of public lands. 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan G-1 
Glossary Final EIS 

AVOIDANCE AREA (for Rights-of-Way). Areas on public lands where future rights-of-way may be 

granted only when no feasible alternative route or designated right-of-way corridor is available. 

AVOIDANCE AREA. An area where the preferred strategy for managing surface disturbing and 

disruptive activities is to avoid sensitive resources. Activities would be relocated. Where avoidance is 

determined not to be feasible, intensive mitigation to prevent adverse effects to the sensitive resource 

would be required. The extent of avoidance areas may vary, depending on the sensitive resources 

involved. 

BADLAND. Surface features characterized by sharp erosional scar sculpture of weak rocks, forming 

steep, furrowed, and fantastically shaped hills, labyrinth-like drainage patterns, and normally dry 

watercourses. 

BIODIVERSITY. See Biological Diversity. 

BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY. The variety of life and its processes, including the variety of living 

organisms, the genetic differences among them, and the communities and ecosystems in which they 

occur. 

CANDIDATE SPECIES. A plant or animal species whose numbers are declining so rapidly that official 

listing as threatened or endangered pursuant to Section 4 of the Endangered Species Act may become 

necessary as a conservation measure. Declines may be due to one or more factors, including 

destruction, modification, or curtailment of the species’ habitat or range; over-utilization for 

commercial, sporting, scientific, or educational purposes; disease or predation; the inadequacy of 

existing regulatory mechanisms; or other factors. 

CASUAL USE. Activities that involve practices that do not ordinarily lead to any appreciable 

disturbance, change, or damage to lands, resources, and improvements. For example, activities that do 

not involve use of heavy equipment or explosives and that do not involve vehicular movement except 

over established roads and trails are casual use. 

CHECKERBOARD LAND PATTERN. Alternating sections of federally owned lands and private or 

state lands on either side of the Union Pacific railroad in southwestern Wyoming. This pattern of land 

ownership looks like a checkerboard on maps, using different colors to show land status. 

CHERRYSTEMMED. Term describing a WSA boundary that is drawn around a dead end road or other 

linear feature to exclude it from the WSA. 

COALBED GAS (OR COALBED METHANE). Adsorbed gas stored in micropores, cleats, and the 

molecular structure within coal beds. In coalbed gas accumulations, hydrostatic pressure exerted on the 

adsorbed gas is a primary trapping mechanism. The gas itself is almost entirely methane and 

commonly contains small amounts of other hydrocarbons, hydrogen, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, 

and nitrogen. 

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (COA). Conditions or provisions (requirements) under which a sitespecific surface disturbing or human presence activity (e.g., application for permit to drill (APD), 

sundry notice, ROW) is approved. COAs must be reasonable and consistent with lease rights. 

CONNECTIVITY AREA. A key wildlife habitat area that connects and includes crucial big game 

habitats. The area includes topographic relief for escape cover, important year-round forage, crucial 

winter range, and birthing areas for a majority of the deer and elk populations. The area allows for free 

G-2 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Glossary 

movement of animals among the various habitat components and provides an important migratory 

corridor throughout the year. 

CONSUMPTIVE USE. Recreation activities that consume natural resources. Hunting and fishing are 

regarded as consumptive recreation because wildlife species are consumed. Rockhounding is 

consumptive because nonrenewable resources are removed. 

CONTROL LINE. Comprehensive term for all constructed or natural barriers and treated fire edges 

used to control a fire. 

CONTROLLED SURFACE USE (CSU). A stipulation that allows use and occupancy (unless 

restricted by another stipulation), but that requires special operational constraints that may modify the 

lease rights, for identified resource values. Controlled surface use serves as operating guidance, not as 

a substitute for the NSO or timing limitation stipulations. 

CRUCIAL HABITAT (RANGE). Can describe any particular seasonal range or habitat component 

(often winter or winter/yearlong range in Wyoming) that has been documented as the determining 

factor in a population’s ability to maintain itself at a certain level (theoretically at or above the 

population objective) over the long term. For example, the total crucial winter range for an elk herd 

unit should be available, relatively intact, and allow a population at objective to survive the winter in 

adequate body condition and to maintain average reproductive rates 8 out of 10 years. 

CURRENT ANNUAL GROWTH. The amount of forage produced by a plant in one growing season. 

DESIRED FUTURE CONDITION. A future land or resource condition that achieves a set of 

compatible multi-resource goals and objectives. 

DESIRED PLANT COMMUNITY. The plant community that provides the vegetation attributes 

required for meeting or exceeding RMP vegetation objectives. The desired plant community must be 

within an ecological site’s capability to produce these attributes through natural succession, 

management action, or both (BLM Wyoming Instruction Memorandum 91-290, 5/29/91). 

DISRUPTIVE ACTIVITIES. The physical presence, sounds, and movements of people and their 

activities (on, below, or above the land surface) that may cause displacement of or excessive stress to 

wildlife during critical life stages (breeding, nesting, birthing) or during periods of severe weather 

conditions. Examples of disruptive activities include noise, traffic, human presence, well drilling, and 

seismic and other exploration activity. 

DISTURBANCE ZONE. Area of influence around a disturbance causing a change in animal behavior 

such as leaving the area, increased stress, abandoning young, not breeding, and aberrant behavior. 

Examples of disturbances include road construction and road use, facility construction and placement, 

pipeline construction, field facility maintenance, rights-of-way construction, and range improvement 

construction. 

DROUGHT. A prolonged chronic shortage of water, compared with the norm, often associated with 

high temperatures and winds during spring, summer, and fall or a period without precipitation during 

which the soil water content is reduced to such an extent that plants suffer from lack of water. 

ECOLOGICAL CONDITION. See Ecological Status. 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan G-3 
Glossary Final EIS 

ECOLOGICAL STATUS. As defined in the BLM’s monitoring manuals: “the present state of 

vegetation of a range site in relation to the potential natural community for the site. Ecological status is 

use independent. It is an expression of the relative degree to which the kinds, proportions, and amounts 

of plants in a plant community resemble that of the potential natural community. The four ecological 

status classes correspond to 0–25, 26–50, 51–75, or 77–100 percent similarity to the potential natural 

community and are called early seral, mid seral, late seral, and potential natural community, 

respectively (this replaces range condition).” 

EOLIAN ICE-CELLS. Perennial ice formed from snowfall and insulated from summer heat by a cover 

of windblown sands. This ice feeds small ponds (flockets) within the dunes. 

EPHEMERAL STREAM. A stream that flows only in direct response to precipitation, and whose 

channel is above the water table at all times. See Intermittent Stream and Perennial Stream. 

ERODIBILITY. The tendency of a soil to erode as influenced by texture under specified salts, structure, 

or slope. 

EXCLOSURE. Study or experimental plot rested from livestock grazing. A portion of land rested from 

livestock grazing. Exclosures may be established as study or experimental areas or as protection for 

key habitats. 

EXCLUSION AREA. Areas where future rights-of-way may be granted only when mandated by law. 

EXISTING ROADS AND VEHICLE ROUTES. Routes existing prior to the date of designation, 

constructed or created by the frequent passage of motor vehicles, and receiving regular and continuous 

use. Additional vehicle routes may be authorized, as need dictates. 

EXTIRPATION. Elimination. 

FINE FUELS. Fast-drying dead fuels, generally characterized by a comparatively high surface area-tovolume ratio, which are less than 1/4 inch in diameter and have a time lag of 1 hour or less. These fuels 

(i.e., grass, leaves, needles, etc.) ignite readily and are consumed rapidly by fire when dry. 

FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN. Statement, for a specific area, of fire policy, objective, and prescribed 

action; may include maps, charts, tables, and statistical data. 

FIRE SUPPRESSION. All work and activities associated with fire-extinguishing operations, beginning 

with discovery and continuing until the fire is completely extinguished. 

FLOCKETS. A local term for the ponds and associated wet meadows created in the sand dunes from 

melting eolian ice cells. 

FLUID MINERAL. Oil, gas, and geothermal resources. 

FORAGE. Vegetation of all forms available and of a type used for animal consumption. 

FORBS. Any broad-leafed herbaceous plant, other than grasses, sedges, and rushes. These are generally 

flowering plants with tap roots, broad leaves, netlike veins, and solid non-joint stems. 

FOREGROUND. A view, usually from a heritage-based key observation point, such as a traditional 

cultural property or respected place, that takes in about a 270-degree span of influence. Topography, 

G-4 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Glossary 

vegetation, and intrusions and barriers (both manmade and natural) are considered in identifying the 

viewshed area and are taken into consideration in development and analysis of appropriate measures. 

FUEL LOAD. Oven-dry weight of fuel per unit area (usually expressed in tons/acre). 

FUEL TREATMENT. Any manipulation or removal of fuels to reduce the likelihood of ignition and/or 

to lessen potential damage and resistance to control (e.g., lopping, chipping, crushing, piling, and 

burning). 

FULL-TIME EQUIVALENT (FTE). A measurement of employment that is not equal to jobs or 

persons; rather, it is based on hours worked (e.g., one person full time or two people half time both 

equal one FTE). 

FUNCTIONAL—AT RISK. Riparian-wetland areas that are in functional condition, but an existing 

soil, water, or vegetation attribute makes them susceptible to degradation (Prichard, et al., 1993). In 

addition, see Non-Functional and Proper Functioning Condition. 

GAS WELL DENSITY. As defined in the Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission rules, 

Chapter 3. Section 2. (b), the area: “Any gas wells drilled in the area described as Township 12 North 

through Township 28 North and Range 89 West through Range 121 West shall be located in the center 

of a one hundred-sixty (160) acre subdivision, or lot or tract or combination of lots or tracts 

substantially equivalent thereto, not closer than one thousand one hundred-twenty feet (1,120’) to the 

exterior boundaries of the quarter section. All areas subject to existing orders for drilling and spacing 

units in the above described area shall be exempt from the aforesaid gas well location requirements. 

Further, this rule is vacated for all federal exploratory units in the above described area provided that no 

gas well will be drilled closer than one thousand one hundred-twenty feet (1,120’) to the exterior 

boundaries of the unit nor to any uncommitted acreage within the unit. Upon unit contraction, lands 

deleted from the unit shall thereafter be subject to this rule.” 

GREATER SAGE-GROUSE CONCENTRATION AREA. Greater sage-grouse leks, nesting habitat, 

and early and late brood-rearing habitat. 

GREATER SAGE-GROUSE SUITABLE HABITAT. Habitat fitting the characteristics described in 

Table 3-14. These parameters may be adjusted based on site-specific analysis and variables (e.g., 

weather). For information on other habitat types see Greater Sage-Grouse Management Practices 

(Appendix 6). 

GREATER SAND DUNES RECREATION AREA. The active sand dunes in the eastern portion of 

the Greater Sand Dunes ACEC. This area (10,020 acres) is open to off-highway vehicle use. 

GROWING SEASON. In temperate climates, that portion of the year when temperature and moisture 

are usually most favorable for plant growth. 

HABITAT. A specific set of physical conditions in a geographic area(s) that surrounds a single species, 

a group of species, or a large community. In wildlife management, the major components of habitat are 

food, water, cover, and living space. 

HAZARDOUS MATERIAL. A comprehensive term adopted by BLM to include a wide range of 

hazardous and toxic substances and hazardous wastes that require special management. 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan G-5 
Glossary Final EIS 

HERBICIDE LOADING. The process of transferring, mixing, and other processing of chemicals and 

associated cleaning of equipment; does not include the actual application procedures used in accordance 

with label instructions. 

HERITAGE RESOURCES. Physical remains of human activity (i.e., artifacts, ruins, burial mounds, 

petroglyphs, etc.) having scientific, prehistoric, or social values. 

HISTORIC LANDSCAPE. A geographic area, including both historic and natural features, associated 

with an event, person, activity, or design style that is significant in American history. 

HISTORIC LEK. A lek that has been active during at least one strutting season within the last 10 years. 

HISTORIC RAPTOR NESTING SITE. An area of high topographic relief, particularly cliff areas, 

known to have supported concentrations of nesting raptors, such as Cedar Canyon, Four-J Basin, and 

Kinney Rim. 

HUMAN-CAUSED FIRE. Any fire caused directly or indirectly by person(s). 

HUNTER-DAY. A unit of measure defined as the presence of one person in an area for the purpose of 

engaging in a hunting activity during all or part of one calendar day. 

HYDRIC SOIL. A soil that is saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the growing season to 

develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part. 

HYDROPHOPIC SOILS. Water-repellant soils. 

HYDROPHYTE. Any plant that grows in water or on a substrate that is at least periodically deficient in 

oxygen as a result of excessive water content; plants typically found in wetlands and other aquatic 

habitats. 

HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION. Plant life growing in water or on a substrate that is at least 

periodically deficient in oxygen as a result of excessive water content. 

IMPACT. Synonymous with effect. Includes ecological, aesthetic, historic, cultural, economic, social, or 

health, whether direct, indirect, or cumulative. Impacts may also include those resulting from actions 

that may have both beneficial and detrimental (adverse) effects. Impacts may be considered as direct, 

indirect, or cumulative: 

Direct: Impacts caused by an action that occur at the same time and place as the action itself. 

Indirect: Impacts caused by the action that occur later in time or farther removed in distance, but that are 

still reasonably foreseeable. 

Cumulative: Impacts that result from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency or person undertakes such 

other actions. 

INACTIVE LEK. Leks where it is known that there was no strutting activity through the course of a 

strutting season. 

INHOLDING. A non-federal parcel of land that is completely surrounded by federal land. 

G-6 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Glossary 

INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAM (IDT). Any necessary combination of BLM staff, consultants, 

contractors, other governmental personnel, and advisors to achieve an interdisciplinary approach. 

INTERMITTENT STREAM. A stream that flows only at certain times of the year when it receives 

water from springs or from some surface source such as melting snow in mountainous areas. See 

Ephemeral Stream and Perennial Stream. 

INVASIVE. A non-native species (with respect to a particular ecosystem) whose introduction does or is 

likely to cause harm to the economy, environment, or human health. 

JEOPARDIZE. To engage in an action that reasonably would be expected, directly or indirectly, to 

reduce appreciably the likelihood of both the survival and recovery of listed species in the wild by 

reducing the reproduction, number, or distribution of a listed species or otherwise adversely affecting 

the species. 

LEASABLE MINERALS. Minerals subject to lease by the Federal Government; include oil and gas, 

coal, phosphate, sodium, potash, and oil shale, as well as geothermal resources. 

LEASE NOTICE. Notices (not to be confused with Notices to Lessees) that are attached to leases and 

that provide detailed information concerning limitations that already exist in law, lease terms, 

regulations, or operational orders. A Lease Notice also addresses special items the lessee should 

consider when planning operations but does not impose new or additional restrictions. 

LEK. A traditional courtship display and breeding area attended by male sage-grouse in or adjacent to 

sagebrush-dominated habitat. 

LOCATABLE MINERALS. Minerals subject to disposal and development through the Mining Law of 

1872 (as amended). Generally includes metallic minerals such as gold and silver and other materials 

not subject to lease or sale. 

MANAGEMENT BY MONITORING AND ADJUSTING. A management strategy employed in many 

resource areas to adjust resource usage to conditions and impacts. The condition of the planning area 

resources is evaluated to determine whether additional use is compatible with achieving management 

goals or objectives. The impacts of the new or expanded use are acceptable or require mitigation. 

MECHANIZED VEHICLES. Mechanical transport designed to replace human labor and/or human 

physical capabilities. Mechanized vehicles include mountain bikes, horse-drawn wagons, big game 

carriers, handcarts, and hang gliders. 

MINERAL POTENTIAL. The ability of land to produce minerals, which falls into three categories: 

High: Applies to those lands currently producing oil or gas or having high current industry interest. 

Moderate: Applies to those lands that have had oil and gas shows in favorable geologic environments. 

Low: Applies to those lands where either the geologic environment appears to be favorable for the 

accumulation of oil and gas, or where little or no information is available to evaluate the oil and gas 

potential. 

MINIMUM HEIGHTS. The amount of plant material remaining during the grazing season. 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan G-7 
Glossary Final EIS 

MODIFICATION. A fundamental change in the provisions of a lease stipulation, either temporarily or 

for the term of the lease. A modification may include an exemption from or alteration to a stipulated 

requirement. The modification may or may not apply to all other sites within the leasehold to which the 

restrictive criteria apply. 

MOSAIC. A landscape composed of patches of discrete ecological sites and/or seral stages in a variety 

of sizes and shapes. 

MOUNTAIN PLOVER AGGREGATION AREA. An area with two or more observations, (within 2 

miles of each other during one breeding season) of one of the following: territorial adults nests, adult 

distraction displays, or broods. 

MULTIPLE USE. As defined in section 103 of the FLPMA, “... management of the public lands and 

their various resource values so that they are utilized in the combination that will best meet the present 

and future needs of the American people; making the most judicious use of the land for some or all of 

these resources or related services over areas large enough to provide sufficient latitude for periodic 

adjustments in use to conform to changing needs and conditions; the use of some land for less than all 

the resources; a combination of balanced and diverse resource uses that takes into account the long-term 

needs of future generations for renewable and nonrenewable resources, including but not limited to, 

recreation, range, timber, minerals, watershed, wildlife and fish, and natural scenic, scientific, and 

historical values; and harmonious and coordinated management of the various resources without 

permanent impairment of the productivity of the land and the quality of the environment with relative 

consideration being given to the relative values of the resources and not necessarily to the combination 

of uses that will give the greatest return or the greatest unit output.” 

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES. A list of districts, sites, buildings, structures, and 

objects significant in American history, architecture, archaeology, and culture. 

NATIVE AMERICAN RESPECTED PLACE. A term used by Eastern Shoshone representatives to 

describe places that are of interest to individual tribal members and should be respected. The term 

encompasses a wide range of features including stone cairns, alignments such as Medicine Wheels, rock 

art sites, and sometimes much less complex features such as small piles of rocks. For some Shoshone, 

the term would apply to any place with evidence of ancient habitation. Sometimes a “respected place” 

may indicate where a Native American, at some time in the distant past, made a prayer or an offering, 

or it may mark the location of a significant event in this individual’s life. Respected places are not 

always significant to the entire tribe; however, upon seeing the feature, tribal members would “respect” 

the place because it was important to the individual who created it. Respected places often would not 

qualify as sacred sites or traditional cultural properties, although at times they may meet the regulatory 

definitions of those property types. 

NATURALNESS. In section 2(c) of the Wilderness Act, the wilderness characteristic in which an area 

“generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man’s 

work substantially unnoticeable.” 

NON-CONSUMPTIVE RECREATION. Wildlife-associated recreation that is not fishing, hunting, or 

trapping. Non-harvesting activities, such as feeding, photographing, and observing fish and other 

wildlife, picnicking, camping, etc., are non-consumptive wildlife activities. 

NON-FUNCTIONAL. Describes riparian-wetland areas that clearly are not providing adequate 

vegetation, landform, or large woody debris to dissipate stream energy associated with high flows and 

G-8 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Glossary 

thus are not reducing erosion, improving water quality, etc., as listed under Proper Functioning 

Condition. 

NO SURFACE OCCUPANCY (NSO). A designation for an area where no surface disturbing activities 

or surface disturbance, of any nature or for any purpose, will be allowed. 

NOTICE TO LESSEES (NTL). A written order issued by the authorized officer to implement 

regulations and operating orders. It serves as instructions on specific item(s) of importance within a 

state, district, or area. 

OCCUPIED HABITAT. Habitat that has a species present at some time of the year. This can include 

yearlong habitat, winter ranges, and movement corridors. 

OCCUPIED LEK. A lek that has been active during at least one strutting season within the last 10 

years. 

OCCUPIED RAPTOR NESTING SITE. An area of high topographic relief that contains raptors or 

raptor eggs or on which nest building is actively occurring. 

OCCUPIED SAGE-GROUSE LEK. A lek that has been active during at least one strutting season 

within the last 10 years. 

OFF-HIGHWAY VEHICLE. Any motorized vehicle capable of, or designated for, travel on or 

immediately over land, water, or other natural terrain, excluding: (1) any non-amphibious registered 

motorboat; (2) any military, fire, emergency, or law enforcement vehicle while being used for 

emergency purposes; (3) any vehicle whose use is expressly authorized by the authorized officer, or 

otherwise officially approved; (4) vehicles in official use; and (5) any combat or combat support vehicle 

when used in times of national defense emergencies (43 CFR 8340.0-5(a)). 

OFF-HIGHWAY VEHICLE MANAGEMENT DESIGNATIONS. Designations applied to all offroad vehicles regardless of the purposes for which they are being used. Emergency vehicles are 

excluded. The OHV designation definitions have been developed in cooperation with representatives of 

the U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Park Service, and BLM state and district personnel. BLM recognizes the 

differences between off-highway vehicles and over-the-snow vehicles in terms of use and impact. 

Therefore, travel by over-the-snow vehicles will be permitted off existing routes and in all open or 

limited areas (unless otherwise specifically limited or closed to over-the-snow vehicles) if they are 

operated in a responsible manner without damaging the vegetation or harming wildlife. Designations 

include— 

Closed: Designation for areas in which vehicle travel is prohibited. Access by means other than 

motorized vehicle is permitted. 

Open: Designation permitting vehicle travel in the area (both on and off roads) if the vehicle is operated 

responsibly in a manner not causing, or unlikely to cause significant, undue damage to or disturbance of 

the soil, wildlife, wildlife habitat, improvements, cultural, or vegetative resources or other authorized 

uses of the public lands. 

Limited: 

a. Designation permitting vehicle travel only on existing roads and vehicle routes that were in existence 

prior to the date of designation in the Federal Register. Vehicle travel off of existing vehicle routes is 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan G-9 
Glossary Final EIS 

permitted only to accomplish necessary tasks and only if such travel does not result in resource 

damage. Random travel from existing vehicle routes is not allowed. Creation of new routes or 

extensions and/or widening of existing routes is not allowed without prior written agency approval. 

b. Vehicle travel is permitted only on roads and vehicle routes designated by BLM. In areas where final 

designation has not been completed, vehicle travel is limited to existing roads and vehicle routes as 

described above. Designations are posted as follows: 

1. Vehicle route is open to vehicular travel. 

2. Vehicle route is closed to vehicular travel. 

c. Vehicle travel is limited by number or type of vehicle. Designations are posted as follows: 

1. Vehicle route limited to four-wheel drive vehicles only. 

2. Vehicle route is limited to motorbikes only. 

3. Area is closed to over-the-snow vehicles. 

d. Vehicle travel is limited to licensed or permitted use. 

e. Vehicle travel is limited to time or season of use. Posted as follows:

Seasonal closure to all motor vehicles (the approximate dates of closure are indicated).

f. Where specialized restrictions are necessary to meet resources management objectives, other 

limitations may also be developed. Posted as follows: 

Recreational OHV play areas. 

PALEOSOL. A term used by archeologists and some geologists to refer to an ancient soil deposit. 

Paleosols are particularly important because they often contain evidence about some of the earliest 

cultures to inhabit North America. 

PERENNIAL STREAM. A stream that flows continuously. Perennial streams are generally associated 

with a water table in the localities through which they flow. 

PERMANENT FACILITY. Any structure that exists on location for 1 year or more. 

PERMITTED USE. The forage allocated by, or under the guidance of, an applicable land use plan for 

livestock grazing in an allotment under a permit or lease and is expressed in AUMs. 

POTENTIAL HABITAT. An area that displays similar environmental characteristics (such as 

elevation, soil type, precipitation, associated species, slope and aspect) as the known habitat of the 

subject species. 

PRECIPITATION. Any or all forms of water particles, liquid or solid, that fall from the atmosphere 

and reach the ground. 

PRESCRIBED BURNING. Controlled application of fire to wildland fuels in either their natural or 

modified state, under specified environmental conditions that allow the fire to be confined to a 

G-10 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Glossary 

predetermined area and at the same time to produce the fire line intensity and rate of spread required to 

attain planned resource management objectives. 

PRESCRIBED FIRE. A fire burning within prescription, resulting from planned or unplanned ignition. 

PRESCRIPTION. Written statement defining objectives to be attained as well as temperature, humidity, 

wind direction and wind speed, fuel moisture content, and soil moisture under which a fire will be 

allowed to burn, generally expressed as acceptable ranges of the various indices, and the limit of the 

geographic area to be covered. 

PROPER FUNCTIONING CONDITION. A designation describing riparian-wetland areas that 

contain adequate vegetation, landform, or large woody debris to dissipate stream energy associated with 

high water flows, thereby reducing erosion and improving water quality; filter sediment, capture 

bedload, and aid floodplain development; improve flood-water retention and ground-water recharge; 

develop root masses that stabilize stream banks against cutting action; develop diverse ponding and 

channel characteristics to provide the habitat and the water depth, duration, and temperature necessary 

for fish production, waterfowl breeding, and other uses; and support greater biodiversity. The 

functioning condition of riparian-wetland areas is a result of interaction among geology, soil, water, and 

vegetation. See also Functional-At Risk, Nonfunctional. (Prichard, et al., 1993) 

PUBLIC LAND. Land administered by the Bureau of Land Management. 

RANGELAND IMPROVEMENTS. Any activity or program on or relating to rangelands that is 

designed to improve forage production, change vegetation composition, control patterns of use, provide 

water, stabilize soil and water conditions, and enhance habitat for livestock, wildlife, and wild horses 

and burros. Rangeland improvements include land treatments (e.g., chaining, seeding, burning, etc.), 

stockwater developments, fences, and trails. 

RANGE READINESS. Stage of plant development at which grazing may begin in an area, pasture, or 

allotment without damage to vegetation or soil. 

RAPTOR. A bird of prey, such as an eagle, hawk, or owl. 

RARE SPECIES. Wildlife species whose populations are consistently small and widely dispersed, or 

whose ranges are restricted to a few localities, such that any appreciable reduction in numbers, habitat 

availability, or habitat condition might lead toward extinction. 

RECHARGE AREA. The surface area where water enters an aquifer to recharge the water-bearing 

strata in a groundwater system. 

RECLAMATION. The reconstruction of disturbed sites by returning the land to a condition 

approximate or equal to that which existed prior to disturbance, or to a stable and productive condition 

compatible with the land use plan. The immediate goal of reclamation is to stabilize disturbed areas 

and protect both disturbed and adjacent undisturbed areas from unnecessary degradation. 

RECREATION VISITOR DAY. Any recreational activity taking place within a 24-hour period, or 

portion thereof, for each individual recreating on public lands. 

RESTRICTED CONTROL AREA. Public land areas where control activities may be planned for the 

designated control period, but control authorization may be limited to certain methods or times of the 

year. Restrictions placed on control are for multiple-use considerations, including, but not limited to, 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan G-11 
Glossary Final EIS 

safety of humans and their pets; wilderness study areas; bird hunting areas; dog sledding areas; or other 

sites frequented by dogs; protection of threatened or endangered wildlife; unique recreation values; and 

avoidance of repetitive disturbance of wintering big game herds, wintering bald eagles, and raptor 

nesting concentration areas. 

RIPARIAN. Situated on or pertaining to the bank of a river, stream, spring, or other body of water. 

Normally used to refer to the plants of all types that grow rooted in the water table or streams, ponds, 

springs, etc. 

SACRED SITE. A specific, discrete, narrowly delineated location on federal land that has been 

identified by an Indian tribe, or by an appropriate representative of an Indian religion, as sacred by 

virtue of its established religious significance to, or ceremonial use by, an Indian religion. An Indian 

tribe or religious authority must inform the federal agency of the existence of the site in order for 

protections to be afforded to the location (from the American Indian Religious Freedom Act and 

Executive Order 13007). 

SALABLE MINERALS. Minerals that may be sold under the Material Sale Act of 1947, as amended. 

Included are common varieties of sand, stone, gravel, and clay. 

SALINITY. The concentration of dissolved salts in water. It is used to indicate the existence of saline 

soils. The electrical conductivity (EC) of a saturated extract is the standard measure of salinity and is 

expressed as mmhos/om. Classes of salinity and their electrical conductivity level: non-saline—less 

than 2; very slightly saline—2–4; slightly saline—4–8; moderately saline—8–16; strongly saline— 

greater than 16. 

SEASONAL UTILIZATION. The amount of utilization that occurs within a growing season. 

SEASON-LONG USE. Grazing throughout the growing period, with little or no effort to control the 

amount of distribution of livestock use in area/pasture/allotments; also referred to as passive, 

continuous grazing. 

SECTION 106 CONSULTATION. Also known as the 36 CFR 800 process. Discussions between a 

federal agency official and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, State Historic Preservation 

Officer, and other interested parties concerning historic properties that could be affected by a specific 

undertaking. Section 106 is the portion of the National Historic Preservation Act that outlines the 

procedure. The procedure is codified in 36 CFR 800. 

SEEDLINGS. A tree grown from seed that has not reached a height of 3 feet or a diameter of 2 inches. 

SENSITIVE RESOURCES. Sensitive resources for the JMH CAP planning area are as follows: 

1. Wilderness Study Areas 

2. Active (unstabilized) sand dunes 

3. Slopes > 20 percent 

4. ACEC values (visual, recreation opportunities, health and safety, cultural/historical) 

5. Integrity of core area wildlife habitat (limiting fragmentation) 

6. Key habitat (unique vegetation and plant communities) 

7. Key habitat (e.g., escape cover, parturition areas) 

8. Cultural/Native American respected places, historical values 

9. Connectivity Area 

G-12 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Glossary 

10. Inaccessible areas (overlapping resource concerns, i.e., 1–8 above) 

11. Special status plant species 

12. Stabilized dunes 

13. Visual values (VRM Class II areas). 

SERAL STAGE. The relatively transitory communities that develop under plant succession generally 

described as early, mid, and late seral stages. The mix of seral or successional stages on the landscape 

can be the result of disturbances, topography and soil, climate, uses of the land, management 

prescriptions, vegetation classification categories, and evaluation procedures. 

SOLID WASTE. Any solid, liquid, or contained gaseous material that is no longer used and is either 

disposed of, incinerated, recycled, or stored until needed again. Excluded from this definition of solid 

wastes (by 40 CFR 261.2) are: a) domestic sewage, b) industrial wastewater discharges from point 

sources, c) irrigation return flow, and d) in-situ mining materials. 

SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREAS. An area containing one or a combination of unique resources or 

values that receive more intensive management (e.g., ACECs, Special Recreation Management Areas, 

Wild & Scenic Rivers, etc.). 

SPECIAL RECREATION MANAGEMENT AREA. BLM administrative units established to direct 

recreation program priorities, including the allocation of funding and personnel, to those public lands 

where a commitment has been made to provide specific recreation activity and experience opportunities 

on a sustained yield basis. This includes a long-term commitment to manage the physical, social, and 

managerial settings to sustain these activity and experience opportunities. Delineation is based on 

administrative/management criteria including the existence of congressional designations, similar or 

interdependent recreation values, homogenous or interrelated recreation uses, land tenure and use 

patterns, transportation systems, administrative efficiency, intensity of use, high resource values, public 

concerns, or interagency considerations. These areas usually require a high level of recreation 

investment and/or management. They include recreation sites, but recreation sites alone do not 

constitute a special recreation management area. 

SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES. Wildlife and plant species either federally listed or proposed for listing 

as endangered, threatened, or candidate; state-listed or BLM-determined priority species. 

STABILIZED DUNE. A sand dune protected from wind action by a cover of vegetation. 

STIPULATION. A restriction placed on an oil and gas lease or other use authorization to protect other 

resources (e.g., a seasonal restriction to protect big game in their winter range or in their calving areas). 

The restriction precludes or restricts activities. 

SURFACE DISTURBANCE. Describes any action created through mechanized or mechanical means 

that would cause soil mixing or result in alteration or removal of soil or vegetation and expose the 

mineral soil to erosive processes. Used in the literal context of actual, physical disturbance and 

movement or removal of the land surface and vegetation. Examples of surface disturbance include 

construction of well pads, pits, reservoirs, pipelines, and facilities (parking lot, tanks). 

SUSTAINED YIELD. The achievement and maintenance in perpetuity of a high-level annual or regular 

periodic output of the various renewable resources of the public lands consistent with multiple use. 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan G-13 
Glossary Final EIS 

THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES. As defined by the Endangered Species Act of 1973 

as amended (P.L. 93-205; 87 Stat. 884), an endangered species means “any species which is in danger 

of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range” and a threatened species means “any 

species which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or 

a significant portion of its range.” Whether a species is threatened or endangered is determined by the 

following factors: (1) present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or 

range; (2) over utilization for commercial, sporting, scientific, or educational purposes; (3) disease or 

predation; (4) inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (5) other natural or human-made 

factors. 

TRADITIONAL CULTURAL PROPERTY. A category of historic property within the regulations 

implementing the National Historic Preservation Act. A place associated with cultural practices or 

beliefs of a living community that is rooted in that community’s history and is important in maintaining 

the continuing cultural identity of the community (from USDI, 1998C). Continuity of use of the place 

is implicit in the regulations. 

TREAD LIGHTLY! A land-use ethics program that encourages individuals and groups to minimize 

their direct impact on an area. 

TRONA. A naturally occurring sodium sesquicarbonate that was formed in ancient saline lakes. It is 

generally honey or light brown in color, depending upon the impurities present. It is the major natural 

source of soda ash. 

UNDETERMINED LEK. Any lek that has not been documented as being active in the last 10 years but 

does not have sufficient documentation to be designated historical. 

UNKNOWN LEK. Leks that have not been documented either active or inactive during the course of a 

strutting season. 

UTILIZATION. The portion of forage that has been consumed (or destroyed) by livestock, wild horses, 

wildlife, and insects during a specified period. The term is also used to refer to the pattern of such use 

(43 CFR 4100.0-5). 

VEGETATION TREATMENTS. Land treatment projects designed to improve the growth of more 

desirable plant species. Biological, chemical, or mechanical methods of vegetation removal, including 

prescribed burns, are used. 

VISUAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT (VRM) CLASS. The following are the definitions of the 

four VRM classes: 

Class I. The objective of this class is to maintain a landscape setting that appears unaltered by humans. It 

is applied to wilderness areas, some natural areas, wild portions of the wild and scenic rivers, and other 

similar situations where management activities are to be restricted. 

Class II. The objective of this class is to design proposed alterations in a manner that retains the existing 

character of the landscape. The level of change to the characteristic landscape should be low. 

Management activities may be seen, but should not attract attention of the casual observer. Any 

changes must repeat the basic elements of form, line, color, and texture found in the predominant 

natural features of the characteristic landscape. 

G-14 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Glossary 

Class III. The objective of this class is to design proposed alterations in a manner that partially retains the 

existing character of the landscape. Contrasts to the basic elements (form, line, color, and texture) 

caused by management activity may be evident and begin to attract attention in the characteristic 

landscape. However, the changes should remain subordinate to the existing characteristic landscape. 

Structures located in the foreground distance zone (0–1/2 mile) often create a contrast that exceeds the 

VRM class, even when designed to harmonize and blend with the characteristic landscape. This may be 

especially true when a distinctive architectural motif or style is designed. Approval by the Field 

Manager is required on a case-by-case basis to determine whether the structure(s) meet the acceptable 

VRM class standards, and if not, whether they add acceptable visual variety to the landscape. 

Class IV. The objective of this class is to provide for management activities that require major 

modification of the existing character of the landscape. Contrasts may attract attention and be a 

dominant feature of the landscape in terms of scale; however, the change should repeat the basic 

elements (form, line, color, and texture) inherent in the characteristic landscape. Structures located in 

the foreground distance zone (0–1/2 mile) often create a contrast that exceeds the VRM class, even 

when designed to harmonize and blend with the characteristic landscape. This may be especially true 

when a distinctive architectural motif or style is designed. Approval by the Field Manager is required 

on a case-by-case basis to determine whether the structure(s) meet the acceptable VRM class standards, 

and if not, whether they add acceptable visual variety to the landscape. 

WAIVER. A permanent exemption from a lease stipulation for the entire leasehold. 

WATERSHED. All land and water within the confines of a drainage divide. 

WETLAND. Lands where at least periodic inundation or saturation with water (either from the surface 

or subsurface) is the dominant factor determining the nature of soil development and the types of plant 

and animal communities living there. These include the entire zones associated with streams, lakes, 

ponds, springs, canals, seeps, wet meadows, and some aspen stands. Wetlands support all fish. They 

also support more species of wildlife (in higher densities) than any other habitat type in the planning 

area. They comprise less than 1 percent of the public land acreage. 

Wetlands are lands that are transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the water table is 

usually at or near the surface or the land is covered by shallow water. For purposes of this document, 

wetlands must have one or more of the following three attributes: (1) at least periodically, the land 

supports predominantly hydrophytes, (2) the substrate is predominantly undrained hydric soil, and (3) 

the substrate is non-soil and is saturated with water or covered by shallow water at some time during the 

growing season of each year. 

WILDERNESS STUDY AREA (WSA). Areas under study for possible inclusion as a Wilderness Area 

in the National Wilderness Preservation System. 

WILDFIRE. Any fire occurring on wild land that neither meets management objectives nor occurs 

within a prescribed fire area, thus requiring a suppression response. 

WILDLAND URBAN INTERFACE (WUI). Location where human structures meet or intermix with 

wildland vegetation. 

WITHDRAWAL. Removal or withholding of public lands, by statute or Secretarial order, from 

operation of some or all of the public land laws. A mineral withdrawal includes public lands potentially 

valuable for leasable minerals, precluding the disposal of the lands except with a mineral reservation 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan G-15 
Glossary Final EIS 

clause unless the lands are found not to contain a valuable deposit of minerals. A mineral withdrawal is 

the closing of an area to mineral location and development activities. 

G-16 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Literature Cited 

LITERATURE CITED

Ahern, J.; M. Collentine; and S. Cooke 1981. “Occurrence and Characteristics of Ground Water in the Green River 

Basin and Overthrust Belt, Wyoming.” Report to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Volume V-A. 

Water Resources Research Institute, University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming. 

Anderson, Stanley PhD. 1999. Personal communication. Coop Leader, USGS-University of Wyoming Fish and 

Wildlife Coop. 

Barlett, Bill 1998. Telephone conversation with Teri Deakins of the BLM regarding housing in Fremont County, 

June 1998. Barlett is a Realty Specialist in the BLM Field Office in Lander, Wyoming. 

Barlow & Haun, Inc. 1994. “Accessibility to the Greater Green River Basin Gas Supply, Southwestern Wyoming.” 

For Gas Research Institute, Chicago, Illinois. 185 pp. 

Barlow & Haun, Inc. 1994. “Accessibility to the Greater Green River Basin Gas Supply, Southwestern Wyoming.” 

for Gas Research Institute, GRI Contract No. 5903-212-2683, GRI-94/0363. 

Barlow & Haun, Inc. 1998. Comment Letter to Bureau of Land Management, Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated 

Activity Plan Scoping Notice, March 4, 1998. 

Bastron, Alvin F.; Richard R. Stapp; Jim H. Adsit; and Bartlett E. Olson 1965. “Construction Materials Survey, 

Interstate Route 80; Flaming Gorge Junction to Point of Rocks Section.” Wyoming State Highway 

Department and U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of Public Roads, Cheyenne, Wyoming. 

Bayley, Richard W.; Paul Dean Proctor; and Kent C. Condie 1973. “Geology of the South Pass Area, Fremont 

County, Wyoming.” U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper, 793, 39 pp. 

Beauvais, G. P. and R. Smith. 1999. “Occurrence of breeding mountain plovers (Charadrius montanus) in the 

Wyoming Basins ecoregion.” Prepared by the Wyoming Natural Diversity Database for the USDI Bureau 

of Land Management, Rock Springs, Wyoming. 

Bock, Ryan and F. Lindzey 1999. “Preliminary Report for the Jack Morrow Hills Desert Elk Study.” Wyoming 

Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University of Wyoming. 

Bourgeron, P.S. and L.D. Engelking 1994. “A Preliminary Vegetation Classification of the Western United States.” 

The Nature Conservancy, Western Heritage Task Force, Boulder, Colorado. 

Bradley, W.H. 1964. “Geology of Green River Formation and Associated Eocene Rocks in Southwestern Wyoming 

and Adjacent Parts of Colorado and Utah.” U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper, 496-A, pp A1-A86. 

Braun, C.E. 1986. “Changes in sage grouse lek counts with advent of surface coal mining.” Proceedings of Issues 

and Technology in the Management of Impacted Western Wildlife. Thone Ecological Institute. 2:227–231. 

Breithaupt, B.H. 1982. “Paleontology and paleoecology of the Lance Formation (Maastrichtian), east flank of Rock 

Springs Uplift, Sweetwater County, Wyoming.” Contributions to Geology, University of Wyoming, 

21(2):123–151. 

Bromley, M. 1985. “Wildlife management implications of petroleum exploration and development in wildland 

environments.” USDA, Forest Service Intermountain Research Station General Technical Report, INT191, Ogden, Utah. 

Bruns, E.H. 1977. “Winter behavior of pronghorns in relation to habitat.” Journal of Wildlife Management 

41(3):560–570. 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan L-1 
Literature Cited Final EIS 

Chadwick, Howard W. and Paul D. Dalke 1965. “Plant Succession on Dune Sands in Fremont County, Idaho.” 

Ecology 46:6. 

Clark, R. and Stankey, G. 1979. “The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum: a framework for planning, management, 

and research.” General Technical Report PNW-GTR-98. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest 

and Ranger Experiment Station. Portland, Oregon. 32 pp. 

Collentine, M.; R. Libra; K.R. Feathers; and L. Hamden 1981. “Occurrence and Characteristics of Ground Water in 

the Great Divide and Washakie Basins, Wyoming.” Report to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Water Resources Research Institute, Volume VI-A, University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming. 

Connelly, John W.; Michael A. Schroeder; Alan R. Sands; and Clait E. Braun 2000. “Guidelines to manage sage 

grouse populations and their habitat.” Wildlife Society Bulletin 28(4):967–985. 

Culbertson, W.C.; J.W. Smith; and L.G. Trudell 1980. “Oil Shale Resources and Geology of the Green River 

Formation in the Green River Basin.” U.S. Department of Energy, Laramie Energy Technology Center, 

Laramie, Wyoming. 

Culwell, D. 1992. Personal communication with Barb Amidon (BLM Rock Springs District Botanist) on November 

4, 1992. Culwell is with WESTECH-Western Technology and Engineering Inc. (in District files). 

Dana, G. and J. Smith 1976. “Nature of Black Water Occurrence, Northern Green River Basin,” Wyoming 

Geological Association Earth Science, Bulletin 9(1), Laramie, Wyoming. 

Dantzker, Marc S.; Deane, Grant B.; and Bradbury, Jack W. 1999. “Directional Acoustic Radiation in the Strut 

Display of Male Sage Grouse Centrocercus urophasianus.” The Journal of Experimental Biology 

202:2893–2909. 

Deblinger, R.D. 1988. “Ecology and behavior of pronghorn in the Red Desert, Wyoming with reference to energy 

development.” PhD Dissertation, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. 

Devoto, Bernard 1943. The Year of Decision 1846. Little, Brown and Company. Boston, MA. 

Diedrich, Robin 1999. Personal conversation with Dean Stilwell on February 4, 1999, about the assumptions and 

range of drilling levels in Jack Morrow Hills. Diedrich is a geologist for North American Resources 

Company, Wyoming. 

Dorn, R. 1990. “Report on the status of Arabis pusilla, a Candidate Threatened Species.” Report to U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Denver, Colorado. 

Dorn, Robert D. 1986. The Wyoming Landscape, 1805–1878. Mountain West Publishing. pp 46–55. 

Easterly, T.E.; A.W. Wood; and T. Litchfield 1991. “Responses of pronghorn and mule deer to petroleum 

development on crucial winter range in the Rattlesnake Hills.” Wyoming Game and Fish Department. 

Unpublished report. 

Environmental Protection Agency 1971. “Community Noise.” Prepared by the Wyle Laboratories for EPA Office 

of Noise Abatement Control, Washington DC. 

Federal Register 1978. Endangered Species Act of 1973. 43:6230–6233, February 14, 1978. 

Fertig, W. 1990. “Status Report on Antennaria arcuata in Central Wyoming.” Prepared for the Bureau of Land 

Management by the Wyoming Natural Diversity Database under Cooperative Agreement #K910-A4-0011 

Task Order #007. Unpublished. Laramie, Wyoming. 

L-2 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Literature Cited 

Fertig, W. 1994. “Status Report on Oryzopsis contracta, a USFWS Category 2 Candidate Species.” Prepared for 

the Bureau of Land Management by the Wyoming Natural Diversity Database under Cooperative 

Agreement #K910-A4-001 1. Unpublished. Laramie, Wyoming. 

Fertig, W. 1995. “Status Report on Lesquerella macrocarpa in Southwestern Wyoming.” Prepared for the Bureau 

of Land Management by the Wyoming Natural Diversity Database under Cooperative Agreement 

#K910-A4-0011 Task Order #003. Unpublished. Laramie, Wyoming. 

Fertig, W. 1996a. “Status Report on Antennaria arcuata in Central Wyoming.” Prepared for the Bureau of Land 

Management by the Wyoming Natural Diversity Database under Cooperative Agreement #K910-A4-0011 

Task Order #007. Laramie, Wyoming. 

Fertig, W. 1996b. Wyoming Plant Species of Special Concern, 1996 edition. Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, 

Laramie, Wyoming. 

Fertig, W. 1998. “Plant Species of Special Concern of the Ross Butte Ecosystem, Sublette County, Wyoming.” 

Prepared for the Bureau of Land Management by the Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, Laramie, 

Wyoming. 

Fertig, W.; L. Welp; and S. Markow 1998. “The Status of Rare Plants in Southwest Wyoming.” Prepared for the 

Bureau of Land Management, Wyoming State Office by the Wyoming Natural Diversity Database under 

Cooperative Agreement # K910-A4-0011, Task Order TO-14. Laramie, Wyoming 

Fischer, R.A.; A.D. Apa; W.L. Wakkinen; K.P. Reese; and J.W. Connelly 1993. “Nesting area fidelity of sage 

grouse in southeastern Idaho.” Condor 95:1038–1041. 

Freddy, D.J. 1979. “Measuring heart rates of mule deer using a repeater-type telemetry system.” pp 144–155, in 

F.M. Long (ed.), Proceedings of the second international conference on wildlife biotelemetry. Laramie, 

Wyoming. 

Fremont County Planning 1998. “Draft Fremont County Land Use Plan, First Draft, May 1998.” Lander, 

Wyoming. 

Frison, George C. 1971. “Shoshonean Antelope Procurement in the Upper Green River Basin, Wyoming.” Plains 

Anthropologist 16 (54):258–284. 

Frison, George C. 1998. Telephone conversation with Russel Tanner, BLM archaeologist concerning the Krmpotich 

Site. Frison is emeritus professor of anthropology at the University of Wyoming and member of the 

National Academy of Sciences. 

Gas Research Institute 1996. “Emerging Resources in the Greater Green River Basin, Upper Cretaceous Gas Atlas.” 

CD-ROM, Version 1.0. GRI-96/0096. 

Geo/Resource Consultants, Inc. 1984. Green River Basin Geologic Resources Inventory. 

George, G. R. 1992. “Pine Canyon, in Wyoming Oil and Gas Fields Symposium Greater Green River Basin and 

Overthrust Belt.” Wyoming Geological Association, pp 252–255. 

Gibson, R.M. 1989. “Field playback of male display attracts females in lek breeding sage grouse.” Behavioral 

Ecology and Sociobiology 24:439–443. 

Gusey, W.F. 1986. “Terrestrial Wildlife and the Petroleum Industry: Inter-actions and Relationships.” Unpublished 

draft report, Shell Oil Company. Houston, Texas. 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan L-3 
Literature Cited Final EIS 

Hanf, J.M.; P.A. Schmidt; and E.B. Groshens 1994. “Sage grouse in the high desert of central Oregon: results of a 

study, 1988-1993.” United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Series P-SG-01. 

Prineville, Oregon, USA. 

Harris, L.D. 1988. “The Nature of Cumulative Impacts on Biotic Diversity of Wetland Vertebrates.” 

Environmental Management 12(5):675–693. 

Hausel, W.D; W. Sutherland; and R. Gregory 1995. “Lamproites, Diamond Indicator Minerals, and Related 

Anomalies in the Green River Basin, Wyoming.” Wyoming Geological Association Guidebook, Wyoming 

State Geological Survey, Laramie, Wyoming. 

Hayden-Wing Associates 1991. Review and evaluation of Triton Oil and Gas Corporation's proposed coal bed 

methane field development. Final report prepared for Triton Oil and Gas Corp., Dallas, Texas, 92 pp. 

Hayden-Wing Associates 1990. “Response of Elk to Exxon’s Field Development in The Riley Ridge Area of 

Western Wyoming 1979-1990.” Final report prepared for Exxon Company, USA and Wyoming Game and 

Fish Department, 33 pp. 

Heath, B.J.; R. Straw; S.H. Anderson; and J. Lawson 1997. “Sage Grouse Productivity, Survival, and Seasonal 

Habitat Use Near Farson, Wyoming.” Completion Report. Wyoming Game and Fish Department. pp 14– 

16. 

Hershey, T.J. and T.A. Leege 1976. “Influences of logging on elk on summer range in north-central Idaho.” in S. 

R. Hieb (ed.), Proceedings of the Elk-logging-roads symposium, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho. pp 

73–80. 

Hiat, G.S. and D. Baker 1981. “Effects of oil/gas drilling on elk and mule deer winter distributions on Crooks 

Mountain, Wyoming.” Wyoming Game and Fish Department. Unpublished report. 

Hobbs, N.T. 1989. “Linking energy balance to survival in mule deer: development and test of a simulation model.” 

Wildlife Monograph 101:1–39. 

Holloran, M. J. 1999. “Sage grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) seasonal habitat use near Casper, Wyoming.” 

Thesis, University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming. 

Johnson, Bruce and Lee Wollrab 1987. “Response of Elk to Development of a Natural Gas Field in Western 

Wyoming 1979–1987.” Riley Ridge Natural Gas Project, Elk Wildlife Study Report. 

Jones, G. and W. Fertig 1996. “Plant Associations and Plant Species of Special Concern in the Jack Morrow Hills 

Ecosystem.” Prepared for the Bureau of Land Management by the Wyoming Natural Diversity Database 

under Cooperative Agreement #K910-A4-0011 Task Order #006. Unpublished. Laramie Wyoming. 

Jones, G.P. 1992. “Wyoming Plant Community Classification.” Wyoming Natural Diversity Database (The Nature 

Conservancy), Laramie, Wyoming. 

Kautz, M.A.; W.W. Mautz; and L.H. Carpenter 1981. “Heart rate as a predictor of energy expenditure of mule 

deer.” Journal of Wildlife Management 45:715–720. 

Knight, D.H; R.J. Hill; and A.T. Harrison 1976. “Potential Natural Landmarks in the Wyoming Basin: Terrestrial 

and Aquatic Ecosystems.” Prepared for the U.S. Department of Interior, National Park Service by the 

Department of Botany, University of Wyoming, Laramie. Contract No. 9900X20047. Laramie, Wyoming. 

Knight, Dennis 1994. Mountains and Plains: The Ecology of Wyoming Landscapes. Yale University Press, p 121. 

Kuck, L.; G.L. Hompland; and E.H. Merrill 1985. “Elk Calf Response to Simulated Mine Disturbance in Southeast 

Idaho.” Journal of Wildlife Management 49(3):751–757. 

L-4 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Literature Cited 

LaGory, Kirk E.; Young-Soo Chang; K.C. Chun; Timothy Reeves; Richard Liebich; and Karen Smith 2001. “A 

Study of the Effects of Gas Well Compressor Noise on Breeding Bird Populations of the Rattlesnake 

Canyon Habitat Management Area, San Juan County, New Mexico.” Prepared for the U.S. Department of 

Energy by the Argonne National Laboratory, Environmental Assessment Division, Argonne, Illinois. 

Contract No. W-31-109-ENG-38. 

Love, J.D. 1961. “Definition of Green River, Great Divide, and Washakie Basins, Southwestern Wyoming.” 

American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin 45(10):1749–1755. 

Love, J.D. and A.C. Christiansen 1985. “Geologic Map of Wyoming.” Wyoming Geological Survey, Laramie, 

Wyoming. 

Lyon, A. G. 2000. “The potential effects of natural gas development on sage grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) 

near Pinedale, Wyoming.” Thesis, University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming. 

Lyon, L.J. 1979. “Habitat effectiveness for elk as influenced by roads and cover.” Journal of Forestry 77: 658–660. 

Lyon, L.J. and A.L. Ward 1982. “Elk and land management.” in J.W. Thomas and D.E. Toweill, eds., Elk of North 

America, ecology and management. Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. pp 443–477. 

MacArthur, R.A.; V. Geist; and R.H. Johnston 1982. “Cardiac and behavioral responses of mountain sheep to 

human disturbance.” Journal of Wildlife Management 46:351–358. 

Mariott, H. 1988. Draft Habitat Management Plan for Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Plant Species and 

Their Habitats on the Rock Springs District. Bureau of Land Management. Wyoming Natural Diversity 

Database, Rocky Mountain Heritage Task Force, The Nature Conservancy, Laramie, Wyoming. 

Martner, B.E. 1986. Wyoming Climate Atlas. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, Nebraska. 432 pp. 

McGrew, Paul O. and Thomas M.Bown 1976. “Fossil Vertebrate Faunas and Important Paleontological Sites in the 

Green Mountain, Ferris Seven Lakes and Sandy EIS Areas, and Sweetwater County, Wyoming.” A report 

for the Bureau of Land Management, Contract No. YA-512-CT6-192. 

Meinzer, O.E. 1923. “Outline of ground-water hydrology.” Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 494. U.S. 

Geological Survey, Washington, DC. 71 pp. 

Miller, Mark E. 1998. “Test excavations at the Adams Site, 48SW10267.” Office of the Wyoming State 

Archaeologist. Laramie, Wyoming. Unpublished report. 

Miller, Nina Hill 1962. Shutters West. Sage Books, Denver, Colorado. 

Morgan, Dale 1964. The West of William H. Ashley: The international struggle for the fur trade of the Missouri, the 

Rocky Mountains, and the Columbia, with explorations beyond the Continental Divide, recorded in the 

diaries and letters of William H. Ashley and his contemporaries 1822-1838. The Old West Publishing 

Company, Denver, Colorado. 

Moss, Pat 1998. Personal communication with Teri Deakins of the BLM on December 2, 1998, regarding income 

on Wind River Reservation. Moss is the planner for the Northern Arapaho Tribe. 

New Mexico Bureau of Mines & Mineral Resources 1993. “Atlas of Major Rocky Mountain Gas Reservoirs.” 

Office of Management and Budget, “Guidelines and Discount Rates for Benefit-Cost Analysis of Federal 

Programs.” Circular No. A-94, revised January 2002. 

Patterson, Robert L. 1952. The Sage Grouse in Wyoming. Wyoming Game and Fish Commission. Sage Books, Inc. 

341 pp. 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan L-5 
Literature Cited Final EIS 

Perry, C., and R. Overly 1976. “Impacts of roads on big game distribution in portions of the Blue Mountains of 

Washington.” in S.R. Hieb, ed., Proceedings of the Elk-logging-roads symposium, University of Idaho, 

Moscow, Idaho. pp 62–68. 

Peterson, James A. 1988. “Overview: Carbonate Reservoir Facies, Wyoming and Parts of Montana,” in Goolsby, 

Steven M. and Longman, Mark W. (eds.), Occurrence and Petrophysical Properties of Carbonate 

Reservoirs in the Rocky Mountain Region. The Rocky Mountain Association of Geologists, Denver, 

Colorado. pp 75–96. 

Picard, M.. Dane 1975. “Facies, Petrography and Petroleum Potential of Nugget Sandstone (Jurassic), Southwestern 

Wyoming and Northeastern Utah.” Rocky Mountain Association of Geologists Symposium. pp 109–127. 

Pipiringos, George N. 1961. “Uranium-Bearing Coal in the Central Part of the Great Divide Basin.” U.S. 

Geological Survey Bulletin 1099-A. pp A1-A104. 

Powell, Jacob H. 2003. “Distribution, Habitat Use Patterns, and Elk Response to Human Disturbance in the Jack 

Morrow Hills, Wyoming.” M.S., Department of Zoology and Physiology, May 2003. 

Public Law 100-4. Water Quality Act of 1987. 

Robertson, Shirley 1998. Telephone conversation with Teri Deakins of the BLM regarding housing in Sweetwater 

County, July 15, 1998. Robertson is a sales agent/realtor with Apple Realty in Rock Springs, Wyoming. 

Rock Springs Rocket Miner 1998. Classified ads: Apartments for Rent, Houses for Rent. June 30, 1998. Rock 

Springs, Wyoming. 

Roehler, Henry W. 1965. “Summary of Pre-Laramide Late Cretaceous Sedimentation in the Rock Springs Uplift 

Area.” Wyoming Geological Association 19th Field Conference, pp 10–12. 

Rose, Peter R. 1977. “Mississippian Carbonates Shelf Margins, Western United States.” Wyoming Geological 

Association, 29th Annual Field Conference Guidebook, pp 155–172. 

Rosenberger, et al. 1999. “Draft Report on Recreation Expenditures for the USDA/Forest Service.” Colorado State 

University. 

Ross, R.J., Jr. 1976. “Ordovician Sedimentation in the Western United States.” Proceedings of the Rocky Mountain 

Association of Geologists Symposium, pp 109–133. 

Rost, G. R. and J. A. Bailey 1979. “Distribution of mule deer and elk in relation to roads.” Journal of Wildlife 

Management 43(3):634–641. 

Rykaczewski, D.; M. Ryne; C. Ewing; C. Smith; and F. Ogliaro 1980. “Baseline Climate and Air Quality for BLM 

Lands in Wyoming,” Vol. 1, Science Applications, 476 pp. La Jolla, California. 

Sanner, S. 1998. Personal communication with Dean Stilwell on September 30, 1998. Sanner is a Trona Mining 

Engineer with the USDI Bureau of Land Management in the Rock Springs Field Office, Rock Springs, 

Wyoming. 

Sawyer, H. Hall 1998. “Evaluation of a summer elk model, and sexual segregation of elk in the Bighorn Mountains, 

Wyoming.” p 17. 

Schultz, Alfred, R. and Whitman Cross 1912. “Potash Bearing Rocks of the Leucite Hills, Sweetwater County 

Wyoming.” Department of the Interior United States Geological Survey, Bulletin 512, Washington, DC: 

U.S. Government Printing Office. 

L-6 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Literature Cited 

Sheridan, Douglas M.; Charles H. Maxwell; and John T. Collier 1961. “Geology of the Lost Creek Schroeckingerite 

Deposits Sweetwater County, Wyoming.” U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1087-J, pp 391–478. 

Skinner, B.J. 1976. Earth Resources. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. 

Squires, J.R. and T. Lorean 1999. “Lynx home range and movement in Montana and Wyoming-preliminary 

results.” Chapter 11 in Draft Report of the Lynx Science Team, February 1999. 

State of Wyoming 1998a. Department of Administration and Information, Division of Economic Analysis. 

Equality State Almanac 1997, 5th Edition. Cheyenne, Wyoming. 

State of Wyoming 1998b. Department of Administration and Information, Division of Economic Analysis. 

“Annual Residential Building Permits for Wyoming and Counties.” Source: U.S. Department of 

Commerce, Bureau of the Census, <eadiv.stte.wy.us/housing/annlbldg.htm> June1998. 

State of Wyoming 1998c. Department of Administration and Information, Division of Economic Analysis. 

“Average Monthly Rental Rates for Apartments and Houses in Wyoming.” From “Wyoming Cost of 

Living for the Fourth Quarter 1997,” March 20, 1998. <eadiv.stte.wy.us/housing/wyorents.htm> June 

1998. 

State of Wyoming 1998d. Treasurer’s Office. Telephone conversation with Teri Deakins of the BLM regarding 

grazing and timber payments to Sublette County. July 1998. 

State of Wyoming 1998e. Department of Family Services. Internet site. 

<http://dfsweb.state.wy.us/mnthly/u_98stat/Apr_1.htm>. 

Stilwell, Dean 1991. “Reasonable Foreseeable Development Scenario of Coalbed Methane Development in the 

Green River Resource Area.” Bureau of Land Management, Rock Springs, Wyoming. 

Stilwell, Dean 1999. “Updated Reservoir Study of Greater Sand Dunes ACEC for JMH CAP.” Bureau of Land 

Management, Casper, Wyoming. 

Sweetwater County Department of Planning and Development and SWEDA 1998. “The Sweetwater County 

Housing Report, 1998 Update.” Volume 1, April 1998. 

Sweetwater Economic Development Association (SWEDA) 1998a. “The Sweetwater County Employment and 

Population Report, 1998 Update.” Volume 96-1, May 7, 1998. 

Sweetwater Economic Development Association (SWEDA) 1998b. “Sweetwater County Demographics, 1997-1998 

Community Profile.” May 7, 1998. Rock Springs, Wyoming. 

Tanner, Russel L. and David T. Vlcek 1995. “Picturing the Past: Prehistoric and Historic Rock Art of the Green 

River Basin in Wyoming.” A paper presented at the second biennial Rocky Mountain Anthropological 

Conference, Steamboat Springs, Colorado. 

TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 1997. “Environmental Impact Statement for the Jonah Field II Natural Gas 

Development Project, Sublette County, Wyoming.” Draft Wildlife Technical Report. 245 pp. 

True, Warren R. 1995. “First year of AGA’s weekly storage survey suggests useful patterns,” Oil and Gas Journal 

93(29):50–56. July 17, 1995. 

Tyler, R.; W.R. Kaiser; A.R. Scott; and D.S. Hamilton 1996. “The Potential for Coalbed Gas Exploration and 

Production in the Greater Green River Basin, Southwest Wyoming and Northwest Colorado,” The 

Mountain Geologist, 34 (1):7–24, January 1997. 

Trewartha, Glenn T. and Lyle H. Horn. An Introduction to Climate. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1980. 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan L-7 
Literature Cited Final EIS 

U.S. Census Bureau, County Population Estimates for July 1, 1999 and Population Change April 1, 1990 to July 1, 

1999, http://eire.census.gov/popest/archives/county/co_99_2.php 

U.S. Census Bureau, 1980 to 1990 Demographic Components of Change file of U.S., States and Counties, 

http://eire.census.gov/popest/archives. 

U.S. Census Bureau, United States Census 2000, Demographic Profiles by County and Place, 

http://eadiv.state.wy.us/Demog_data/pop2000/ProfilePDFsWY/C2K-Profiles.html. 

U.S. Census Bureau, Profiles of General Demographic Characteristics, 2000, Census of Population and Housing – 

Wyoming. 

U.S. Census Bureau, State and County Quickfacts, http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/56000.html. 

U.S. Census Bureau, State Model Estimates of the Percentage of Persons of All Ages in Poverty, 

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/saipe/stcty/estimate.html 

U.S. Census Bureau 1997. “Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1997.” 

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Economic Information System 1969-99, 

Table CA05 – Personal Income by Major Source and Earnings, 1979-1999. 

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Economic Information System 1969–99, 

Table CA25 – Full-time and Part-time Employment, 1979–1999. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1995. Ute Ladies’-tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis) recovery plan. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Denver, Colorado. 46 pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1999. “Canada lynx conservation assessment and strategy.” Lynx Biology Team, 

July 18, 1999. Denver, Colorado. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2003. Comments on the JMH CAP Supplemental Draft EIS. Jodi Bush, Acting 

Field Supervisor, Wyoming Field Office. May 20, 2003. 

U.S. Geological Survey 1996. “Tabular Data, Text, and Graphical Images in Support of the 1995 National 

Assessment of United States Oil and Gas Resources.” CD-ROM, Digital Data Series DDS-36. 

U.S. Geological Survey 1996. “1995 National Assessment of United States Oil and Gas Resources--Results, 

Methodology, and Supporting Data.” CD-ROM, Digital Data Series DDS-30, Release 2. 

U.S. Geological Survey 1996. “Digital Map Data, Text, and Graphical Images in Support of the 1995 National 

Assessment of United States Oil and Gas Resources.” CD-ROM, Digital Data Series DDS-35. 

USDA Forest Service 1989. “ROS Users Guide.” Washington DC. 

USDA Forest Service 1989. “A Screening Procedure to Evaluate Air Pollution Effects on Class I Wilderness 

Areas.” General Technical Report RM-168. 

USDI Bureau of Land Management 1978. Final Environmental Statement, Proposed Domestic Livestock Grazing 

Management Program for the Sandy Area. Rock Springs District, Wyoming. 

USDI, Bureau of Land Management 1980. “Erosion Condition Classification System” by Ronnie Clark. Technical 

Note 346. 

USDI Bureau of Land Management 1990. Final Rock Springs Wilderness Environmental Impact Statement. Rock 

Springs District, Rock Springs, Wyoming. 

L-8 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Literature Cited 

USDI Bureau of Land Management 1992. Green River Resource Management Plan and Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement. Green River Resource Area, Rock Springs District. Washington, DC: U.S. Government 

Printing Office. 

USDI Bureau of Land Management 1994. Arabis pusilla Habitat Management Plan. HMP WY-048-WHA-P1. 

Green River Resource Area. 

USDI Bureau of Land Management 1995. Interim Management Policy and Guidelines for Lands Under Wilderness 

Review. Update Document, H-8550-1. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

USDI Bureau of Land Management 1996. Green River Resource Area Resource Management Plan and Final 

Environmental Impact Statement. Green River Resource Area, Rock Springs District. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Government Printing Office. 

USDI Bureau of Land Management 1997. Record of Decision and Green River Resource Management Plan. Green 

River Resource Area, Rock Springs District. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

USDI Bureau of Land Management 1998. “Public Land Order No. 7312; Withdrawal of Public Land for the 

Protection of Arabis pusilla Plant Habitat; Wyoming.” Federal Register, 63(35), February 23, 1998. 

USDI Bureau of Land Management 1998a. Record of Decision, Jonah Field II Natural Gas Development Project 

EIS. Pinedale and Green River Resource Areas. 

USDI Bureau of Land Management 1998b. Fire Management Implementation Plan for the BLM-Administered 

Public Lands in the State of Wyoming. Wyoming State Office, Cheyenne, Wyoming. 

USDI Bureau of Land Management 1998d. “Riparian Area Management, A User Guide to Assessing Proper 

Functioning Condition and the Supporting Science for Lotic Areas.” Technical Report 1737-15. 136 pp. 

USDI 1998c. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Federal Agency Historic Preservation 

Programs Pursuant to the National Historic Preservation Act. 63 FR 20495. 

USDI Bureau of Land Management 1999. Wyodak Coal Bed Methane Project Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement. Buffalo Field Office. 

USDI Bureau of Land Management 1999a. Technical Report, Pinedale Anticline Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Pinedale Field Office. 

USDI Bureau of Land Management 1999b. Pinedale Anticline Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Project 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Pinedale Field Office. 

USDI Bureau of Land Management 1999c. Continental Divide/Wamsutter II Natural Gas Project, Sweetwater and 

Carbon Counties, Wyoming, Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Rawlins and Rock Springs Field 

Offices. 

USDI Bureau of Land Management and USDA Forest Service 1983. Riley Ridge Natural Gas Project, Air 

Resources Technical Report. 

USDI Minerals Management Service 1996. Report on Receipts from Federal and Indian Leases, Mineral Revenues. 

Washington, DC. 

USDI Minerals Management Service 1997. Federal Mineral Revenue Disbursements by State and County, Fiscal 

Year 1997. Washington, DC. 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan L-9 
Literature Cited Final EIS 

Vanderpool, Virginia 1998. Telephone conversation with Teri Deakins of the BLM regarding real estate listings in 

Sweetwater County, June 16, 1998. Vanderpool is the Executive Officer for the Sweetwater County Board 

of Realtors. 

Van Dyke, Fred and Wendi Klein 1996. “Response of Elk to Installation of Oil Wells.” Journal of Mammalogy 

77(4):1028–1041. 

Wakkinen, W.L.; K.P. Reese; and J.W. Connelly 1992. “Sage grouse nest locations in relation to leks.” Journal of 

Wildlife Management 56:381–383. 

Wallem, D.B.; R.C. Surdam; and J.R. Steidtmann 1981. “Source Rock Analysis of the Lower Cretaceous Bear 

River Formation-Western Wyoming Overthrust Belt.” in Wyoming Geological Association Guidebook, 

1981. 

Ward, A.L. 1976. “Elk behavior in relation to timber harvest operations and traffic on the Medicine Bow range in 

south central Wyoming.” pp 32-34 in S.R. Hieb, ed., Proceedings of the Elk-logging roads symposium, 

University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho. 

Welder, George, E. 1968. “Ground-Water Reconnaissance of the Green River Basin Southwestern Wyoming.” 

Hydrologic Investigations Atlas HA-290, Department of the Interior, United States Geological Survey, 

Washington, DC. 

Welder, George, E., and Laurence J. McGreevy 1966. “Ground-Water Reconnaissance of the Great Divide and 

Washakie Basins and Some Adjacent Areas Southwestern Wyoming.” Hydrologic Investigations Atlas 

HA-219, Department of the Interior, United States Geological Survey, Washington, DC. 

Welp, L.; B.E. Nelson; and R. Hartman 1996. “General Floristic Inventory of the Great Divide Basin, Green and 

Crooks Mountains, and Upper Sweetwater River Drainage.” Final Report. Prepared for the Bureau of Land 

Management by the Rocky Mountain Herbarium under Cooperative Agreement #K910-A2-0011. Laramie, 

Wyoming. 

Western Regional Climate Center: http://www.wrcc.dri.edu. 

Wheeler, Charley A. “Current distributions and distributional changes of fishes in Wyoming west of the continental 

divide.” MS Thesis, Department of Zoology and Physiology, University of Wyoming, May 1997. 

Wood, W. Raymond 1980. “Plains Trade in Prehistoric and Protohistoric Intertribal Relations.” Anthropology on 

the Great Plains, pp 98–109. W. Raymond wood and Margot Liberty, eds., University of Nebraska Press, 

Lincoln. 

Wright, Thomas L. and Thomas C. Pierson 1992. “Living with Volcanoes, The U.S. Geological Survey’s Volcano 

Hazards Program.” USGS Circular 1073, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

WSDC Bulletin, April 1998. 

Wyoming Department of Administration and Information, Division of Economic Analysis, Equality State Almanac 

2000. http://eadiv.state.wy.us/almanac/almanac.htm. 

Wyoming Department of Administration and Information, Division of Economic Analysis, Population for Counties 

and Incorporated Places: 1990 and 2000, 

http://eadiv.state.wy.us/demog_data/pop2000/cntycity_90_00.htm. 

Wyoming Department of Administration and Information, Division of Economic Analysis, Census 2000 Wyoming 

Data, Median Household Income and Poverty Rates (map), 

http://eadiv.state.wy.us/demog_data/pop2000/mhi.jpg. 

L-10 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Literature Cited 

Wyoming Department of Administration and Information, Division of Economic Analysis, Census 2000 Wyoming 

Data, Percent of Minority Population by County for 2000 (map), 

http://eadiv.state.wy.us/demog_data/pop2000/minority_00.jpg. 

Wyoming Department of Revenue. 2000 Annual Report. Cheyenne, Wyoming. 

Wyoming Game and Fish Commission 1998. Mitigation Policy. 

Wyoming Game and Fish Department 2000. Personal communication in February 2000 with Tom Rider, Wildlife 

Biologist, Lander Office. 

Wyoming Game and Fish Department 2000a. “History and Current Status of the Steamboat Elk Herd and a Brief 

Review of Literature Regarding Elk Response to Disturbance.” Prepared for the Governor’s Sub-cabinet 

for Natural Resources. Green River, Wyoming. 

Wyoming Game and Fish Department 2003. “Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Plan.” 

Wyoming Game and Fish Department 2003a. “Sage Grouse Hunting Season Analysis.” Unpublished report. 

Wyoming Game and Fish Department 2003b. Personal communication in October 2003 with Tom Christiansen, 

Wildlife Biologist, Green River Office. 

Wyoming Natural Diversity Database 2002. “Mountain Plover (Charadrius montanus).” University of Wyoming. 

Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission 1995. “Wyoming Oil and Gas Statistics 1995.” Casper, 

Wyoming. 

Wyoming State Statutes, 9-4-101 through 9-4-115, 35-11-12(a)(i), and 35-11-302. 

Wyoming State Statutes, 39-14-801. 

Wyoming State Statutes, 9-4-601. 

Wyoming State Treasurer, Annual Report of the Treasurer of the State of Wyoming, For Period July 1, 2000 through 

June 30, 2001, Cheyenne, Wyoming. 

Wyoming Taxpayers Association, Wyoming Property Taxation, 2001, Cheyenne, Wyoming. 

The following references were reviewed as part of the process of developing the riparian sections

of the CAP text and appendix. 

Behnke, Robert J. and Robert F. Raleigh 1978. “Grazing and the riparian zone: impact and management 

perspectives.” in R. Roy Johnson, et al., Proceedings, Strategies for Protection and Management of 

Floodplain Wetlands and other Riparian Ecosystems, December 11-13, 1978, Callaway Gardens, Georgia, 

GTR WO-12, pp 263–267. 

Berry, Charles R., Jr. 1978. “Impact of sagebrush management on riparian and stream habitat.” in The Sagebrush 

ecosystem: A Symposium. Utah State University, College of Natural Resources, Logan, Utah, pp 192–209. 

Bohn, Carolyn 1986. “Biological importance of streambank stability.” Rangelands 8(2):55–56. 

Busby, Frank E. 1978. “Riparian and stream ecosystems, livestock grazing, and multiple-use management.” in 

Cope, Oliver B., Proceedings of the Forum-Grazing and riparian/stream ecosystems, Denver, Colorado, 

November 3-4, 1978, pp 6–12. 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan L-11 
Literature Cited Final EIS 

Chaney, Ed; Wayne Elmore; and William S. Platts 1990. Livestock Grazing on Western Riparian Areas. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Eagle, Idaho. 44 pp. 

Clarkson, Robert W. and Jeffrey R. Wilson 1995. Evaluation of the U.S. Forest Services’ fish habitat relationship 

system in east-central Arizona-a final report. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Research Branch, 

Technical Report #8. 

Clary, Warren P. and Bert F Webster 1989. Managing grazing of riparian areas in the intermountain region. 

USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, GTR INT-263. 

Clary, Warren P. and Bert F. Webster 1990. “Recommended grazing practices.” in Proceedings of Conference 

XXI, International Erosion Control Association, February 14-17, pp 77–81. 

Davis, Jerry W. 1987. “Options for managing livestock in riparian habitats.” Transactions of the 51st North 

American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, August 1987, pp 290–297. 

Ellis, Steve and Lynn Danly 1993. “Prescription for a troubled stream.” Rangelands 15(5):233–235. 

Frost, William E.; E. Lamar Smith; and Phil R. Ogden 1994. “Utilization guidelines.” Rangelands 16(6):256–259. 

Groeneveld, David P. and Thomas E. Griepentrog 1985. “Interdependence of groundwater, riparian vegetation, and 

streambank stability: A case study.” in Johnson, R. Roy, et al., First North American Riparian Conference, 

Riparian Ecosystems and their Management: Reconciling Conflicting Uses. April 16–18, 1985, Tucson, 

Arizona. pp 44–48. 

Heede, Burchard H. 1985. “Interactions between streamside vegetation and stream dynamics.” in Johnson, R. Roy, 

et al., First North American Riparian Conference, Riparian Ecosystems and their Management: Reconciling 

Conflicting Uses. April 16–18, 1985, Tucson, Arizona. pp 54–58. 

Hockett, Brian L. and James W. Roscoe 1993. “Livestock management guidelines for grazing in southwest 

Montana riparian-wetland areas.” in Workshop on Western Wetlands and Riparian Areas: Public/Private 

Efforts in Recovery, Management, and Education, September 9–11, 1993, Snowbird, Utah, Thorne 

Ecological Institute. pp 102–106. 

Kauffman, J. Boone; W. C. Krueger; and M. Vavra 1983. “Effects of late season cattle grazing on riparian plant 

communities.” Journal of Range Management 36(6):685–691. 

Kauffman, J. Boone; W. C. Krueger; and M. Vavra 1983. “Impacts of cattle on streambanks in Northeastern 

Oregon.” Journal of Range Management 36(6):683–685. 

Kauffman, J. Boone; W.C. Krueger; and M. Vavra 1985. “Ecology and plant communities of the riparian area 

associated with Catherine creek in northeastern Oregon.” Technical Bulletin 147, Oregon Agricultural 

Experiment Station, Corvallis, Oregon. pp 1–35 

Kauffman, J. Boone and W.C. Krueger 1984. “Livestock impacts on riparian ecosystems and streamside 

management implications... a review.” Journal of Range Management 37(5):430–438. 

Kay, Charles E. and Steve Chadde 1991. “Reduction of willow seed production by ungulate browsing in 

Yellowstone National Park.” in Proceedings of the Symposium on Ecology and Management of Riparian 

Shrub Communities. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, GTR INT-289. pp 83–88. 

Keller, Charles R. and Kenneth P. Burnham 1982. “Riparian fencing, grazing, and trout habitat preference on 

Summit Creek, Idaho.” North American Journal of Fisheries Management 2:53–59. 

L-12 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Literature Cited 

Keller, Charles; Loren Anderson; and Paul Tappel 1978. “Riparian and stream ecosystems, livestock grazing, and 

multiple-use management.” in Cope, Oliver B., Proceedings of the Forum- Grazing and riparian/stream 

ecosystems, Denver, Colorado, November 3–4, 1978. pp 46-52. 

Kinch, Gene 1989. Riparian area management: grazing management in riparian areas. BLM Technical Reference 

1737-4. 48 pp. 

Kinney, John W. and Warren P. Clary 1994. A photographic utilization guide for key riparian graminoids. USDA 

Forest Service Intermountain Research Station, INT-GTR-308. 13 pp. 

Knopf, Fritz L. 1984. Impacts of seasonal grazing on willow riparian communities. Research information bulletin 

#84-72. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Kovalchik, Bernard L. 1991. “Growth and yield of willows in central Oregon compared to reports in world 

literature.” in Proceedings of the Symposium on Ecology and Management of Riparian Shrub 

Communities. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, GTR INT-289. pp 83–88. 

Krueger, Henry O. and Stanley H. Anderson 1985. “The use of cattle as a management tool for wildlife in shrubwillow riparian systems.” in Johnson, R. Roy, et al., First North American Riparian Conference, Riparian 

Ecosystems and their Management: Reconciling Conflicting Uses. April 16–18, 1985, Tucson, Arizona. pp 

300-304. 

Krueper, David J. 1992. “Effects of land use practices on western riparian ecosystems.” in Finch, Deborah M., 

Proceedings of the Status and Management of Neotropical Migratory Birds, September 21–25, 1992. 

Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, GTR RM-229. pp 321–330. 

Marlow, Clayton B.; Kathrin Olson-Rutz; and Jennifer Atchley 1989. “Response of a southwest Montana riparian 

system to four grazing management alternatives.” in Gresswell, Robert E., et al., Practical Approaches to 

Riparian Resource Management, an Educational Workshop, May 8–11, 1989. pp 111–116. 

Marlow, Clayton B.; Thomas M. Pogacnik; and Shannon D. Quinsey 1987. “Streambank stability and cattle grazing 

in southwestern Montana.” Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 42(4):291–296. 

Marlow, Clayton B. 1987. “Mitigating livestock impacts to streambanks within northern rocky mountain foothills 

riparian zones.” in Proceedings – Issues and technology in the management of impacted wildlife, 

Proceedings III, Nov. 2-4, 1987, Colorado Springs, Colorado. Thorne Ecological Institute, 1988, pp 147– 

150. 

Marlow, Clayton B. and Thomas M. Pogacnik 1985. “Time of grazing and cattle-induced damage to streambanks.” 

in R. Roy Johnson, et al., Proceedings, Riparian Ecosystems and their management: Reconciling 

Conflicting Uses, First North American Riparian Conference, Tucson, Arizona. pp 279–284. 

Myers, Lewis H. 1989. “Grazing and riparian management in southwestern Montana.” in Gresswell, Robert E., et 

al., Practical Approaches to Riparian Resource Management, an Educational Workshop, May 8–11, 1989. 

pp 117–120. 

Myers, Thomas J. and Sherman Swanson 1991. “Aquatic habitat condition index, stream type, and livestock bank 

damage in northern Nevada.” Water Resources Bulletin, American Water Resources Association, 

27(4):667–677. 

Myers, Thomas J. and Sherman Swanson 1992. “Variation of stream stability with stream type and livestock bank 

damage in northern Nevada.” Water Resources Bulletin, American Water Resources Association 

28(4):743–754. 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan L-13 
Literature Cited Final EIS 

Overton, Kerry C.; Gwynne L. Chandler; and Janice A Pisano 1994. Northern/intermountain regions' fish habitat 

inventory: grazed, rested, and ungrazed reference stream reaches, Silver King Creek, California. USDA 

Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, GTR INT-311. 

Packer, Paul E. 1953. “Effects of trampling disturbance on watershed condition, runoff, and erosion.” Journal of 

Forestry 51:28–31. 

Platts, William S. 1981. “Effects of livestock grazing.” in Influence of Forest and Rangeland Management on 

Anadromous Fish Habitat in Western North America. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and 

Range Experiment Station, GTR PNW-124. 

Platts, William S. 1981. Effects of sheep grazing on a riparian-stream environment. USDA-Forest Service, 

Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Research Note INT-307, 6 pp. 

Platts, William S. 1984. “Fencing to control livestock grazing on riparian habitats along streams: is it a viable 

alternative?” North American Journal of Fisheries Management 4:266–272. 

Platts, William S. 1986. “Riparian stream management.” Transactions of the Western Section, The Wildlife Society 

22:90–93. 

Platts, William S. 1986. “Managing riparian stream habitats.” in Proceedings, Wyoming Water 1986 and 

Streamside Zone Conference, pp 59–62. 

Platts, William S. 1989. “Characteristics of riparian plant communities and streambanks with respect to grazing in 

northeastern Utah.” in Gresswell, Robert E., et al., Practical Approaches to Riparian Resource 

Management, an Educational Workshop, May 8–11, 1989, pp 73–81. 

Platts, William S. 1989. “Compatibility of livestock grazing strategies with fisheries.” in Gresswell, Robert E., et 

al., Practical Approaches to Riparian Resource Management, an Educational Workshop, May 8–11, 1989, 

pp 103–110. 

Platts, William S. and Rodger Loren Nelson 1981. Livestock-Fishery interaction studies, Tabor Creek, Nevada, 

Progress Report 2. USDA-Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Boise, 

Idaho. 39 pp. 

Platts, William S. and Rodger Loren Nelson 1985. “Streamside and upland vegetation use by cattle.” Rangelands 

7(1):5–7. 

Platts, William S., et al. 1987. Methods for evaluation of riparian habitats with applications to management. 

USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. GTR INT- 221. 

Platts, William S.. “Sheep and cattle grazing strategies on riparian-stream environments.” in Symposium, WildlifeLivestock Relationships, Department of Wildlife Resources, College of Forestry, Wildlife and Range 

Sciences, University of Idaho. pp 251–270. 

Platts, William S., Rodger Loren Nelson, Osborne Casey, and Val Crispin 1983. “Riparian-stream habitat 

conditions on Tabor creek, Nevada, under grazed and ungrazed conditions.” in Proceedings, 63rd Annual 

Conference of the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Teton Village, Wyoming, July 10– 

14, 1983. pp 162–184. 

Platts, William S. and Rodger Loren Nelson 1985. “Stream habitat and fisheries response to livestock grazing and 

instream improvement structures, Big Creek, Utah.” Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 40(4):374– 

379. 

Popolizio, Carlo A.; Harold Goetz; and Phillip L. Chapman 1994. “Short-term response of riparian vegetation to 

four grazing treatments.” Journal of Range Management 47(1):48–53. 

L-14 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Literature Cited 

Prichard, Don, et al. 1998. A User Guide to Assessing Proper Functioning Condition and the Supporting Science 

for Lotic Areas. BLM Technical Reference 1737–15. 

Prichard, Don, et al. 1999. A User Guide to Assessing Proper Functioning Condition and the Supporting Science 

for Lotic Areas. BLM Technical Reference 1737–16. 

Rauzi, Frank and Clayton L. Hanson 1966. “Water intake and runoff as affected by intensity of grazing.” Journal of 

Range Management 19(6):351–356. 

Richard, W. H. and C. E. Cushing 1982. “Recovery of streamside woody vegetation after exclusion of livestock.” 

Journal of Range Management 35(3):360–361. 

Roath, Leonard Roy and William C. Krueger 1982. “Cattle grazing influence on a mountain riparian zone.” Journal 

of Range Management 35(1):100–103. 

Schulz, Terri Tucker and Wayne C. Leininger 1990. “Differences in riparian vegetation structure between grazed 

areas and exclosures.” Journal of Range Management 43(4):295–299. 

Skovlin, Jon M. 1984. “Impacts of grazing on wetlands and riparian habitat: a review of our knowledge.” in 

Developing Strategies for Rangeland Management. National Research Council/National Academy of 

Sciences. Westview Press. pp 1001–1103. 

Smeins, Fred E. 1975. “Effects of livestock grazing on runoff and erosion.” in Proceedings of the American Society 

of Civil Engineering, Watershed Management Symposium. Utah State University, Logan, Utah. pp 267– 

274. 

Smith, Bruce H. 1980. “Riparian willow management: its problems and potentials, within the scope of multiple use 

on public lands.” in Fisser, Herbert G. and Kendall L. Johnson, Wyoming Shrublands: Proceedings of the 

Ninth Wyoming Shrub Ecology Workshop, Lander, Wyoming. pp 15–20. 

USDA, Forest Service, Beaverhead National Forest 1994. Implementing the beaverhead forest riparian guidelines. 

19 pp. 

USDA, Forest Service, Intermountain Region 1992. Integrated Riparian Evaluation Guide. 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan L-15 
U.S. Department of the Interior 

Bureau of Land Management 

Wyoming State Office 

Rock Springs Field Office July 2004 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 

FINAL 

Environmental Impact Statement for the 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity 

Plan/Proposed Green River Resource 

Management Plan Amendment 

Volume 2 of 2 
MISSION STATEMENT 

It is the mission of the Bureau of Land Management to sustain the health, diversity, 

and productivity of the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future 

generations. 

BLM/WY/PL-04/019+1610 
Final EIS Figures 

Figure 1. Structural Elements of the Greater Green River Basin 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan F-1 
Figures Final EIS 

Figure 2. Generalized Stratigraphic Nomenclature Chart 

F-2 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Figures 

Figure 3. Land Ownership—1996 

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Federal 93% 65% 

State 5% 4% 

Private 3% 20% 

Other 0% 11% 

JMH Study Area 

Source: Wyoming Division of Economic Analysis; Bureau of Land Management. 

Figure 4. Population Estimates—1970–2000 

Fremont 

Sublette 

50,000 

45,000 

40,000 

35,000 

30,000 

25,000 

20,000 

15,000 

10,000 

5,000 

0 

Sweetwater 

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 

Year 

Population 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan F-3 
Figures Final EIS 

Figure 5. Unemployment Rate—1991–2000 

0.0% 

1.0% 

2.0% 

3.0% 

4.0% 

5.0% 

6.0% 

7.0% 

8.0% 

9.0% 

10.0% 

Unemployment Rate 

Study Area Wyoming 

U.S. Fremont 

Sublette Sweetwater 

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 

Year 

Figure 6. Employment by Industry in Study Area—1999 

Farm/Farm 

Services 

4% 

Government 

18% Construction 

8% 

Manufacturing 

5% 

Services 

24% 

Public Utilities 

6% 

5% 

Wholesale/Retail Financial, 

Trade 

20% 

Insurance, Real 

Estate 

Mining 

10% 

Transportation/ 

F-4 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Figures 

Figure 7. Gross Earnings by Industry in Study Area—1999 

Farm/Farm Services 

1% 

Government 

19% 

Mining 

24% 

Services 

16% 

Construction 

8% 

Financial, Insurance, 

Real Estate 

3% 

Manufacturing 

Wholesale/Retail 8% 

Trade Transportation/ Public 

12% Utilities 

9% 

Figure 8. State Assessed Property 

$143,179,854 

$2,069,725,380 

Non-Minerals 

Minerals 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan F-5 
Figures Final EIS 

Figure 9. Locally Assessed Property 

$14,639,581 

$259,694,022 

$238,659,974 

Agricultural Land 

Residential Land, Improvements and 

Personal Property 

Commercial Land, Improvements and 

Personal Property 

Industrial Property 

$71,833,505

F-6 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Figures 

Figure 10. Estimated Ad Valorem Taxes—1985–2000 (1995 dollars) 

$60,000 $1,200 

$50,000 $1,000 

$40,000 $800 

Study Area (1000$)

JMH (1000$)

Study Area 

JMH 

$20,000 $400 

$10,000 $200 

$0 $0 

$30,000 

1985 1988 1991 1994 1997 2000 

Year 

$600 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan F-7 
Figures Final EIS 

Figure 11. Percent of Minority Population by County—2000 

F-8 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Final EIS Figures 

Figure 12. Median Household Income ($)—2000 and Poverty Rate (%)—2000 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan F-9 
Figures Final EIS 

Figure 13. Total Employment Trend 

0 

10,000 

20,000 

30,000 

40,000 

50,000 

60,000 

Annual Employment 

1979 1982 1985 1988 1991 1994 1997

Year 

Figure 14. Total Real Earnings Trend (2001 dollars) 

$0 

$200,000 

$400,000 

$600,000 

$800,000 

$1,000,000 

$1,200,000 

$1,400,000 

$1,600,000 

$1,800,000 

$2,000,000 

Total Annual Real Earnings (1,000$) 

1979 1982 1985 1988 1991 1994 1997

Year 

F-10 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
1985

1986

19871988198919901991199219931994199519961997

199819992000 

Final EIS Figures Annual Ad Valorem Tax Revenues 

Figure 15. Estimated Ad Valorem Taxes for Natural Gas Production 

(2001 dollars) 

$50,000,000 

$45,000,000 

$40,000,000 

$35,000,000 

$30,000,000 

$25,000,000 

$20,000,000 

$15,000,000 

$10,000,000 

$5,000,000 

$0 

Year 

Figure 16. Average Annual Employment by Alternative 

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Oil and Gas 148 100 121 128 121 

Recreation 24 21 22 25 25 

Grazing 16 8 8 8 8 

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 No Action Preferred Alter. 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan F-11 
Figures Final EIS 

Figure 17. Total Earnings by Alternative 

$0

$10,000

$20,000

$30,000

$40,000

$50,000

$60,000

Oil and Gas $59,479 $43,454 $50,638 $52,944 $50,638 

Recreation $3,581 $3,260 $3,324 $3,675 $3,692 

Grazing $2,739 $1,444 $1,444 $1,444 $1,444 

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 No Action Preferred Alter. 

Figure 18. Estimated Ad Valorem Tax Revenues From JMH— 

2003–2020 

2003 2006 2009 2012 2015 2018 2021

Ye a r 

$0 

$2 , 0 00 

$4 , 0 00 

$6 , 0 00 

$8 , 0 00 

$ 10 , 0 0 0 

$ 12 , 0 0 0 

$ 14 , 0 0 0 

Alt er. 1 

Alt er. 2 

Alt er. 3 

No Act ion 

Pref erred Alt er. 

F-12 Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 
Maps

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

Wyoming 

Go 

Wyoming

● Programs

● Information

● Resources

BLM>Wyoming>Field Offices>Rock Springs>Jack Morrow Hills CAP>2004 FEIS>Maps Print Page

Rock Springs Field Office 

Final EIS Maps

● Map 1 - Jack Morrow Hills Planning Area Location

● Map 2 - Recreation Sites and Points of Interest

● Map 3 - Land Ownership

● Map 4 - Mineral Status

● Map 5 - No Action Locatable Minerals

● Map 6 - No Action Coal Occurrence and Development Potential Area

● Map 7 - No Action Surface Disturbance and Seasonal Limitations

● Map 8 - No Action Rights-of-Way Limitations

● Map 9 - No Action OHV Use Designations 

● Map 10 - No Action Oil and Gas Leases

● Map 11 - No Action Coal and Sodium Exploration

● Map 12 - No Action Areas Closed to Mineral Material Sales

● Map 13 - No Action Visual Resource Management Classifications

● Map 14 - Special Management Areas

● Map 15 - Sensitive Plant Resources

● Map 16 - Alternative 1 Surface Disturbance and Seasonal Limitations

● Map 17 - Sensitive Avian Resources

❍ Greater sage-grouse nesting habitat

● Map 18 - Alternative 1 Rights-of-Way Limitations

● Map 19 - Alternative 1 OHV Use Designations 

● Map 20 - Alternative 1 Oil and Gas Leases

● Map 21 - Alternative 1 Coal and Sodium Exploration

● Map 22 - Alternative 1 Coal Occurrence and Development Potential Area

● Map 23 - Alternative 1 Locatable Minerals

● Map 24 - Alternative 1 Areas Closed to Mineral Material Sales

● Map 25 - Alternative 1 Visual Resource Management Classifications

● Map 26 - Alternative 1 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

● Map 27 - Alternative 2 Rights-of-Way Limitations

● Map 28 - Alternative 2 Surface Disturbance and Seasonal Limitations

● Map 29 - Alternative 2&3 Sample Travel Plan 

http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/field_offices/Rock_Springs/jmhcap/2004final/feis_maps.html (1 of 3)5/9/2007 8:16:17 AM
Maps

● Map 30 - Alternative 2 OHV Use Designations

● Map 31 - Alternative 2 Oil and Gas Leases

● Map 32 - Alternative 2 Coal and Sodium Exploration

● Map 33 - Alternative 2 Coal Occurrence and Development Potential Area

● Map 34 - Alternative 2 Locatable Minerals

● Map 35 - Alternative 2 Areas Closed to Mineral Material Sales

● Map 36 - Alternative 2 Visual Resource Management Classifications

● Map 37 - Alternative 2 Special Management Area Expansions

● Map 38 - Alternative 3 Wild Horse Herd Management Area

● Map 39 - Alternative 3 Surface Disturbance and Seasonal Limitations 

● Map 40 - Alternative 3 Rights-of-way Limitations 

● Map 41 - Alternative 3 OHV Use Designations

● Map 42 - Alternative 3 Oil and Gas Leases

● Map 43 - Alternative 3 Coal and Sodium Exploration

● Map 44 - Alternative 3 Coal Occurrence and Development Potential Area

● Map 45 - Alternative 3 Locatable Minerals

● Map 46 - Alternative 3 Areas Closed to Mineral Material Sales

● Map 47 - Alternative 3 Visual Resource Management Classifications

● Map 48 - Alternative 3 Special Management Area Expansions

● Map 49 - Proposed JMH CAP Rights-of-Way Limitations 

● Map 50 - Proposed JMH CAP Surface Disturbance and Seasonal Limitations

❍ Greater sage-grouse nesting habitat

● Map 51 - Sensitive Big Game Areas

● Map 52 - Proposed JMH CAP OHV Use Designations

● Map 53 - Proposed JMH CAP Locatable Minerals

● Map 54 - Proposed JMH CAP Oil and Gas Leases

● Map 55 - Proposed JMH CAP Coal and Sodium Exploration

● Map 56 - Coal and Sodium Development Potential

● Map 57 - Proposed JMH CAP Coal Occurrence and Development Potential Area

● Map 58 - Proposed JMH CAP Areas Closed To Mineral Material Sales

● Map 59 - Proposed JMH CAP Visual Resource Management Classifications 

● Map 60 - Proposed JMH CAP Special Management Area Additions

● Map 61 - Water Resources and Watersheds

● Map 62 - Wild Horses Herd Management Area

● Map 63 - Grazing Allotments and Improvements

● Map 64 - Heritage Resources

● Map 65 - Existing Roads

● Map 66 - Geologic Hazards

● Map 67 - Oil and Gas Leases

● Map 68 - Federal Units

● Map 69 - Oil and Gas Development Potential 

● Map 70 - Coalbed Methane Development Potential

● Map 71 - Mining Claim Activity

● Map 72 - Recreation Opportunity Spectrum

http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/field_offices/Rock_Springs/jmhcap/2004final/feis_maps.html (2 of 3)5/9/2007 8:16:17 AM
Maps

● Map 73 - Southwest Wyoming Existing Oil and Gas Development Projects

● Map 74 - Southwest Wyoming Oil and Gas Development Projects

● Map 75 - Water Resources Cumulative Impact Analysis Area

● Map 76 - Wild Horses Cumulative Impact Analysis Area

● Map 77 - Livestock Grazing Cumulative Impact Analysis Area

● Map 78 - Vegetation Resources Cumulative Impact Analysis Area

● Map 79 - Wildlife Resources - Elk Cumulative Impact Analysis Area 

● Map 80 - Wildlife Resources - Antelope Cumulative Impact Analysis Area

● Map 81 - Wildlife Resources - Mule Deer Cumulative Impact Analysis Area

● Map 82 - Wildlife Resources - Sage-Grouse Cumulative Impact Analysis Area

● Map 83 - Wildlife Resources - Fisheries Cumulative Impact Analysis Area

● Map 84 - Heritage Resources Cumulative Impact Analysis Area

● Map 85 - Travel Management, Access and Realty Cumulative Impact Analysis Area

● Map 86 - Visual Resource Management Cumulative Impact Analysis Area

● Map 87 - Special Management Areas and Other Management Areas Cumulative Impact Analysis Area

USA.GOV | No Fear Act | DOI | Disclaimer | About BLM | Notices | Get Adobe Reader® 

Privacy Policy | FOIA | Kids Policy | Contact Us | Accessibility | Site Map | Home 

http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/field_offices/Rock_Springs/jmhcap/2004final/feis_maps.html (3 of 3)5/9/2007 8:16:17 AM
Appendices

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

Wyoming 

Go 

Wyoming

● Programs

● Information

● Resources

BLM>Wyoming>Field Offices>Rock Springs>Jack Morrow Hills CAP>2004 FEIS>Appendices Print Page

Rock Springs Field Office 

2004 Final EIS Appendices

● Appendix 1 - Planning Criteria - 60kb, 12pgs 

● Appendix 2 - Green River Land Use Plan(s) Objectives and Actions - 140kb, 37pgs 

● Appendix 3 - Biological Assessment - 112kb, 20pgs 

● Appendix 4 - Procedures for Processing Applications in Areas of Seasonal Restriction - 34kb, 4pgs 

● Appendix 5 - WY BLM Mitigation Guidelines - 38kb, 6pgs 

● Appendix 6 - Standard Practices, BMPS, and Guidelines for Surface Disturbing Activities - 112kb, 26pgs 

● Appendix 7 - Heritage Resources Management - 82kb, 17pgs 

● Appendix 8 - Standard Operating Procedures for Range Improvements & Vegetation Manipulation - 48kb, 7pgs 

● Appendix 9 - Reclamation and Monitoring - 55kb, 9pgs 

● Appendix 10 - Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands - 52kb, 8pgs 

● Appendix 11 - Wyoming State Species of Concern - 66kb, 8pgs 

● Appendix 12 - Draft Transportation Plan - 39kb, 5pgs 

● Appendix 13 - Hydrocarbon Occurrence and Development Potential Report - 199kb,33pgs 

● Appendix 14 - Oil and Gas Operations - 61kb, 9pgs 

● Appendix 15 - Air Quality Regulations - 132kb, 28pgs 

● Appendix 16 - Socioeconomic Data and Assumptions - 561kb, 34pgs 

● Appendix 17 - Preliminary Adaptive Management Implementation Strategy - 174kb, 21pgs 

❍ Figure A17-1 - enlarged 

❍ Figure A17-2 - enlarged

● Appendix 18 - Wilderness Study Areas and Proposals - 33kb, 3pgs 

● Appendix 19 - Response to Public Comment - 951kb, 303pgs 

❍ Appendix 19A Pages 1-36 - 7.24mb, 36pgs 

❍ Appendix 19A Pages 37-87 - 10.2mb, 51pgs 

❍ Appendix 19A Pages 88-135 - 10.8mb, 48pgs 

❍ Appendix 19A Pages 136-183 - 6.14mb, 48pgs 

❍ Appendix 19A Pages 184-220 - 7.53mb, 37pgs 

❍ Appendix 19A Pages 221-293 - 8.74mb, 73pgs 

❍ Appendix 19A Pages 294-363 - 8.92mb, 70pgs 

❍ Appendix 19A Pages 364-422 - 19.4mb, 59pgs 

❍ Appendix 19A Pages 423-463 - 14.71mb, 41pgs 

❍ Appendix 19A Pages 464-509 - 13.25mb, 46pgs 

❍ Appendix 19A Pages 510-567 - 8.69mb, 58pgs 

http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/field_offices/Rock_Springs/jmhcap/2004final/appendices.html (1 of 2)5/9/2007 8:16:18 AM
Appendices

❍ Appendix 19A Pages 568-618 - 15.65mb, 51pgs 

❍ Appendix 19A Pages 619-689 - 10.71mb, 71pgs 

❍ Appendix 19A Pages 690-779 - 9.42mb, 90pgs 

❍ Appendix 19A Pages 780-843 - 7.07mb, 64pgs 

❍ Appendix 19A Pages 844-889 - 4.25mb, 46pgs 

❍ Appendix 19A Pages 890-950 - 7.59mb, 61pgs 

❍ Appendix 19A Pages 951-990 - 5.4mb, 40pgs 

❍ Appendix 19A Pages 991-1033 - 9.57mb, 43pgs

● Appendix 20 - Significance Criteria and Assumptions - 55kb, 11pgs

USA.GOV | No Fear Act | DOI | Disclaimer | About BLM | Notices | Get Adobe Reader® 

Privacy Policy | FOIA | Kids Policy | Contact Us | Accessibility | Site Map | Home 

http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/field_offices/Rock_Springs/jmhcap/2004final/appendices.html (2 of 2)5/9/2007 8:16:18 AM
Home | Site Index | E-mail Us | Phone Us | Chat with Us Español | Other Languages

 Kids Parents Seniors Military and Veterans Americans Abroad More Audiences >>

Government Web Images News USA.gov

USA.gov: The U.S. Government's Official Web Portal

http://www.usa.gov/ (1 of 2)5/9/2007 8:16:22 AM

● E-mail this page

● Receive updates by e-mail

● USA.gov RSS Feeds

News and Features

Postage Rates Increase May 

14

First-class letters will be 41 

cents. View other increases.

Extra Help with Prescription 

Costs

This Mother's Day, help 

someone you love get help 

with Medicare prescription 

drug costs.

Military and Veterans

Discover resources for 

veterans, active military, and 

their families.

More News and Features >> 

Government Agencies

Loans, money, funding, financial aid, food 

stamps... 

Identity theft, fraud, scams, recalls, 

consumer credit, debt... 

Military, international affairs, trade, 

embassies, visas, immigration... 

Farms, food production, natural 

resources, conservation, weather... 

Housing, human services, community 

development... 

Medical, health care, insurance, diet, 

food stamps, fitness, public health... 

Employment, career, workplace, labor, 

school, students, teachers... 

Unclaimed government money, credit, 

saving, retirement... 

Crime, prison, law enforcement, 

disasters, emergencies... 

Libraries, forms, government news, laws, 

photos, maps, research... 

Space, biology, Internet security, media, 

phone, radio, patents... 

Transportation, air, train, international, 

tourism... 

Government Information by Topic

Benefits and Grants

Consumer Guides

Defense and International

Environment, Energy, and Agriculture

Family, Home, and Community

Health and Nutrition

History, Arts, and Culture

Jobs and Education

Money and Taxes

Public Safety and Law

Reference and General Government

Science and Technology

Travel and Recreation

Voting and Elections

100 More Online 

Services >> 

● Shop 

Government 

Auctions

● Apply for 

Government 

Jobs

● Get or Renew 

a Passport

● Contact 

Elected 

Officials

● Check Tax Refund Status

● Renew Your Driver's License
USA.gov: The U.S. Government's Official Web Portal

Home | About Us | Contact Us | Contact Government | FAQs | Website Policies | Privacy | Suggest-A-Link | Link to Us

Page Last Reviewed or Updated: 05/07/2007

If you have questions about the federal government:

Check our frequently asked questions, e-mail USA.gov, or call 1 (800) FED INFO (1-800-333-4636).

USA.govTM is the U.S. government's official web portal:

Office of Citizen Services and Communications 

U.S. General Services Administration 

1800 F Street, NW, Washington, DC 20405

http://www.usa.gov/ (2 of 2)5/9/2007 8:16:22 AM

Museums, libraries, genealogy, ethnic 

traditions... 

Voter registration, contact elected 

officials... ● A-Z Agency Index

● Federal Government

● State Government

● Local Government

What's FREE this Month? ● Tribal Government

● Order Free Publication: How to Buy a Home With a Low Down 

Payment

Buy a house with a down payment as low as 3 to 5% using 

mortgage insurance. Also, find out how much house you can really 

afford.
Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002, "NoFEAR Act"

Equal Opportunity Data Required to Be Posted by the

No Fear Act

No Fear Act Notice

On May 15, 2002, Congress enacted the ``Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002,'' which is now known as the No 

FEAR Act. One purpose of the Act is to "require that Federal agencies be accountable for violations of antidiscrimination and whistleblower protection laws." [See 

Public Law 107-174, Summary.] In support of this purpose, Congress found that "agencies cannot be run effectively if those agencies practice or tolerate 

discrimination." [See Public Law 107-174, Title I, General Provisions, section 101(1).] The Act also requires this agency to provide this notice to Federal 

employees, former Federal employees and applicants for Federal employment to inform you of the rights and protections available to you under Federal 

antidiscrimination and whistleblower protection laws. 

For rights and protections available to you under the Federal antidiscrimination and whistleblower laws, as well as information regarding retaliation and 

disciplinary actions, go to http://www.doi.gov/diversity/rights.html

The intent of the Notification and Federal Employee Anti-discrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002, "No FEAR Act" is that federal agencies will pay 

more attention to their EEO and whistleblower complaint activity and act more expeditiously to resolve complaints at the administrative level when it 

is appropriate to do so. Each agency is required to post on its primary web homepage a link to the data required to be posted under the Act and 

designate the link and that data as "Equal Opportunity Data to be posted by the No FEAR Act."

To view or print the PDF content on this page, download the free Adobe® Acrobat® Reader®. 

Quarterly Reports

 

 DEPARTMENT-WIDE, DOC, PDF

 BUREAU 

 Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), DOC, 

PDF

 National Park Service (NPS), DOC, 

PDF

 Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 

DOC, PDF

 Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), DOC, 

PDF

 Minerals Management Service (MMS), 

http://www.doi.gov/diversity/no_fear_act.html (1 of 2)5/9/2007 8:16:23 AM
Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002, "NoFEAR Act"

DOC, PDF

 Office of Surface Mining (OSM), DOC, 

PDF 

 Office of the Secretary (OS), DOC, 

PDF 

 Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), 

DOC, PDF

 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), 

DOC, PDF

5-Year Reports

 

 DEPARTMENT-WIDE, HTML, 

 BUREAU 

 Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), HTML, 

 National Park Service (NPS), HTML, 

 Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 

HTML, 

 Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), HTML, 

 Minerals Management Service (MMS), 

HTML, 

 Office of Surface Mining (OSM), 

HTML, 

 Office of the Secretary (OS), HTML,

 Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), 

HTML, 

 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), 

HTML, 

If you are unable to access the above links or information, please send an e-mail to the below-mentioned Web 

Contact address:

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Office of Civil Rights 

Web Contact: PAHR_Webmaster@ios.doi.gov 

Last Updated on 05/03/07

http://www.doi.gov/diversity/no_fear_act.html (2 of 2)5/9/2007 8:16:23 AM
U.S. Department of the Interior - Home Page

Wednesday, May 09, 2007 

Welcome Index DOI News Contact Us DOI Home

● Initiatives more

● National Park Centennial

● Improving Indian Education

● Safe Indian Communities

● Healthy Lands

● Ethics Responsibilities

● Cooperative Conservation

● Adaptive Management 

● Healthy Forests

● National Energy Plan

● Water 2025

● Issues of Interest

● How Do I? more

● Get a National Parks Pass?

● Trace Indian Ancestry?

● DOI Quick Facts

DOI protects 1,311 endangered 

or threatened species in the 

United States.

● DOI en Español

● Emergency Management

● For DOI Employees

● Working for America Act

● 

● People, Land & Water

http://www.doi.gov/ (1 of 6)5/9/2007 8:16:27 AM
U.S. Department of the Interior - Home Page

● DOI Jobs

● Teacher Resources

● Children's Pages

● Bureaus and Offices

● DOI Key Officials

● DOI History

● Webcams

● Old Faithful

● Mammoth Hot Springs

● Glacier National Park

● Grand Canyon

● Big Bend National Park

The Cherry Blossoms on the Tidal 

Basin Web Camera is one of 

several webcams available on 

www.doi.gov.

Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne thanks Australian 

firefighters Neil Cooper, Hilton Taylor and David Ingram who 

recently traveled to the United States to assist U.S. firefighters in 

battling wildland fires in the West. Kempthorne, joined by U.S. 

Curtis Brown Named Reclamation's Director 

of Research and Development more

The State of Idaho, the Nez Perce Tribe,

and the Department of the Interior have 

finalized a major water rights agreement for 

the Snake River. more

Gordon Wissinger, Chief Ranger at 

Shenandoah National Park, Virginia, is this 

http://www.doi.gov/ (2 of 6)5/9/2007 8:16:27 AM
U.S. Department of the Interior - Home Page

Ambassador Robert McCallum, expresses appreciation at a May 4 

meeting at the Ambassador’s Residence, U.S. Embassy, 

Canberra, Australia. 

Secretary Kempthorne Thanks 

Australian Firefighters for Help Battling 

U.S. Wildfires 

Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne met and 

personally thanked Australian firefighters who 

recently traveled to the United States to assist U.S. 

firefighters in battling wildland fires in the West. 

Kempthorne, joined by U.S. Ambassador Robert 

McCallum, expressed appreciation to Neil Cooper, 

Hilton Taylor and David Ingram during a meeting at 

the Ambassador's Residence at the U.S. Embassy 

in the Australian capital city. In 2000, 2002, 2003 

and 2006, Australian firefighters were deployed to 

assist their U.S. counterparts in suppressing 

wildland fires in Colorado, California, Washington, 

Oregon, Montana and Idaho. In 2006, 114 American 

firefighters from the National Interagency Fire 

Center in Boise, Idaho, reciprocated, assisting 

Australian counterparts in firefighting efforts in the 

state of Victoria. Kempthorne was leading a 

Presidential Delegation to Australia to 

commemorate the 65th anniversary of the Battle of 

the Coral Sea. more

2007 Harry Yount National Park Ranger 

Award Recipient Named Chief Ranger 

Gordon Wissinger Honored as Top 

Ranger for 2006 

Gordon Wissinger, Chief 

Ranger at Shenandoah 

National Park, Virginia, is this 

year’s recipient of the Harry 

Yount National Park Ranger 

Award for excellence in 

“rangering.” The national award will be presented 

this evening by National Park Service (NPS) 

Director Mary A. Bomar at a ceremony in 

Washington, D.C., hosted by the National Park 

Foundation (NPF). 

Named after Harry Yount, who is generally given 

credit for being the first Park Ranger, the Harry 

Yount National Park Ranger Award is the hallmark 

of recognition as a NPS Ranger. The prestigious 

award is presented annually by the NPS and made 

possible by the National Park Foundation through a 

generous gift from Unilever. more

year’s recipient of the Harry Yount National 

Park Ranger Award for excellence in 

“rangering.” more

Secretary Kempthorne unveils major 

initiative to expand oil, natural gas production 

on the Outer Continental Shelf. more

Interior Deputy Secretary Lynn Scarlett 

joins Fish and Wildlife Service employees and 

partners for the grand opening of the Iguaca 

Aviary. more

Groundwater provides vital boost to 

streams, springs of upper Klamath Basin. 

more

BLM policy encourages solar energy

development on public lands. more

OSM is asking for public comment before it 

begins drafting rules to control the use of coal 

ash and sludge to reclaim coal mines. more

Readers of People, Land & Water, the U.S. 

Department of the Interior's news magazine, 

will now be able to access the publication on 

the Web. more

New Interagency Pass Program 

Will Help Public Enjoy Enhanced 

Recreation Sites on Public Lands 

more

http://www.doi.gov/ (3 of 6)5/9/2007 8:16:27 AM
U.S. Department of the Interior - Home Page

Interior Deputy Secretary Lynn Scarlett 

Joins Fish and Wildlife Service 

Employees and Partners for the Grand 

Opening of the Iguaca Aviary 

Deputy Secretary of the 

Interior Lynn Scarlett today 

joined U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service employees and 

partners for the dedication of 

the Iguaca Aviary, a state-ofthe-art captive-breeding facility for the Puerto Rican 

parrot. To inaugurate the new aviary, the Fish and 

Wildlife Service moved two Puerto Rican Parrots 

from the old aviary into one of two large flight cages 

at the new facility within El Yunque National Forest.

“For more than 30 years, Service biologists have 

worked with partners to expand our understanding 

of parrot biology and behavior,” said Scarlett. “The 

Service has been on leading edge of parrot 

research worldwide, and this new facility will 

dramatically improve our ability to ensure a bright 

future for the parrot.” more en Español

DOI Information on Avian Influenza 

Visit Pandemic & Avian Flu.gov for all related federal 

information.

PandemicFlu.gov en Español

The Department of the Interior (DOI) is the nation’s 

principal conservation agency. Interior is a large, 

decentralized agency with over 80,000 employees 

and 180,000 volunteers located at approximately 

2,400 operating locations across the United States, 

Puerto Rico, U.S. territories, and freely associated 

states. more

● Mission Statement

● Key Officials

● Organizational Chart

● DOI In the News

● Purchase the new Federal Interagency 

Pass

● Additional Information

No FEAR Act Data

http://www.doi.gov/ (4 of 6)5/9/2007 8:16:27 AM
U.S. Department of the Interior - Home Page

● DOI en Español

● History

● Past Secretaries of the Interior Department

● Quick Facts

● Strategic Plan

Below are links to some DOI sites that may be of 

interest. 

● Floods

● Supply in the West

● Conservation

● Resources

● Astrogeology at USGS

● Hurricanes

● Earthquakes

● Energy

● Fire

● Maps

● Parks/Refuges/BLM 

Lands

● Offshore Lands/Volcanoes

● Endangered Species

● Habitats & Conservation

● Wild Horse & Burro 

Adoption 

● Duck Stamps

● Special Trustee

● Indian Trust

● Territories and Islands

● www.HealthyForests.gov

● Avian Influenza 

Information

● 2005 Hurricane Recovery

http://www.doi.gov/ (5 of 6)5/9/2007 8:16:27 AM
U.S. Department of the Interior - Home Page

Sitemap|Feedback|Notices|Accessibility|Printing Instructions

Disclaimer| Privacy Statement| FOIA|E-Gov|USA.gov|White House|DOI Home

U.S. Department of the Interior 

1849 C Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20240

webteam@ios.doi.gov 

Last Updated on 05/02/07 

http://www.doi.gov/ (6 of 6)5/9/2007 8:16:27 AM
U.S. Department of the Interior - Disclaimer

Disclaimer

Information presented on this website is considered public information and may be distributed or copied. 

Use of appropriate byline/photo/image credit is requested. We strongly recommend that USDOI data be 

acquired directly from a USDOI server and not through other sources that may change the data in some 

way. While USDOI makes every effort to provide accurate and complete information, various data such as 

names, telephone numbers, etc. may change prior to updating. USDOI welcomes suggestions on how to 

improve our home page and correct errors. USDOI provides no warranty, expressed or implied, as to the 

accuracy, reliability or completeness of furnished data. Some of the documents on this server may contain 

live references (or pointers) to information created and maintained by other organizations. Please note 

that USDOI does not control and cannot guarantee the relevance, timeliness, or accuracy of these outside 

materials. 

For site security purposes and to ensure that this service remains available to all users, this government 

computer system employs software programs to monitor network traffic to identify unauthorized attempts 

to upload or change information, or otherwise cause damage. Unauthorized attempts to upload 

information or change information on this website are strictly prohibited and may be punishable under the 

Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986 and the National Information Infrastructure Protection Act. 

Information may also be used for authorized law enforcement investigations. 

Last Modified June 26, 2002. 

Accessibility|Feedback|Notices|Disclaimer|Privacy Statement| FOIA|E-Gov|USA.gov|DOI Home

U.S. Department of the Interior 

1849 C Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20240

webteam@ios.doi.gov 

Last Updated on 10/25/06 

http://www.doi.gov/disclaimer.html5/9/2007 8:16:28 AM
About the BLM

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

National 

Go 

National

● Programs

● Information

● Resources

BLM>About the BLM Print Page

About the BLM 

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) was established in 1946 through the consolidation of the General Land Office (created in 

1812) and the U.S. Grazing Service (formed in 1934). The functions of the 

BLM are also addressed in the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 

1976 (FLPMA). (For more details, please see BLM and Its Predecessors). To 

see a comprehensive list of legislation that BLM operates under, click here. 

The BLM is responsible for carrying out a variety of programs for the 

management and conservation, of resources on 258 million surface acres, as 

well as 700 million acres of subsurface mineral estate, These public lands 

make up about 13 percent of the total land surface of the United States and 

more than 40 percent of all land managed by the Federal government. To see 

how BLM is organized, click here. 

Most of the public lands are located in the Western United States, including 

Alaska, and are characterized predominantly by extensive grassland, forest, high mountain, arctic tundra, and desert 

landscapes. The BLM manages multiple resources and uses, including energy and minerals; timber; forage; recreation; wild 

horse and burro herds; fish and wildlife habitat; wilderness areas; and archaeological, paleontological, and historical sites. Click 

here for a medium size map (1288 x 760) of BLM-managed lands and click here for a large size map (4168 x 2460). 

In addition to its minerals management responsiblities noted above, the BLM administers mineral leasing and oversees mineral 

operations on Federal mineral estate underlying other state, private, or Federally-administered land, and manages most mineral 

operations on Indian lands. 

The public lands provide significant economic benefits to the Nation and to states and counties where these lands are 

located. Revenues generated from public lands make BLM one of the top revenue-generating agencies in the Federal 

government. In 2007, for instance, BLM’s onshore mineral leasing activities will generate an estimated $4.5 billion in receipts 

from royalties, bonuses, and rentals that are collected by the Minerals Management Service. Approximately half of these 

revenues will be returned to the States where the mineral leasing occurred. 

The Bureau administers about 57 million acres of commercial forests and woodlands through the Management of Lands and 

Resources and the Oregon and California Grant Lands appropriations. Timber receipts (including salvage) are estimated to be 

$55.4 million in fiscal year 2007, compared to estimated receipts of $33 million in Fiscal Year 2006 and actual receipts of $13.5 

million in Fiscal Year 2005. 

Under its multiple-use management mandate, the Bureau administers more than 18,000 grazing permits and leases and nearly 

13 million authorized livestock animal unit months on 160 million acres of public rangeland. BLM manages rangelands and 

facilities for 57,000 wild horses and burros. The 258 million acres of public land administered by the BLM includes over 117,000

miles of fisheries habitat. 

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/info/About_BLM.html (1 of 2)5/9/2007 8:16:29 AM
About the BLM

The Bureau has an active program of soil and watershed management on 175 million acres in the lower 48 states and 86 million 

acres in Alaska. Practices such as revegetation, protective fencing, and water development are designed to conserve, enhance 

public land, including soil and watershed resources. The BLM is also responsible for fire protection on public lands and on all 

Interior Department in Alaska, as well as for wilfire management on the public lands on the public lands in Alaska and the 

Western States.

The job of balancing this mix of resources and uses grows more complex each year, as the West’s population growth creates new 

pressures and heightens existing management challenges. With over 68.3 million people living in the region today, the West 

continues to be the fastest-growing area in the nation. This growth — and the urbanization that accompanies it — places new 

demands on BLM-managed land. 

Working with its partners at the local, state, and national levels, the BLM will ensure the health and productivity of the public 

lands for current and future generations.

USA.GOV | No Fear Act | DOI | Disclaimer | About BLM | Notices | Get Adobe Reader® 

Privacy Policy | FOIA | Kids Policy | Contact Us | Accessibility | Site Map | Home 

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/info/About_BLM.html (2 of 2)5/9/2007 8:16:29 AM
Notices

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

National 

Go 

National

● Programs

● Information

● Resources

BLM>Notices Print Page

Notices Concerning this Website 

No Fear Act Statement

Department of Interior No Fear Act Information

Schedule for Posting Content

Department of the Interior Information Quality Guidelines 

Employment 

BLM Employment Information 

Department of Interior Employment Information

USAJOBS

Data Quality Guidelines/Bulletin for Peer Review

BLM Data Quality Guidelines and Bulletin for Peer Review

Digital Rights, Copyrights, Trademarks and Patents (DRCTP) Policy

BLM DRCTP Policy

Security Protocols to Protect Information

BLM's Protocols

Will Your Computer Work With Our Web Site?

USA.GOV | No Fear Act | DOI | Disclaimer | About BLM | Notices | Get Adobe Reader® 

Privacy Policy | FOIA | Kids Policy | Contact Us | Accessibility | Site Map | Home 

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/national_page/Notices_used_in_Footer.html5/9/2007 8:16:31 AM
Adobe - Adobe Reader - Download 

Adobe ❍ Your 

Cart

❍ Your Account

❍ Contact

❍ United States (Change)

❍ Solutions

❍ Products

❍ Support

❍ Communities

❍ Company

❍ Downloads

❍ Store

Search

1. Home

2. Products

Adobe Reader

Download the latest version of Adobe Reader

Step 1 of 2

Select your version of Windows:

Choose a different version

Step 2 of 2

Adobe Reader for 

Windows , 

English 

Latest version

System requirements

By downloading software from the Adobe web site, you agree to the terms of our license agreements, including 

that you agree not to use Adobe Reader software with any other software, plug-in or enhancement which uses or 

relies on Adobe Reader when converting or transforming PDF files into other file formats.

Adobe Reader license agreement

Adobe Photoshop Album Starter Edition license agreement

Adobe Reader updates

Get the latest updates available for your 

version of Adobe® Reader®.

Distribute Adobe Reader

Find out how to distribute Adobe Reader 

software on an intranet, CD, or other 

media, or place an "Includes Adobe 

Reader" logo on your printed material.

More info

● Adobe Reader

● Adobe Reader for Symbian OSTM

● Adobe Reader for Pocket PC

● Adobe Reader for Palm OS®

● What is Adobe PDF?

● Company

● Online Privacy Policy

● Terms of Use

● Contact Us

● Accessibility

● Report Piracy

● Permissions & Trademarks

● Product License Agreements

● Send Feedback

Copyright © 2007 Adobe Systems Incorporated. All rights reserved.

http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html (1 of 2)5/9/2007 8:16:42 AM
Adobe - Adobe Reader - Download 

Use of this website signifies your agreement to the Terms of Use and Online Privacy Policy (updated 03-30-2007).

Search powered by

http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html (2 of 2)5/9/2007 8:16:42 AM
Privacy

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

National 

Go 

National

● Programs

● Information

● Resources

BLM>Privacy Policy Print Page

Privacy Policy for this Website 

This is how we will handle information we learn about you from your visit to our website. The information we receive depends 

upon what you do when visiting our site. 

If you visit our site to read or download information, such as consumer brochures or press releases: 

We collect and store only the following information about you: the name of the domain from which you access the 

Internet (for example, aol.com, if you are connecting from an America Online account, or princeton.edu if you are 

connecting from Princeton University's domain); the date and time you access our site; and the Internet address of 

the web site from which you linked directly to our site. We do not store any personal identifiers. This 

information is not stored in any particular fashion, but is part of a systems log file.

For site management, information is collected for statistical purposes. This government computer system uses 

software programs to create summary statistics, which are used for such purposes as assessing what information is 

of most and least interest, determining technical design specifications, and identifying system performance or 

problem areas. We use the information we collect to measure the number of visitors to the different sections of our 

site, and to help us make our site more useful to visitors. This information is only used internally, does not 

contain personal identifiers, and will only be used for internal management purposes.

If you identify yourself by sending an E-mail or filling out a questionnaire or guestbook: 

You also may decide to send us personally-identifying information, for example, in an electronic mail message 

containing a complaint. We use personally-identifying information from consumers in various ways to further our 

customer's protection and to provide better service. This may be to correct broken links that you have identified or 

to provide additional information that you have requested. Visit Talk to Us to learn what can happen to the 

information you provide us when you send us e-mail or fill out a questionnaire or guestbook. Any information that 

we collect via a questionnaire or a guestbook may be subject to disclosure, but will be handled in accordance with 

the requirements of the Privacy Act (950K) and the Freedom of Information Act (112K) to ensure the greatest 

protection of personal privacy in the face of any required disclosure. 

We want to be very clear: We will not obtain personally-identifying information about you when you visit our site, 

unless you choose to provide such information to us. Except as might be required by law, we do not share any 

information we receive with outside parties.

If you have any questions or comments about the information presented here, please forward them to us: 

U.S. Department of Interior 

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/national_page/Privacy_Statement_for_Footer.html (1 of 2)5/9/2007 8:16:43 AM
Privacy

Bureau of Land Management 

FOIA and Privacy Officer 

Phone: 202-452-5013 

USA.GOV | No Fear Act | DOI | Disclaimer | About BLM | Notices | Get Adobe Reader® 

Privacy Policy | FOIA | Kids Policy | Contact Us | Accessibility | Site Map | Home 

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/national_page/Privacy_Statement_for_Footer.html (2 of 2)5/9/2007 8:16:43 AM
eFOIA

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

Wyoming 

Go 

Wyoming

● Programs

● Information

● Resources

BLM>Wyoming>Resources>Public Room>eFOIA Print Page

BLM Electronic Reading Room

Electronic Reading Room 

Instruction Memorandums

● FY 2007

● FY 2006 

● FY 2005

● FY 2004 

● FY 2003

● FY 2002 

● FY 2001

● FY 2000 

● FY 1999

● FY 1998 

● FY 1997

Information Bulletins

● FY 2007

● FY 2006 

● FY 2005

● FY 2004 

● FY 2003

● FY 2002 

● FY 2001

● FY 2000 

● FY 1999

● FY 1998 

● FY 1997

Frequently Requested

● Purchase card holders

● Phone directory

FOIA Contacts

● Request general information

● File a FOIA request

Other Records

● BLM Manuals

● BLM Handbooks

Some policy attachments are not available electronically. You may request a copy of any attachment not available on this site. 

Please reference the document number when requesting an attachment. 

BLM Wyoming FOIA | PO Box 1828 | Cheyenne, Wyoming 82003

Phone: 307-775-6256 | Fax: 307-775-6129

USA.GOV | No Fear Act | DOI | Disclaimer | About BLM | Notices | Get Adobe Reader® 

Privacy Policy | FOIA | Kids Policy | Contact Us | Accessibility | Site Map | Home 

http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/resources/public_room/efoia.html5/9/2007 8:16:45 AM
U.S. Department of the Interior - Children's Privacy Policy

Children's Privacy Policy 

Thank you for visiting the Department of the Interior website and reviewing our Kids Privacy Policy. The 

Just FOR KIDS Page which you visited is a gateway to other information which you may enjoy. That means 

that when you click on our list of links, you will be leaving our site. As a gateway we are not responsible 

for writing or maintaining the information on the sites that we link to. If you have questions or comments 

about the information, you should use the email links or forms that site has provided. 

Kids' Privacy on Our Site: 

Just FOR KIDS does not ask for or collect personal, individually-identifiable information from kids. We do 

use computer logfiles so we can see how many visitors we have, but we can't tell personal information 

from them. If any visitor to the site chooses to provide us with personal information, as in an email 

inquiry, that information will be used only to respond to the message. The information will not be used for 

any purpose other than to respond to the inquiry. We do not create individual profiles from the 

information provided or distribute the information to other organizations. 

Message to Children - Be Careful on the Web: 

Just FOR KIDS is a gateway. That means that when you click on a link, you will be leaving our site. 

Government sites that we provide links to also have to follow special rules for their kid's sites, but nongovernment sites do not have to follow the same rules. You may click to a site that will ask you for 

personal information, like your name, address, telephone number, or email address. Before you provide 

any information, show your parent or some other responsible adult what you are doing. Be safety smart! 

Message to Parents and Guardians: 

Just FOR KIDS is a gateway that will take your children to other sites. A majority of the links we provide 

will take your children to other government sites. It is important that you monitor your children's 

communication on-line to insure that they do not provide personally identifiable information to websites 

that you feel are unacceptable. Tell your children to ask you or another adult to look at what they are 

doing first if they wish to provide their name, address, telephone number, or email address to a website. 

The following is how we will handle information we learn about you from your visit to our website. The 

information we receive depends upon what you do when visiting our site. 

Information Collected and Stored Automatically: 

We will collect no personal information about you when you visit our website unless you choose to provide 

that information to us. We collect and store only the following information about you: the name of the 

domain from which you access the Internet (for example, aol.com, if you are connecting from an America 

Online account, or princeton.edu if you are connecting from Princeton University's domain); the date and 

time you access our site; and the Internet address of the website from which you linked directly to our 

site. 

We use the information we collect to measure the number of visitors to the different sections of our site, 

and to help us make our site more useful to visitors. 

If You Identify Yourself by Sending an E-mail: 

If you send us personal identifying information by e-mail (for example, in a message containing a question 

or comment, or by filling out a form that e-mails us this information), we use it to respond to your 

requests. We may forward your e-mail to other Government employees or contract personnel who are 

better able to answer your questions. We do not keep or distribute lists of e-mail addresses to any parties 

outside of the Department except as necessary to conduct official U.S. Government business. In no event, 

http://www.doi.gov/chprivacy.html (1 of 2)5/9/2007 8:16:45 AM
U.S. Department of the Interior - Children's Privacy Policy

do we distribute lists of e-mail addresses to non-Government entities. 

We want to be very clear: We will not obtain personally-identifying information about you when you visit 

our site, unless you choose to provide such information to us. 

Security Notice: 

For site security purposes and to ensure that this service remains available to all users, Department of the 

Interior (DOI) webservers employ industry-standard methods to monitor network traffic to identify 

unauthorized attempts to upload or change information, or otherwise cause damage. Unauthorized 

attempts to upload information or change information on DOI servers are strictly prohibited and may be 

punishable by law, including the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986 and the National Information 

Infrastructure Protection Act. In the specific context of this security monitoring, there is no expectation of 

privacy. However, only in the case of actual law enforcement investigations, will we attempt to identify 

individual users or their usage habits. 

For More Information on Government Children's Privacy Policy http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/edcams/

kidzprivacy/index.html

For More Information on Department of the Interior Privacy Policy http://www.doi.gov/privacy.html 

Accessibility|Feedback|Notices|Disclaimer|Privacy Statement| FOIA|E-Gov|USA.gov|DOI Home

U.S. Department of the Interior 

1849 C Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20240

webteam@ios.doi.gov 

Last Updated on 10/25/06 

http://www.doi.gov/chprivacy.html (2 of 2)5/9/2007 8:16:45 AM
DOI Accessibility Program

There are more than 53 million individuals with disabilities in this country, and each year, increasing numbers 

of these individuals join our workforce, visit our facilities, and participate in our programs, activities and 

services. The Department of the Interior is proud that most of its programs, facilities and activities are 

accessible to people with disabilities and continues to be pro-active in its efforts to provide equal access.

DOI provides equal employment opportunity for individuals with disabilities 

who are Federal employees or applicants for Federal employment and 

currently employs 650 workers with disabilities -- about one percent of the 

Department's workforce.

The DOI Accessible Technology Center, located in the Main Interior Building, 

Washington, DC, supports employees with disabilities by determining the 

appropriate assistive technology and ergonomic solutions for the individual. These accommodations are a 

surprisingly affordable way to enable employees with a disability to equal access to information technology that 

is essential in today's work place. Seventy percent of accessible technology accommodations cost less than 

$500 each.

Closed circuit television, Braille terminals, and speech-to-text and text-to-speech computer adaptations are 

among the technologies highlighted by the center and available for demonstration. Accessibility 

accommodations, including those for vision, speech and hearing, mobility and cognitive impairments, are 

featured with descriptions of available technologies and vendor lists.

Accessibility Program Bureau Contacts

For further information, visit the 

DOI Accessible Technology Center

web site.

http://www.doiu.nbc.gov/orientation/accessibility.html5/9/2007 8:16:48 AM
Site Map

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

Wyoming 

Go 

Wyoming

● Programs

● Information

● Resources

BLM>Wyoming>Site Map Print Page

Site Map 

Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation 

Access Guide

AML

Annual Report

Atlantic Rim Coalbed Methane Project

Biological Assessments

BLM Wyoming

BLM Wyoming Information

BLM Wyoming Offices

BLMJobs Online

Botany

Buffalo Field Office

Buffalo RMP Online 

Burning Issues

Cadastral Survey

Careers 

Casper Field Office

Casper RMP revision

Cheatgrass

Coal

Coalbed methane

Coalbed Methane Clearinghouse 

Coalbed natural gas

Cody Field Office

Cody RMP Online

Conflict Administration Zone

Continental Divide National Scenic Trail

Corporate Name Change & Merger Index

Cultural Resources

Current News

Land Use Planning

Lander Field Office

Lander RMP Online 

Lander RMP revision

Lands and Realty

Leasing

Livestock Grazing

LR2000

Maps

Minerals

Mining Claims

MTPs

National Historic Trails Interpretive Center

National Sign Center

Nebraska RMP Online 

NEPA

NEPA Documents

NEPA Hot Sheet

NEPA Registers

Newcastle Field Office

Newcastle RMP Online 

News Releases

NILS

Offices

Oil & Gas 

Oil Shale & Tar Sands Leasing Programmatic EIS

PAWG

http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/Site_Map.html (1 of 3)5/9/2007 8:16:50 AM
Site Map

Dinosaur Tracksite

Directory

eCommerce

eFOIA/Electronic Reading Room

Employment

Energy

Environmental Education

Fact Sheets

Field Offices

Fire & Aviation Management

Fire Restrictions

Fishing

Fluid Minerals Conference - 2004

Fuels & Fire Use Committee

Geocommunicator

GIS

GLO Records

Grass Creek RMP Online 

Grazing

Great Divide RMP Online 

Green River RMP Online

Guiding and Outfitting

GYIBC

HIs

Historic Resources

Historic Trails

Human Resources

Information Sheets

Invasive Plants

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan

Jobs

Jonah Interagency Mitigation & Reclamation Office 

Kemmerer Field Office

Kemmerer RMP Online

Kemmerer RMP revision

Photo Library

PILT

Pinedale Field Office 

Pinedale RMP Online 

Pinedale RMP Revision

Planning

Platte River RMP Online 

Powder River Basin Coal Review

Powder River Basin Draft EIS

Powder River Basin Final EIS

Powder River Basin ROD

PRB Interagency Working Group

Range Management 

Rawlins Field Office

Rawlins RMP revision

Recreation

Red Gulch Dinosaur Tracksite

Resource Management Plans Online

Rock Springs Field Office 

RMPs

Sign Center

Snake River RMP Online 

South Powder River Basin Coal EIS

Special Recreation Permit Information

Standards and Guidelines

State Office

Survey

Trails Center

Volunteers

Washakie RMP Online 

Weeds

WERIC

West Nile Virus information

West-wide Energy Corridor Programmatic EIS

Western Landscape Conservation Initiative

Wild Horses

Wildlife Habitat Management

Wind Energy Programmatic EIS

WLCI

WOGRA

Worland Field Office

http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/Site_Map.html (2 of 3)5/9/2007 8:16:50 AM
Site Map

USA.GOV | No Fear Act | DOI | Disclaimer | About BLM | Notices | Get Adobe Reader® 

Privacy Policy | FOIA | Kids Policy | Contact Us | Accessibility | Site Map | Home 

http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/Site_Map.html (3 of 3)5/9/2007 8:16:50 AM